Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[CentralFLJames]

Oh, for heaven’s sake, James, how many times to I have to answer in the affirmative that there was no canon at the time the apostles knew they were writing scripture? C’mon.

Great - I think this is progress. You admit that NT canon is not yet defined and the words spoken by Peter come from a written account scribed in a language Peter did not even speak (Greek vs Aramaic) some decades after they are spoken (perhaps 10-20-30 years later) but are not canonized for another 350 years roughly. You must be a time-traveler Howie to be able to use things before they are even scripture as its own standard. Wow that is one time-warp of a hoop you are jumping through just so you can hold to your stubborn position of sola scriptura!! You must have some Zealot ancestry in you.

But I think you are making another rash assumption in saying “the apostles” (plural) knew they were writing scripture. Where were the other apostles at this time? If we grant you the dubious benefit of the doubt on this verse then we have absolutely no evidence that anyone other than Peter and Paul suspected they might be writing scripture. I am not willing to grant you that concession without more proof from you. You have made an assertion without any prema facia evidence and if we are going to be orthodox sola-scripturaists as you insist then please give more biblical evidence that other apostles were in camp with Peter and Paul on knowing they were writing NT scripture. I will only hold you to the original 12 apostles and not even require you to talk about the other anonymous scripture writers.

Your entire theory on sola scriptura, which was never before taught by an apostle, hangs on a single ambiguous word intepretation. You are willing to toss out 1500 years of apostolic teaching on that one ambiguity? Amazing bet on one’s eternity…

And, Peter didn’t say in that passage that scripture is difficult to interpret, what Peter said pertained to SOME of the things Paul wrote that were hard to understand.

Ok fair enough. Where in the bible does it list those passages that are hard to understand and which are easy to understand?

For the record, I will be forthright and say that Catholics hold that scripture is a fairly clear document and able to be understood by the average educated reader, BUT also that the Church is needed to provide a doctrinal norm, an overall frame-work for determining proper biblical interpretation. Of course the Reformers under-emphasized the guidance of the Church in understanding the bible and assert the perspicuity, or “clearness”, and the self-interpreting nature of Scripture, in terms of its overall teaching (which was most definately not true during the Reformation due to widespread illiteracy of those who revolted and could not read neither the bible nor Luther’s 95 theses).

Luther argued that the “plowboy” filled with the Holy Spirit could interpret scripture but this is not the outlook of the OT authors. Moses was told to teach the Hebrews the statutes not just read them aloud (Exod 18:20). The Levitical Priests always interpreted (Deut 17:11) The penalty for disobedience was DEATH (Deut 17:12, 33:10; cf 19:16-17; Chron 15:3, 19:8-10; Mal 2:6-8). Ezra taught The Law to Israel and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment or death (Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26). In Neh 8:7 THIRTEEN levites assisted Ezra to help he people understand The Law. They do the same thing in 2 Chron 17:8-9. THERE IS NO SOLA-SCRIPTURA with its associated (bad) idea of perspicuity anywhere in the OT.

Acts 8:27-31 and 2 Peter 1:20 demonstrate that this same principal DID NOT CHANGE with the NT. The apostles promulgated an authoritative tradition and DID NOT TOLERATE DISSENTION from it ( Acts 24:14; 1 Cor 11:19; Gal 5:20, Acts 5:17 etc.).

Ergo - Sola Scripture is NOT biblical and is an imported teaching NEVER seen in the Church.

They certainly did teach SS, and they taught the sufficiency of scripture in equipping men to do what is good, and right.

You are projecting your own wishful thinking Howie. There is no physical way to base scriptural teaching on NT that does not yet exist!! For heaven’s sake - you must be reasonable. You can’t have your cake and eat it too before the cake is even baked!! Only an obstinate person would camp out on such a ridiculous notion. How can one ratify the interpretation of scripture with future verses that might contradict what one is trying to confirm. No way - this is utter non-linear thinking. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to jump through every hoop you can to avoid the truth. That is not indicative of somone using reason that is a sure marker of somone obstinate in their own beliefs.

Yes, James, ignorant and untaught men are the problem.

Good - so might I suggest that you start being taught by an apostolic successor from the Catholic Church rather than inventing this stuff of yours out of thin air? There is no way anyone could come up on their own the idea of sola scriptura by reading the bible cover to cover on their own without someone feeding them the idea of self teaching scripture. They would find repeated cases of chastisements for those who did not follow authorized teachings.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

[continued from prior]

Scripture states that God works all things after the counsel of His will (Eph 1:11); therefore, it’s safe to say, any writings that were lost, were lost according to God’s will.

There is a difference between what God permits and what God wills. The Church was not divided until the errors of sola scriptura resulted in 32,000+ seperated Protestant sects. Catholics see this is a tragic loss at the same time we see it as God purifying His Church from heresy and errror. In my opinion its like isolating lepers to a penal colony to protect the flock until a cure can be found or God has to burn the loss. Scripture tells us over and over again That Jesus prayed for unity. The only way unity can still be claimed in the church is in the unity of the preserved main branch of the Church - which is the Catholic Church since we are the original root founded in the apostles. No other Christian church can claim this since all others are down stream of us without historical roots and won’t long survive in separation since error begets error until it becomes useless or repents.

So by saying that God let scripture be lost according to His will then by your own judgement you might as well be also saying that God let Protestants be lost by His will.

Pick your poison - bad judgement or ending up on the wrong side of double predestiny?

”Majority of Scholars??? C’mon James, the article I cited didn’t claim to have surveyed the opinion of every scholar on the subject, but a few scholars only, with different opinions.

Your question, as phrased, is dishonest, James.

Fair enough - present your evidence and your advocates. Who in the entire universe of scholars can bring forth credible opinion to back your case? I’d honestly love to see real academic references here.

I have just had an epiphany as to why God makes atheist!
I’d prefer you go use an atheist scholar with no religious dogmatic bias who is a pure linguistics scholar and with no motive for choosing one side over the other. In other words I don’t want you referencing everyone from your own Divinity School that you gave a diploma too.

By the way I don’t like being called dishonest. I honestly do not know of any other scholarly sources who support your view. Here is your chance to give us something other than your own opinion.

2 Tim 3:16 says ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED, James, in your opinion, is the NT Scripture, Scripture? If so, you have your answer. If not, why not?

You are evading again. Answer my question. Is Paul prophesying about future NT writers?

You’re being frivolous, James. The apostles’ knew they were writing scripture (2 Pet 3:16).

You keep saying this but you have only given opinionated evidence that accounts for 2 apostles - Peter and Paul - unless you want to declare Timothy an apostle too and then I can use your words for the term used in the rites to ordain him. (p.s. check mate)

Assembled a “canon?” Gee whiz, for about, what, the fifth time now, yes. HELLOOOO, James. The first councils to codify the writings were held in North Africa at Hippo, and Carthage in 393, and 397, respectively.

OK it is undisputed that these were Catholics and that Catholics put together the first bible.

Because the primary concern was the authenticity of authorship.

Why do you make this statement. Where in the bible does it give a list of inspired authors? Or where they looking for secret water marks of the Holy Spirit?

Hogwash - The Church did not have a clue who some of the writers were and you know it. The Church used sacred tradition passed down from the apostolic succession to discern a continuity of core faith teachings and the same spirit of writings.
You are being dishonest or ignorant of circumstances - which is it?

Because the church’s in handing down the writings attested to the authenticity of authorship.

What??? So if any authentic or fake writer signed the manuscript with the words “this is genuine” that was the hallmark of certainty? Is this what you are saying? Huh??

Authenticity of authorship.

Baloney - insufficient. You present tautologies of the form True=True. Please…

Yes, and all with the same answer.
(continued)

All the same opinions riddled in different ways with every combination of tautologies, inconsistencies and non-linear thinking. You are building a Tower of Babel out of scripture Howie…

James

 

[ralphy]

I would counter that some of the most avid Catholics are former Protestants.

So why are YOU here? Did you come on to CA to evalgelize your faith or are you having some doubts?

Lux

I came here to let Catholics know that they are to be judged by the Word of God (the bible), not by the teachings of man. I have no doubts whatsoever. Ralph

 

[CentralFLJames]

I came here to let Catholics know that they are to be judged by the Word of God (the bible), not by the teachings of man. I have no doubts whatsoever. Ralph

Thank you Ralphy - Catholics are God’s chosen people. We trust in ALL of God’s word and we know that that subsists in the person of Jesus Christ - head of the Catholic Church. As such we are confident that we have The Word and are well aquainted with it and in fact we consume it in the Body and Blood of Christ in daily mass (“give us this day our daily bread”). So we are big believers in God’s Living Word and are confident our judgement will go well since we are actually in a relationship and we know that no one outside of the Body of Christ can be saved.

We pray for those who have used the teachings of men to self-teach themselves the written Word of God to delude themselves with mere teachings of men. We trust in God’s Mercy for those who thorough no fault of their own remain outside the Catholic Church. But we also know that in the times of Noah that some ridiculed Noah for building the ark before the floods came but then perished when it did come. And so we know The Barque of Peter, that is The Ark of the New Covenant is being boarded by those who desire the promised land and those left behind will also perish. You have an invitation to enter for as long as we can keep the doors open…

James

 

[steve_b]

The problem I have with yours and so many other Catholics beliefs is that you want to claim ownership of God’s word. It’s like if it hadn’t been for the Catholic church God wouldn’t have been able to reveal his massage to us. No matter how hard you want to believe that the first Christians (The Apostles and the thousands that were added to the early church) were Catholic, but they weren’t. They were members of Christ’s church. …[snip]

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, was born ~50 A.D, was a disciple of St John the apostle, wrote 6 letters approx 7 years after the death of St John.

Exerpt from his letter to the Church at Smyrna

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishopeither to baptize or to celebrate a love feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

As you can see, from the 1st century DURING apostolic times, the only Church there was, established by Jesus, was the Catholic Church. they were Catholics.

 

[ralphy]

Thank you Ralphy - Catholics are God’s chosen people. We trust in ALL of God’s word and we know that that subsists in the person of Jesus Christ - head of the Catholic Church. As such we are confident that we have The Word and are well aquainted with it and in fact we consume it in the Body and Blood of Christ in daily mass (“give us this day our daily bread”). So we are big believers in God’s Living Word and are confident our judgement will go well since we are actually in a relationship and we know that no one outside of the Body of Christ can be saved.

We pray for those who have used the teachings of men to self-teach themselves the written Word of God to delude themselves with mere teachings of men. We trust in God’s Mercy for those who thorough no fault of their own remain outside the Catholic Church. But we also know that in the times of Noah that some ridiculed Noah for building the ark before the floods came but then perished when it did come. And so we know The Barque of Peter, that is The Ark of the New Covenant is being boarded by those who desire the promised land and those left behind will also perish. You have an invitation to enter for as long as we can keep the doors open…

James

The sacrifice of the mass.Jesus said that there is no more sacrifice for sin. If it was His body and Blood at the last supper (befor his blood was shed) what part of the body was it,and where did the blood come from. These items ,the wine and bread are symbols of His body and blood. When He said “I am the vine and you are the branches”,did He mean that He was a tree? Ralph

 

[Lux_Caelum]

I came here to let Catholics know that they are to be judged by the Word of God (the bible), not by the teachings of man. I have no doubts whatsoever. Ralph

Oh that’s right, wow thanks for coming here to save us lost Catholics. Cool I guess I better follow your interpretation of salvation instead of the one that has existed for 2000 years.

Oh here it is, how could I have missed it. In the gospel according to Ralphy, chapter 1 verse 1 “I came here to let Catholics know that they are to be judged by the Word of God (the bible), not by the teachings of man.”

You should start another Protestant denomination.

 

[ralphy]

Oh that’s right, wow thanks for coming here to save us lost Catholics. Cool I guess I better follow your interpretation of salvation instead of the one that has existed for 2000 years.

Oh here it is, how could I have missed it. In the gospel according to Ralphy, chapter 1 verse 1 “I came here to let Catholics know that they are to be judged by the Word of God (the bible), not by the teachings of man.”

You should start another Protestant denomination.

I only quote from scripture, it is not my word, it is the word of God, which has existed for 2000 yrs. Ralph

 

[paul_c]

To answer your question I would have to say “Yes and NO”. I have learned as much from reading the Scriptures as I have from man. I learned that Baptism is essential to my Salvation through the reading of the Holy Scriptures not from someone telling me, as a matter of fact I had people telling me that it was only symbolic. It was by Prayer and personal study that I learned the truth. If someone tells you to read a certain book because it’s a great story, doesn’t mean they have told you everything in the book. The problem I have with yours and so many other Catholics beliefs is that you want to claim ownership of God’s word. It’s like if it hadn’t been for the Catholic church God wouldn’t have been able to reveal his massage to us. No matter how hard you want to believe that the first Christians (The Apostles and the thousands that were added to the early church) were Catholic, but they weren’t. They were members of Christ’s church. We are all catholic (small c) and part of Christ’s universal church.

Shellkell, before the Reformation, there was only one Christian Church, it was universal (Catholic) and it had its headquarters in Rome. Therefore, it was the instrument by which God revealed its message to us. During the Reformation, Martin Luther and his cohorts decided that they personally knew more about Salvation than those that taught it to them and broke from the Church of Christ to form their own Churches with those of like mind. However, it quickly became apparent that being of like mind, meant not that they agreed so much on religious doctrine but that they agreed with the doctrine that men could form a church to match their own personal opinions about God and so the splintering began and it continues today. On one hand, the Catholics, believing the truth that was passed down to them by the Apostles, and on the other, the Protestants, who felt they could find their own way to God through their own desires and interpretations of scripture creating countless churches and assemblies based not on the truth but instead on what they would like the truth to be.

Tell me, Shellkell, what are the credentials of the men you follow that proves that they understand the correct interpretation of Scripture? Can they show continuity of interpretation to the apostles? Can they show great signs to show they are of God?

 

[Lux_Caelum]

I only quote from scripture, it is not my word, it is the word of God, which has existed for 2000 yrs. Ralph

But that wasn’t a quote from scripture so now you are a liar?

 

[paul_c]

I only quote from scripture, it is not my word, it is the word of God, which has existed for 2000 yrs. Ralph

Satan quoted from Scripture too. (Luke 4: 1-12). Did that show he was from God? Or that his interpretation was the correct one?

What do you offer in terms of credentials that would suggest to any Catholic that you are right and the Church is wrong? Why would we trust our salvation to you? Because you say that you have been touched by God? Thousands make that claim, Including Charles Manson, Jim Jones and the founder of virtually every Protestant sect. What makes us believe that you, personally, have the right message from God. while they did not?

I’m dead serious about this. If you come here looking for conversions to your beliefs, you need to demonstrate your credentials. They had better be really good, because you are asking us to leave all we believe and risk our souls. Think about it. You should also think about what it was that whoever converted you away from Catholicism offered as proof that his view was the correct one. I hope it was very compelling…

 

[judechild]

If they haven’t yet, I want to bring the Deuterocanonical books into this. Why is it that the man who decided to go Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther) also decided to get rid of books that stood in his way (Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, and parts of Daniel and Esther)? Very strange in my view; but I suppose Luther was smarter than everybody else in the history of Christianity, so it works out alright.

 

[Always_For_Him]

I only quote from scripture, it is not my word, it is the word of God, which has existed for 2000 yrs. Ralph

Don’t you see that you are quoting YOUR interpretation of that Scripture? You have to “read” it (understand it) in the context in which it was written. That context has been protected by the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Church whether you believe it or not. Jesus said He would guide and protect His Church until the end of time and we have to believe Him or we have nothing else.

 

[Always_For_Him]

The sacrifice of the mass.Jesus said that there is no more sacrifice for sin. If it was His body and Blood at the last supper (befor his blood was shed) what part of the body was it,and where did the blood come from. These items ,the wine and bread are symbols of His body and blood. When He said “I am the vine and you are the branches”,did He mean that He was a tree? Ralph

This is a new, less than 500 year-old man-made, re-interpretation of Scripture that is NOT Apostolic teaching. It is heresy.

 

[steve_b]

I was a catholic for 43 years and did not have Christ in my heart, only my head. When I turned to Christ and accepted Him as my personal savior, He changed my life and now I know He lives within me. I only follow the Bible as this is what we will be judged by in the end. PTL, Ralph

:
Originally Posted by ralphy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
The sacrifice of the mass.Jesus said that there is no more sacrifice for sin. If it was His body and Blood at the last supper (befor his blood was shed) what part of the body was it,and where did the blood come from. These items ,the wine and bread are symbols of His body and blood. When He said “I am the vine and you are the branches”,did He mean that He was a tree? Ralph

I see smoke screen. Divert and misdirect others and yourself, from dealing with the real issue in your life

 

[CentralFLJames]

(continued from 52)
As I said before, James, I don’t believe that the one necessitates the other, and history demonstrates that many others believe that as well.

You are just passing the buck in search of a different standard to avoid admitting the rationally obvious necessity for The Church in the role of scripture interpreter. So rather than recognize scripture through discernment of spirit The Church is only capable of recognizing “inspired authors”? No doubt there had to be a list of “who” these inspired authors were ahead of time? Where do you suppose it was? It’s not in the bible. Are you trying to grant the church the ability of prophesy here or limited infallability Howie? You have to give up something. Admit it - without the Catholic Church and her authority to discern and interpret scripture you have no bible… Present your evidence of these other “many” who believed the same thing. Calling your bluff here…

Why should I worry about it, James, I have the apostles’ writings, what more “apostolic authority” do I need?

For starters you need their teaching authority so you can “receive” the word that you all are trying to torture into saying ungodly things (well meaning of course) to push on others.
And you then need the apostolic authority so you can be assured of being forgiven of your sins for unauthorized teaching and passing of error to the unsuspecting who’s salvation necessitate the truth - not latent neo-Chrisitan theories that won’t save anyone.

If that were the case, James, then they would have said, ”Lord, Lord, WE DIDN’T DO ANY WORKS…” but we both know they didn’t say that, don’t we?

No it would be said just like it is:

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Notice that the operative phrase is “but he who DOES the will of my Father”. “Does” is a verb. Does in an ACTION. AN ACTION is a work of grace. That requires more than a mere work of flapping the lips to ascend to heaven with a flurry of “I believe” statements. It means obeying ALL Jesus’ commandments and that also means listening to and obeying those who Jesus sent to teach. That means carrying one’s cross. That means REPENTING of sins. That means caring showing mercy etc. In other words it means demonstrating who the man is behind the lips. Judas tried the kissy on the lips works - but he ended up not having the guts to ascend to heaven under the gravity of sin and spilled them out all over the rocks. Speaking of rocks do you recall how Goliath got brained through his own temple and decapitated? And do you remember who The Church is built on?

*Matthew 16:18
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon **this rock *I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Get with the program Howie - God is giving you all kinds of hints.

I belong to a very robust community of believers, and we are affiliated with many other robust churches of like mind.

We follow the guidelines from Mt 18:15ff.

Believers in what gospel though is the important matter? I don’t question your commitment to your faith. I just question who’s faith it is you are following. It’s certainly not the apostolic faith that Catholics have received continuously for 2,000 years.

So you do have a street address. Do you all have any evidence of anyone actually ever being “saved” from your faith community?

How do you know that you are following the proper guidelines?
Who has the authority to judge in these matters? Is your judge infallable?

I answered that question way back [here:](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p= 4945993&postcount=17) Does a Church’s teaching comport with Scripture…

So somone in your faith community is charisma with infallability? You all have a pope?
Who gets to decide on interpretation of scripture? Is it a majority rule system like a democracy? Does a democracy define truth?

Both.

Yes.

Of course, James. Most churches have a structured “chain of command,” if you will.

I don’t deny that. (You may want to rephrase your question).

I’ve already answered that.

The church is both visible and invisible? Does it include the Lutherans and the baptists, and the Mormons and the Catholics too? Who gets to decide who is in your club?
Who is in the invisible Church?

You believe in a chain of command?!! So do Catholics! We believe that that chain is from heaven to earth through the pontiff and thence through the bishops thence through the priests and deacons to the laity. Our clerics are all approved by an apostolic bishop since these have the original authority passed down from Peter. Where doe your authority come from and who appoints who? How do you know they are qualified?

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Again James, I belong to a very robust church, and we are affiliated with other like minded SS churches across the U.S.

So are you in an affiliation “franchise” church? Do you pay fees to a corporate HQ so can use the franchise name and answer to anyone or is there some kind of “bible-only” grass root’s organization put together on a Craig’s List network model?
What do you mean by robust? Do you all come together to do community events to feed the poor and do good works?

James, whether or not the writings were ever assembled into a canon doesn’t affect their authority. Assembled into a canon, or not assembled into a canon, recognized, or not recognized, they are theopneustos, “God expired” Scriptures with all the authority of the one “breathing them out.”

This is your opinion. But the only authority attested to in the NT is when Jesus “God breathed” on the apostles and gave the APOSTLES the authority.

*John 20:21-23
So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” *

That doesn’t answer my question, James.
Here’s the question again:…as Paul was preparing to pass the mantle to Timothy, did he give to him the title of “apostle,” or “apostolic successor?” How did Paul refer to Timothy, at that time?
Thanks for the answer, James.

You ask a leading question that will not get us to the truth of the matter. At issue here is not the words of the rites used to convey the authority. Those words are captured in sacred tradition and the early church fathers can give us that insight if you are truly interested. The bible only details the general ideas rather than the specifics of the procedures (just like it tells us to baptise but does not spell out a rite in detail). This only demonstrates further how the bible is NOT a all-purpose book of how to run a church since it presuposes the notion of sacred tradition (from which it came). At most the bible tells us that the ordained bishops and priests were “prayed over” (the bible does not detail the prayer words) then they were physically “laid on of hands” (tradition tells us on the head just as the OT fathers blessed their first borns when bestowing their blessings and such [Genesis 48:14, Numbers 16:21,Numbers 27:22-23) etc.] and as Jesus himself did in Luke 4:40). And this is exactly what it tells us about Mathias.

1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

** 2 Tim 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.**

Acts 6:6 Whom ed: the seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost] they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

Acts 13:3 And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them [ed: Barnabas and Saul ], they sent them away.

1 Tim 5:22 Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure. { e.g. don’t give authority to just any man - be responsible}

Now let’s look at a different verse to see the proper teaching which is the concept of AN OFFICE - not a PERSON. Offices continue from person to person just like Judas’ office was replaced when he died. The authority is not lost on the death of The Person. The OFFICE of apostolic authority is where the authority rests and it only operates through the person divinely called and assigned and consented to by the ecclesial authority and appointed and anointed (by laying on of hands) by same to that office. Authority MUST beget authority. It can’t self define itself - it comes from something prior or greater.

Acts 1:20-26
For it is written in the book of Psalms,
‘LET HIS HOMESTEAD BE MADE DESOLATE,
AND LET NO ONE DWELL IN IT’; and,
‘LET ANOTHER MAN TAKE HIS OFFICE.’
21 “Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us— 22 beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us—one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.” 23 So they put forward two men, Joseph called Barsabbas (who was also called Justus), and Matthias. 24 And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25 to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26 And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.

The principal at play here is the concept of a prior divine office being vacated and replaced or expanded by that same existing authority.

Ergo - We don’t need the words “apostle” to be used (although they are here) since the authority is in the giver of the authority. The specific rites are not detailed in the bible. We have rites from Sacred Tradition.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

The sacrifice of the mass.Jesus said that there is no more sacrifice for sin. If it was His body and Blood at the last supper (befor his blood was shed) what part of the body was it,and where did the blood come from. These items ,the wine and bread are symbols of His body and blood. When He said “I am the vine and you are the branches”,did He mean that He was a tree? Ralph

Ralphie, you have a few misconceptions here.

1. The sacrifice of the mass is NOT re sacrificing Christ. What The Church does is a REPRESENTATION of the ONE sacrifice. Here is a difficult concept to understand. The Church is MYSTICAL - that it is there is a real spiritual entity called The Church that is The Body of Christ. The Church has a REAL Spiritual Dimension.

CCC 797 What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church." “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.” The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.

I know that this is a different concept for you but its true. In the mass Catholics JOIN ourselves across time and space to put ourselves right there with Christ on the Cross! So you see its for the benefit of THE MEMBERS of the Body of Christ that we do a Mass. It’s to make Christ’s grace available to us across eternity.

THUS THERE IS NO RESACRIFICE - RATHER A REJOINING TO THAT SACRIFICE.

The Church is like a bridge between heaven and earth - within the Church we are part physical and part eternal.

1. The Eucharist is REAL Presence - this is important to come to know. Only somone called by God and responding to His Grace will be able to accept it. The bible tells us clearly in John 6 that it is real food and real drink. Jesus repeats himself 3 seperate times so we know he is very serious about it and even uses the serious and solemn words “truly truly I tell you”

**John 6:52-58
Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?” 53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 “For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56 “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57 “As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58 “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” **

You need to pray about this Ralphy since this is a critical teaching that identifies the true church and which separates the elect from the lost - the sheep from the goats.

Look who left Jesus - they are marked as lip service followers under John 6:66:

John 6:66 As a result of this many of His disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore

If one is not walking with Christ one is walking with Satan!

James

 

[ralphy]

Shellkell, before the Reformation, there was only one Christian Church, it was universal (Catholic) and it had its headquarters in Rome. Therefore, it was the instrument by which God revealed its message to us. During the Reformation, Martin Luther and his cohorts decided that they personally knew more about Salvation than those that taught it to them and broke from the Church of Christ to form their own Churches with those of like mind. However, it quickly became apparent that being of like mind, meant not that they agreed so much on religious doctrine but that they agreed with the doctrine that men could form a church to match their own personal opinions about God and so the splintering began and it continues today. On one hand, the Catholics, believing the truth that was passed down to them by the Apostles, and on the other, the Protestants, who felt they could find their own way to God through their own desires and interpretations of scripture creating countless churches and assemblies based not on the truth but instead on what they would like the truth to be.

Tell me, Shellkell, what are the credentials of the men you follow that proves that they understand the correct interpretation of Scripture? Can they show continuity of interpretation to the apostles? Can they show great signs to show they are of God?

The Church has no denomination,it never had and never will have: they are the called out ones of God. Those who come to Christ and receive Him as their personal Savior, they belong to the body of Christ. Ralph

 

[CentralFLJames]

The Church has no denomination,it never had and never will have: they are the called out ones of God. Those who come to Christ and receive Him as their personal Savior, they belong to the body of Christ. Ralph

You are of course correct Ralphy and that is why The Catholic Church does not permit internal factions. We excommunicate and anathematize and seperate those heretics from us to preserve our unity or “one” Body of Christ One Church unity. This is why Protestantism has become the Gehenna, the dumping ground, the hell of bad ideas that have been proven useless that will burn for all eternity. No one wants to be part of what has been cut off from the body of Christ since it is burned. And right now the disunity and factionalism of Protestantism is making it conspicuously obvious that its a tumble weed of bracken. Make no mistake about it - it has been severed and is dieing. You need to come into The Catholic Church before its tossed into the fire.

Sorry to be so blunt - but your salvation depends on it…

James