Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings

[Fred_4]

Scripture is NOT the source of Church teachings.

Correct! That’s why Rome can make up a lot
of stuff and claim it’s from God.

reen12

Yes those kooky bishops united with the pope do make up a lot of crazy things don’t they? How about that New Testament? What’s that about?!

 

[guanophore]

But, the problem is…the gospel implies justification by faith alone. This is clear from scripture. So, if the CC is not teaching this, maybe they need to go back to scripture alone to get this truth down before they branch out and away from it.

It is only a problem for people outside the church. We know that the apostles and Jesus did not teach this, and that it is an invention created 1500 years after the teachings were given. It is a man-made invention. When we look at the scriptures in the light of what the apostles taught, we can see that it is not a correct interpretation.

 

[Rach620]

I think the OP’s point was that we had the Tradition first, before we had the Bible. The Bible follows the Tradition because the Tradition came first.

The Tradition does not “follow” the Bible, because it precedes it - there was no Bible yet when Christ gave the Tradition to the Apostles. This doesn’t mean that the Bible contains elements that contradict Tradition - this is not possible - rather, it is simply a question of the sequence of events. Tradition first. Bible second.

Yes, Christ commanded the apostles to ‘preach the Gospel’ chronologically before the recording of the written NT texts. But this does not mean that ‘Scripture is not the source of Church teachings,’ (the subject of this thread) or that the truth of salvation is not contained in the Bible.

Scripture and Tradition comprise *one *authority in the transmission of divine revelation; we do not have one without (or before) the other.

I think that the OP might have had good intentions, but these were quickly derailed by his continuing line of thought. I still think that this thread came out of a ‘counter-reformation’ sentiment, an overreaction to Protestant sola scriptura which disregards the great place of prominence which the Bible must hold at the heart of Christian–even and especially Catholic–faith.

 

[Rach620]

I think that this idea that the recording of Scripture and the apostolic preaching tradition go hand in hand was best articulated by Dei Verbum, the Vatican II declaration on Divine Revelation.

Chapter II: The Transmission of Divine Revelation

1. God graciously arranged that the things he had once revealed for the salvation of all peoples should remain in their entirety, throughout the ages, and be transmitted to all generations. Therefore, Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. This was faithfully done: it was done by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received–whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit; it was done by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.
   …
2. Thus, the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time…And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church–and through her in the world–leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness.
3. Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence.

If this was the point of the OP, then I am in total agreement. However, given his tone and insistence that the 'Gospel preached by the apostles" was somehow entirely distinct from the Bible and stood apart from it, I do not think that this was his message.

 

[Rach620]

Originally Posted by Rach620:
Quite honestly, I find this new definition of ‘the Gospel the apostles preached’ quite comical.

What year do you think the first gospel record was written, and began to be spread around?

I’m not saying I thought the apostles were walking around with a bible in hand. I’m saying that the Gospel they preached was the same one which would come to be recorded in the Scriptures. Same Truth…which is why saying that Scripture is not the source of the Church’s teachings doesn’t make sense, because by the same token you can’t say that Tradition is the source of Church teachings. It’s the two together which are the deposit of faith and through which we come to know divine revelation. They are inseparable, and especially when we are addressing theological disputes, Scripture is the ultimate authority which we consult.

I think the OP is saying that the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of truth, not the scripture. It is the church that originated and authenticated the scripture, not the other way around.
…
I don’t think the OP was saying that it is “different or stands apart” from the scriptures. Just that the divine deposit of truth is not dependent upon them. In fact the preaching and teaching of the Gospel must be able to take place without the written gospel, otherwise, the first decades of the church would have contained no authentic preaching and teaching, which we know is false. It was all oral in the beginning.
…
I see your point, but I beleive what the OP is trying to emphasize is that the Spirit of Christ lives in His church, not in the book itself.

I agree with you, but this just wasn’t the vibe I was getting from the OP who in general seemed to be completely rejecting the written Gospel in favor of its interpretation in sacred Tradition. If this was not his intention, then I apologize and I am in agreement…but I think that the presentation was at least a little bit off, and the thread came off as yet another Catholic who seems to vastly underestimate the importance of the Bible in our faith.

 

[dcdurel]

Not sure I share that sentiment. So far as I am aware, 99% that she teaches comes from the Scriptures.

You need to read more carefully what I first wrote.
To simplify,

1. Jesus is the fullness of revelation, since He is God, this is only logical.
2. Jesus taught everything to the apostles.
   “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
   John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

Thus, if Jesus had made known EVERYTHING to his apostles, then there is not a single teaching that scripture can add to what the apostles learned. If the apostles learned any teaching from scripture later on, then Jesus would have been a liar. Since God can’t lie, then the apostles learned everything from Jesus, not from the bible. The learned the entire Gospel directly from God. They did not learn a single teaching of the Gospel from the bible. The scriptures cannot add teachings to what the apostles learned from Jesus, since Jesus taught them everything.
All the scriptures can do is repeat parts of some of those teachings later on. Scripture cannot add teachings to the Gospel that Jesus taught. Now, since parts of some of those teachings were also written in scripture, then when we study scripture we can see parts of those teachings in scripture. The Church quotes scripture to illuminate her teachings of the Gospel, to nourish her teachings and as a witness to those teachings. In this way we can remember the teachings better.
But, the Church does not quote from the bible to prove all her teachings, because her teachings don’t come from the bible, but from God himself. The Church learned directly from Jesus, God himself, who taught EVERYTHING to the leaders of His Church, the apostles.

We can’t have it both ways. If Jesus taught the apostles everything, then no teaching of the Church came from the bible.
If any teaching of the Church came from the bible, then Jesus is a liar.

Then Jesus gave his apostles the mandate to proclaim the Gospel.
Since the apostles had to take Jesus as their example, they had to proclaim the Gospel entirely by Tradition, just as Jesus did.
The Church teaches,
Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.“1”

Notice that ALL THAT SHE BELIEVES is handed down in Tradition to every generation. Thus, there is nothing the Church “forgot” then learned later on from scripture.

All Church teachings come from God, who taught the apostles, who taught their successors. No teaching came from the bible, though many teachings were handed down in the bible also.

 

[Rach620]

I would like to note that ALL these passages refer to the OLD TESTAMENT. The “scriptures” being referred to here are the law, prophets, and psalms. The NT was barely getting written.

This is not the interpretation of that passage which the Church teaches. *Dei Verbum *cites 2 Timothy 3:14-17 and affirms that what is being spoken of here, regardless of the time period of its authorship, is the teaching that “the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.”

I think this is a little too narrow. Yes, the Catholic Church does protect the written divine deposit of faith in the scriptures, but they were never meant to be the “whole story” and the Deposit of Faith is much larger than the “scripture” as we know it. An most especially, I think the OP is arguing against your closing remark here, that the scriptures ARE NOT the highest authority through which we can understand our faith.

The deposit of faith should be understood as Scripture and Tradition–both are essential elements of the *one *deposit of faith; if I didn’t make that clear earlier, I’m sorry.

The OP is indeed arguing against that closing remark, and I really believe him to be in error. If the Scriptures are not the highest authority, then neither is Tradition, for both are essentially the same level of authority as ways by which we come to know the truth of divine revelation. Both are ‘intrinsic and certain’ sources of authority, according to St. Thomas. BOTH. And when there are theological questions, we have recourse first (this is the tradition of the Fathers) to Scripture, which is the divinely revealed Word of God.

From *Dei Verbum:

It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy SPirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

That’s just my point–one cannot stand without the others. You can’t have Scripture without Tradition, but you also can’t have Tradition without Scripture. The first error would be that of Protestants; the second would seem to be that of the OP.

 

[Rach620]

You need to read more carefully what I first wrote.
To simplify,

1. Jesus is the fullness of revelation, since He is God, this is only logical.
2. Jesus taught everything to the apostles.
   “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”
   John 15:15 “for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”

Correct, he explained everything to the apostles, and they in turn revealed them through their teaching, and later through the recording of the New Testament, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

All the scriptures can do is repeat parts of some of those teachings later on. Scripture cannot add teachings to the Gospel that Jesus taught. Now, since parts of some of those teachings were also written in scripture, then when we study scripture we can see parts of those teachings in scripture. The Church quotes scripture to illuminate her teachings of the Gospel, to nourish her teachings and as a witness to those teachings. In this way we can remember the teachings better.
But, the Church does not quote from the bible to prove all her teachings, because her teachings don’t come from the bible, but from God himself. The Church learned directly from Jesus, God himself, who taught EVERYTHING to the leaders of His Church, the apostles.

There’s something kind of confused about this description, though. Yes, Christ was himself the fullness of revelation, and in revealing himself to the apostles, revealed the Gospel–the ‘good news’ which he told them to go and preach to all nations.

But those same apostles went on, at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete whom Christ sent after his ascension, to record the truth of that revelation. In doing so at the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we are to believe that the words of the Bible are God speaking through men to us directly. The Scripture is then the record which God saw necessary to leave for future generations, for the inheritors of apostolic authority.

So when we now refer to the bible it is not to prove something the Church teaches apart from it. The truth revealed in Scripture and Tradition is one and the same, but we refer to Scripture because we are certain that it is the divinely inspired word of God, and we can easily refer to it as an authority.

We can’t have it both ways. If Jesus taught the apostles everything, then no teaching of the Church came from the bible.
If any teaching of the Church came from the bible, then Jesus is a liar.

I’m not sure I’m following your line of thought here…at any rate, I don’t think this ‘all or nothing’ talk can possibly work.

Then Jesus gave his apostles the mandate to proclaim the Gospel.
Since the apostles had to take Jesus as their example, they had to proclaim the Gospel entirely by Tradition, just as Jesus did.
The Church teaches,
Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes.“1”

Notice that ALL THAT SHE BELIEVES is handed down in Tradition to every generation. Thus, there is nothing the Church “forgot” then learned later on from scripture.

All Church teachings come from God, who taught the apostles, who taught their successors. No teaching came from the bible, though many teachings were handed down in the bible also.

You might be vindicated by the ‘also’, just as long as you mean that the same divine truth was revealed in the bible, and that Scripture and Tradition together form one authority and our one deposit of faith.

 

[dcdurel]

Here is another way of understanding what I am saying.

Since Jesus is the fulness of revelation, then the Gospel he commanded His apostles to hand down contains all teachings of salvation.

The Church says this of the Gospel.

                                          This Gospel that the apostles were to PREACH was “**the fullness of the truth** which God has enabled us to know about himself”[1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1sym), and it is the “**the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”**[2](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote2sym).
  [1](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote1anc)Redemptoris     missio 5
  [

(Pope JPII also repeated this statement in another place, which I cannot remember right now. He is very emphatic that the Gospel the apostles preached contains the fullness of revelation)](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/#sdfootnote2anc)2Catechism of the Catholic Church 75

Notice that the scriptures are not the "the fullness of the truth which God has enabled us to know about himself, but only the Gospel that the apostles preached, which means, only the Gospel that the apostles handed down in Tradition.
Notice that scriptures are not “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”.
It is only the Gospel that the apostles were to preach that the Church teaches is the source of all saving truth and moral discipline. In other words, Jesus wanted all God’s teachings to be handed on by teaching and preaching.

Remember, the source of the Gospel is Jesus Christ, God himself. The source of this Gospel is NOT the scriptures.
The apostles did not learn the Gospel from the scriptures.
The teachings of the Catholic Church do NOT originate from the scriptures, but directly from Jesus Christ.

How did God want this Gospel to be handed down?

                                        "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors.  This living transmission”(of the full and living Gospel) “accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition,”

Thus the entire living “full and living Gospel” is handed on entirely in Tradition. Tradition contains “the fullness of revelation”. Tradition contains "the source of ALL SAVING TRUTH and moral discipline.

If the the entire and full Gospel is handed on in Tradition, then the scriptures cannot add any teaching to this Tradition. Yves Congar in his book “Tradition” says the same thing, that scholars admit there is no teaching in scripture which is not already handed down in Tradition. This is not new teaching.

 

[dcdurel]

Now, when the New Testament was written later the Church says in the Catechism, “The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on…”
We notice that the written Gospels contain only “certain of the many elements…” which had been handed on in Tradition. That is because the Gospels do not claim to be a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. They claim to be a narrative of the life of Jesus.
Luke expresses that clearly in the beginning of his Gospel.
It is only the Gospel the apostles taught and preached, handed down in Tradition that contains the full and living Gospel.

The Church document, “The General Directory for Catechesis” authorized by Pope JPII also says that the Catechism presents this** “living Tradition.**”
In other words, this Catechism, and the old Roman Catechism, simply present the Gospel the apostles taught.
Catechisms are not really a summary of the teachings of scripture. They are a summary of the Gospel that apostles taught and preached. Now, since scripture also contains parts of some of those teachings, then the Catechisms also contain all the teachings of scripture. But, the original source of the teachings is not scripture, but the Gospel which the apostles taught and preached.
Of course, once the fullness of revelation was revealed in the Gospel that the apostles taught and preached, (the Catholic faith) then we can go back to the Old Testament and see how those teachings were forshawdowed in scripture. But, the Church did not learn them from scripture, the Church learned them from Jesus Christ.
Since the New Testament came after the fullness of revelation was taught and preached, then we say that scripture is a “witness” to the teachings.
And since teachings by themselves are often dry and distant, the Church commands preachers to use scripture as a “witness” to the teachings, to “nourish” the teachings and to “illuminate” the teachings. Notice that is how the Roman Catechism and the New Catechism present the teachings. They could present pure Church teachings which come directly from the Gospel, handed down in Tradition. That would be dull and boring, like some theology books. Instead the Catechisms use scripture to express the teachings when possible. It is very difficult to do it this way, since scripture is so incomplete, but for the most part it is done very well.
The mistake we make is to believe that these teachings originate from scripture and the Church formulated her doctrines from scripture. That is the Protestant understanding of catechisms, since in Protestantism scripture alone is their authority. Protestant theologians always understand their catechisms, such as Luther’s small and large catechisms, as coming from scripture. Actually his catechisms came from the traditions he learned and others he made up. Those denomintions that have less tradition can’t even agree on a comprehensive catechism. Scripture is to confusing by itself.
Often Catholic theologians pick up this false idea that the Catechisms are a compilation and a summary of scripture.
But actually, Catholic catechisms are a summary of the Gospel the apostles taught and preached. Catholic catechisms use scripture to express the teachings, they also use the writings of the Fathers, Church councils and saints to express the teachings. But, the original source of the teachings are not scripture, the Fathers or the saints, but the Gospel the apostles handed down entirely in Tradition, the fullness of the truth and “the source of all saving truth and moral discipline”.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You need to read more carefully what I first wrote.
To simplify,

1. Jesus is the fullness of revelation, since He is God, this is only logical.
2. Jesus taught everything to the apostles.
   “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.”

Agreed.

Could you point me to the verses where Jesus explains that he was speaking metaphorically in John 6 about eating his body and drinking his blood?

I mean, a lot of his followers walked out after declaring it was a “hard teaching”. Obviously, there was a big misunderstanding. We know that most non-Catholics believe that Jesus was only speaking symbolically. So, he must have told the disciples that he was not speaking literally at some point to avoid any further misunderstanding. Otherwise, non-Catholics believe something that is un-Biblical.

So, where is this clearly taught in the Bible?

John 15:15 “for everything

that I learned from my Father I have made known to you."

Thus, if Jesus had made known EVERYTHING to his apostles, then there is not a single teaching that scripture can add to what the apostles learned.

This assumes that the Apostles wrote down everything they knew.

Could you write down everything you learned after three years of high school or college? Everything?

Did Jesus tell the Apostles EVERYTHING as you claim? No.

12"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come."

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The Holy Spirit would:

1. guide them into all truth (infalliby?)
2. tell then what is to come (doctrinal development?)
3. teach them all things (then, obviously, Jesus did not do so)
4. remind them of what Jesus had covered while on earth.

Sounds like there was a lot more catechesis yet to come.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[mark_a]

I’m not sure what Protestants think the Church has to gain by “making stuff up” that would be out of line with Scripture.

In their opinion, its not the Church making up this stuff, its the father of lies who dupes the Church.

What’s more, these people actually believe that Catholics, even the leadership, don’t have a clue about the bible.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with most of what you have posted, and I do think the OP was using some hyperbole. I think the oral and written divine deposits of faith complement one another.

I’m not saying I thought the apostles were walking around with a bible in hand. I’m saying that the Gospel they preached was the same one which would come to be recorded in the Scriptures. Same Truth…which is why saying that Scripture is not the source of the Church’s teachings doesn’t make sense, because by the same token you can’t say that Tradition is the source of Church teachings. It’s the two together which are the deposit of faith and through which we come to know divine revelation. They are inseparable, and especially when we are addressing theological disputes, Scripture is the ultimate authority which we consult.

I think this last point, however, is what the OP is disputing. Scripture is only the final authority for Sola Scripturists (Protestants). The scriptures tell us that the church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth, and that disputes and disagreements should be taken to the church, not to the scripture.

 

[JesusIsKing]

Scripture is most definitey not the source of the Catholic teachings. The Devil is a liar and sooo subtle. READ YOUR BIBLE! Which is why so many catholics talk about the ‘Catholic fatith’ It is a made up system based on Babylon. Just like ISLAM, its all about works. False works. ITS NOT ABOUT ‘CATHOLIC FAITH’ MY FRIEND IT IS ABOUT FAITH IN GOD!!! Over and over again Jesus said this has happened, this will happen so that the scriptures will/are being fulfilled. The Catholic church has taken parts of scripture and added/subtracted,twisted and moulded them. - For their own benefit. (Go ahead, I challenge you to compare catholic teachings with the Scriptures) God says, “I change Not”
For example: Who said that Mary is the Queen of Heaven? How on earth can she interceed for you!!! The dead are dead. Lord have mercy. Who said that purgatory exists? Who invented the Mass? Who invented Celibacy? How can a priest (a sinner like you and me) give you abolition of sins??? Lord have mercy!! Who invented the Sacraments? A pope? Christ should be the head of the church!!! I find none of this system scriptural. It is the teachings of a catholic system. Like the 5 pillars of Islam you have the 7 sacraments of the catholic church. Open your eyes. Go and read Revelation 17. Call on Jesus. He loves you. Salvation is not complicated. Jesus paid IT ALL!!! Forget about the church and stupid doctrines. Look to Jesus, beautiful, Jesus.

 

[Fred_4]

Thanks for the rant. Did you even read any of the discussion in this thread before you posted?

 

[jmcrae]

Scripture is most definitey not the source of the Catholic teachings.

Nope, Jesus is. The Bible came later.

Who said that Mary is the Queen of Heaven?

Jesus did.

How on earth can she interceed for you?!!! The dead are dead.

Are you going to go to Heaven when you die? If so, why you, but not Mary?

Who said that purgatory exists?

Jesus did.

Who invented the Mass?

Jesus did.

Who invented Celibacy?

The same One who invented marriage - Jesus.

How can a priest (a sinner like you and me) give you abolition of sins???

By Jesus Christ working through him, from the authority give by Christ to the Apostles, handed down to him in an unbroken line of succession by means of his ordination.

Who invented the Sacraments?

Jesus did.

Christ should be the head of the church!!!

He is.

I’ve read Revelation 17 - you know what it reminds me of? Martin Luther and the Protestant rebellion, with its Babel of all different denominations and belief systems - everything from Lutheranism to Calvinism, to Baptist, to Jehovah’s Witness, and ever onward - that’s what.

(Of course I know from Church teaching that it’s really about Nero and the false gods of pagan Rome. Lucky thing they set me straight, or else I might be thinking all kinds of nasty thoughts. )

 

[JesusIsKing]

Thanks for your reply to my post. This is the first forum Ive joined, N its pretty cool.
Few questions.

1. Why do you ask Mary to interceed for you? Does God not hear? My Bible tells me that God hears and sees all. Jesus is the intercessor.
   2… Who told you that Jesus invented the Mass? Scripture or Church teachings?
2. NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DID JESUS GIVE THE APOSTLES AUTHORITY TO ABOLISH SINS!! Do you know what he gave them authority over? The Devil, demons, sickness, to preach the gospel, cast out demons, to lay hands on the sick, to stand on scorpions etc. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for the abolition of sins. How on earth could a Priest. A person. Born a sinner like you and me. Have the authority to forgive sins? What makes him God?? The Scriptures tell us that there is only ONE. And thats the Saviour.
   Cut out the middle man and go straight to Christ. Is that not what a loving intimate relationship with the Saviour is all about? Its what he died for. So that we would be reconciled to GOD.
   Praise The Living Saviour. For there is NONE like Thee. As long as your saved. and your in love with the Lord Jesus Christ. Thats all that matters. Genesis 1v1 In the beginning…

 

[guanophore]

1. Why do you ask Mary to interceed for you? Does God not hear? My Bible tells me that God hears and sees all. Jesus is the intercessor.

The Bible teaches us that we are to pray for one another. We are also surrounded by a great “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1-2) that have gone before us in faith. Here is a good article: catholic.com/library/Praying_to_the_Saints.asp

2… Who told you that Jesus invented the Mass?

You can read about the beginning of the Lord’s supper in the Gospel of John. On the night He was betrayed,He took bread…
Jesus revealed this directly to Paul the Apostle, since he was not present at the last supper: "For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."1 Cor 11:23-26

These are the words that are said in Mass.

Scripture or Church teachings?

Are you saying that you do not believe scripture comes from God?
The Church teachings come down to us from the Apostles, who passed on their learning from Jesus:

“what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim 2:2

1. NO WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DID JESUS GIVE THE APOSTLES AUTHORITY TO ABOLISH SINS!!

Actually, the word that is used is “absolution”. Jesus is the one who forgives sins. He allows His priests to share in His priestly ministry.

"Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men." Matt 9:1-8

"Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I 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, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” John 20:20-23

Jesus passed this authority to His Apostles after His resurrection.

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER for the abolition of sins. How on earth could a Priest. A person. Born a sinner like you and me. Have the authority to forgive sins? What makes him God?? The Scriptures tell us that there is only ONE. And thats the Saviour.

Jesus has made us partakers in his ministry of reconciliation. This has not occurred because people have done something that makes them worthy, but by His grace.

Cut out the middle man and go straight to Christ. Is that not what a loving intimate relationship with the Saviour is all about? Its what he died for. So that we would be reconciled to GOD.

It is not one or the other. We come to Christ through one another.

1 Cor 3:6-9
6 I planted, Apol’los watered, but God gave the growth. 7 So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. "

Each of us has a part.

2 Cor 5:18-20
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God."

God has ordained that His message of reconciliation should pass through His people to those he has chosen to reconcile to himself.

Praise The Living Saviour. For there is NONE like Thee. As long as your saved. and your in love with the Lord Jesus Christ. Thats all that matters. Genesis 1v1 In the beginning…

It is good to see that you Love God. It seems that you have some study to do…

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for your reply to my post. This is the first forum Ive joined, N its pretty cool.
Few questions.

1. Why do you ask Mary to interceed for you? {/quote]

For the same reasons that I’d ask anybody else to pray for me, especially when I’m in trouble and don’t know what to ask for.

Does God not hear? My Bible tells me that God hears and sees all.

 

[clmowry]

So you argument woud be aganst a teaching that you attribute to the Church rather than with what the Church actually teaches.

That is exactly what scripture teaches. It teaches that we are justified by faith THAT works - not faith AND works. The Gift Of Salvation Document (ECTII - sequal to Evangelicals and Catholics Together) affirms this.