second question for our non-catholic brethern

[PJM]

:
Originally Posted by eddie too View Post
to me it is a bit of a stretch to compare the Bible to Almighty God; and to then use that comparison as a basis for a logical conclusion is stretching it even further.
ET- Who compared God to His Word ? What was suggested is that God is authoritative, so is His Word, and to Catholics, so is the Pope. Their authority can not be judged soley by compliance to it. I gave no comparison, and certainly by faith all agree the three are authoritative, even the CC

Interjected though by PJM

John 1:1-5 “**In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. **The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it”

Mt. 4: 4 “Who answered and said: It is written, Not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.” Amen? Amen!

=pocohombre;11492113]ET- Who compared God to His Word ? What was suggested is that God is authoritative, so is His Word, and to Catholics, so is the Pope. Their authority can not be judged soley by compliance to it. I gave no comparison, and certainly by faith all agree the three are authoritative, even the CC.

 

[pocohombre]

From the people who voted him into office in accordance with the constitution.

Steve,. The people vote and where is that dictated ? It’s all from the authority of the constitution. The constitution written by men who had power and influence and service to our foundation, even before they wrote and ratified it. A lot like the apostles having influence and power and service to the church, before their guiding writings. At the time of writing many knew their inspired writings were binding and authoritative, and meant them to be so, and wrote that they were.

The Church, however, received its authority directly from Christ,

Agreed

not from a collection of inspired writings, even though it lives according to those writings which are a reflection of the faith it first received from Christ and the Apostles.

Agreed .The apostles authority was somewhat transferred into their writings as much as any other type of succession. It is like Peter and Paul are alive today and speak to us. Your church living “according to those writings” is beautifully put and I will not belabor the point that to many that means a type of “authority” or something to be obeyed, adhered to, etc., etc., etc.

This is precisely why the dogmas and doctrines of the Catholic Church have not changed. Truth is not changing and evolving nor is it relative. It is constant and consistent.

Because she has looked to scripture for truth, ala Timothy 3:16

 

[pocohombre]

having unequivocally been told i am wrong about non-RCs and authority, it is sad that i was not given the gift of knowledge about what human being the non-RCs acknowledge as possessing the legitimate authority to proclaim the life and teachings of Jesus.

it is self-evident that such authority does not exist in the groups that, beginning in the
16th century, rejected apostolic succession and subsequently turned in to over 20,000 different groups all claiming to teach the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ, albeit with different conccepts, doctrines and structures.

a person might think that when someone rejects another person’s opinions it would be only charitable to explain why the opinions misrepresent reality.

but, like i said, it is very difficult to be charitable (the essence of the Gospel of Jesus Christ) when refusing to take advantage of all of the grace giving mechanisms created by Jesus. by that i mean the grace found in the sacraments, apostolic succession and faithful assent to the teachings of the RCC.

ET. One thing is to share an opinion or how you feel about it. I don’t mind that. It is like me saying I feel that Catholics worship Mary. Another thing is to say “Catholics worship Mary”. That is a misrepresentation.They do not worship her .They highly venerate her, and to an outsider it may appear to be worship, but to a catholic it is not. See the difference ? So I gladly accept your feelings or opinions on the matter, but please allow me to say it is a misrepresentation if it so. I did not correct specifics because i believe you know the truth of the matter from our perspective, as I know the truth of you perspective. I was giving you the opportunity to be forthright on your own. If you honestly don’t know the truth on how we view authority in the church i will gladly share, and with utmost apologies, to preserve the good rapport I have enjoyed with you .

 

[Peter_J]

There are many keys to the kingdom which open many gates.

I would have to take issue with that – not the many keys part, but the many gates part. Don’t the gospels say one gate?

 

[PJM]

=Traverse;11493771]That in no way answers the conundrum. Who is your authoritative interpreter to interpret the true church which can act as an authoritative interpreter?

IF I may interject:

What you’re seemingly missing dear friend is the fact THAT GOD IS IN CHARGE [emphasis not shouting]

Begin with Mt. 10:1-8 and understand the Power and Authority granted to the Apostles

Then Mt. 16:18-19 Where Chirst HANDS to Peter** DIRECTLY the Key’s to heavens access**

Then read carefully John 17:14-20 where 2 critical things are recounted

1. That Christ passes on to HIS APOSTLES alone His very Powers and authority as God:
   cf, “AS THE FATHER SENT ME; SO TOO I SEND YOU” Repeated in Jn. 20:21
2. Jesus: OUR Perfect God commits HIMSELF as the warranty for ALL TIME of the CC teaching on Faith and Morals, NO OTHERS have these conditions

Then READ Mk. 16:14-15 & Mt. 28:16-20
Where Christ Himself institutes SUCCESSION by virtue of the FACT that He chose to change His mandate of Mt. 10 [to just the Jews] to cf. THE ENTIRE WORLD; and again this mandate applies directly and exclusively to the Apostles and through them; today’s Catholic church.

The FINAL words of Christ where: “I WILL BE WITH YOU ALWAYS UNTIL THE END OF TIME” That is why friend ONLY the CC can Teach Fully,what Christ taught them. She ALONE is guided, guarded and protected:thumbsup:

Should I downplay the teachings of the Catholic church because it has split off into a SSPX? Should I fault sacred tradition because with that same tradition the catholic and orthodox churches experienced schism?

NO BUT do understand they both choose to LEAVE God’s ONLY Founded and Guided church and they will be held accountable for their actions as will ALL non-catholic-Christians.

At some point you have to recognize it’s people that cause divisions because they want what they shouldn’t. The number of divisions has no bearing on the quality of the original message

Here we absolutely agree!.

 

[spina1953]

Hi PJM: I have to agree with your statement. However while those who leave the Catholic Church for another church are accountable to God for their actions, however, those who through no fault of their own are in churches that are not in any union with the Catholic Church because they were born in to those denomonations or because they are seeking God and the truth come into a church that is not Catholic based on their own understanding etc… yet, try to live their belief as as best as they can, God will judge them with mercy as Jesus said He has other sheep that He must care for, so to judge them against what the Catholic faith is seems to me to be rather harsh. but that is my opinion.

 

[jmcrae]

The “other sheep” were the Gentiles who later joined the Catholic Church, as we see in the Book of Acts, chapter 15.

Jesus was not referring to the schismatics. If schismatics can be saved, it can only be because they sincerely want to be members of the Church, but don’t know where it is or how to find it.

 

[Protestor]

I would have to take issue with that – not the many keys part, but the many gates part. Don’t the gospels say one gate?

Take that up with Origen if you get to heaven. The passage that you are thinking about is probably trying to make a specific point other then what Origen is intending. Maybe the keys are to the gates of hell and not specifically doors into heaven but are for doors that lead to heaven. I do not know and I am not sure that anyone could say for certain.

 

[PRmerger]

Take that up with Origen if you get to heaven. The passage that you are thinking about is probably trying to make a specific point other then what Origen is intending. Maybe the keys are to the gates of hell and not specifically doors into heaven but are for doors that lead to heaven. I do not know and I am not sure that anyone could say for certain.

And that is why Origen is not a recognized saint, nor an Early Church Father.

Rather, he is recognized as an early ecclesial writer, rather than a father with authority to speak for Christ and HisChurch.

 

[Protestor]

And that is why Origen is not a recognized saint, nor an Early Church Father.

Rather, he is recognized as an early ecclesial writer, rather than a father with authority to speak for Christ and HisChurch.

From that time period who is recognized so I can know who to read.

 

[jmcrae]

From that time period who is recognized so I can know who to read.

A good resource is “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” which is a collection of the most famous or most important writings, collected and translated by William Jurgens. You have to order it; they don’t keep it in stock, normally.

 

[Protestor]

A good resource is “The Faith of the Early Fathers,” which is a collection of the most famous or most important writings, collected and translated by William Jurgens. You have to order it; they don’t keep it in stock, normally.

I know that it is un-official but I always go to newadvent.com when I want to know something you guys believe. Is this site trustworthy? I wish I could remember where but I could have sworn that I have seen Origen in quotes that were supposed to support tradition. Do you guys only use his works when they line up with your teachings? When Origen was alive I do not think there was a more prolific writer out there definitely no pope even came close to the amount of works he created. The closest would be the antipope during that period Hippolytus comes close; i must admit I have never read anything by him though.

 

[spina1953]

The “other sheep” were the Gentiles who later joined the Catholic Church, as we see in the Book of Acts, chapter 15.

Jesus was not referring to the schismatics. If schismatics can be saved, it can only be because they sincerely want to be members of the Church, but don’t know where it is or how to find it.

Hi jmcrae: I do agree with what you said about Jesus was not refurring to schismatic’s. I was thinking more along the lines of those who grow up Protestant and seek God to the best of their knowledge and beliefs. Those who of course leave the Catholic Church, that is up to God to judge. However I will say this, there are a great many Catholic’s who have never been taught there faith and who are then confussed by those who try and convert them to their own denomonation by how they present their understanding of the Bible. This truly sad as had they been taught our catholic faith they may have not left the Church in the first place. Also those who decide for whatever reason because of something they do not like about the Catholic Church to leave for another church well that is a very different matter in my book.

 

[pocohombre]

From that time period who is recognized so I can know who to read.

carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm Take your pick

 

[Randy_Carson]

From that time period who is recognized so I can know who to read.

Four Marks of the Early Church Fathers

1. Antiquity
2. Orthodoxy
3. Sanctity
4. Church Approval

Here is a four-minute youtube on this very topic:

youtube.com/watch?v=JBdrPdXCn7M

 

[PRmerger]

carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture carm.org/early-church-fathers-scripture spurgeon.org/~phil/fathers.htm Take your pick

Protestor, I would never go to CARM as a resource for what Catholics believe

 

[PRmerger]

I know that it is un-official but I always go to newadvent.com when I want to know something you guys believe. Is this site trustworthy? I wish I could remember where but I could have sworn that I have seen Origen in quotes that were supposed to support tradition. Do you guys only use his works when they line up with your teachings?

Well, we only use his works and say, “This is a correct explication of Catholic teaching” when it is actually so.

Just like we do with any other person on the planet who is not an inspired author.

When Origen was alive I do not think there was a more prolific writer out there definitely no pope even came close to the amount of works he created. The closest would be the antipope during that period Hippolytus comes close; i must admit I have never read anything by him though.

That he was prolific, no one can deny.

 

[PJM]

=PRmerger;11498384]Protestor, I would never go to CARM as a resource for what Catholics believe

Amen to that advice

One ought to seek truth [always singular] where it actually CAB be found:thumbsup:

 

[PRmerger]

That would be crazy, if that were what I had argued…

FYI, I’m aware of why Hermas was rejected. The Muratorian Fragment says that it wasn’t for unorthodox content, but because of its post-apostolic origin. The sola scripture Christian can accept this judgement; it only contradicts sola scriptura if the judgement contradicts scripture!

Then it was determined–not by Scripture, but by Tradition–that “all inspired books of the NT must be pre-apostolic in origin!”.

Thus, you defer to Sacred Tradition in accepting that the Shepherd of Hermas is not theopneustos.

 

[PRmerger]

Is that so? The Roman Church is completely free of dissent?

The difference, Novocastrian, is that when Catholics dissent from the CC’s teachings, they are being bad Catholics. (Here, “bad” is to be understood with the nuance of the context of this discussion).

When Protestants dissent from their pastor, they are being good Protestants. They are following the paradigm set forth by Luther et al in saying, “I can decide for myself what Scripture says!”

To wit: there is a Protestant here who has read Matthew 6:6 and determined that this means that prayers of intention must ONLY be done in private. She never joins in the communal prayers of her pastor or church she is currently attending because she believes that it’s contrary to the will of God to do so.

That is a peculiar interpretation, to be sure.

But she is doing exactly what your SS paradigm professes. As such, you cannot tell her, “That’s not what Matt 6:6 means!”

You can only say, “Good for you!”

And while this is a rather benign example, think of all of those SS advocates who have some very hateful, vile and bizarre interpretations.

In your world you can only say, “This is your right to do!”