second question for our non-catholic brethern

[Bryan_Greenlee]

Well hello. I do see things somewhat differently. The fact is God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Another fact man is also the same. There is also nothing new under the sun. The battle between good and evil, that He has won continues on for a time. For us it began at the fall in the garden, and will end with His final return. He holds it all in His hands and is surprised by nothing. He has His dispensations and covenants. If we keep our eye only on those we will be disappointed. If we keep our eye on Him, we see perfection in it all. So what is your focus,the “religion”, the dispensation, the “box” ? You will be disappointed then for as you say there is always “schism”. The first one took place at the garden.The next one with Cain and Abel and on down the line. I would not judge the covenants or God’s method of dealing based on the obvious downfalls, They are not due to God. Having said that the final covenant fulfills all the rest,so in the end all were “PERFECTLY FULFILLED” . Judaism was perfect, for she brought forth the Child, as promised on day one of the fall. Christianity will fulfill it’s destiny, and will be the bride at His second coming, saints from every tribe and nation… Look at at the covenant keepers, Judaism and Christianity. All human beings with all their frailties. Perfect scenario, for in that God is manifested gracious, longsuffering, loving, powerful and saving etc., etc… There has always been a remnant of faithful .There has always been those full of His Spirit, especially in this last dispensation where He can indwell fully in the believer. There is no other explanation for church growth, especially under persecution of death. Indeed the gates of hell, death itself, shall not prevail against this implant of God in the regenerated heart. Nothing can separate us from His love. So He is fully alive today in the lives of many believers, and is quite a visible Church. So, what is the problem ? Do we really need another thought process, another Box to put God and truth in, another religion, another name in which all men under heaven can be saved by ?

All do respect to you my Protestant brother in Christ,it is a historical fact that the See of Rome has always held primacy in Christendom.All the early church fathers both east and west attests to this fact,it seems like to me your proof reading and picking and choosing what you want to believe (which is a typical protestant error).The other thing which I would like to point out to you is the fact we Catholics agree with Protestants when they say "By no name under heaven can man be saved ,but by the name of Jesus"and I realize I’m para-phrasing your quote .What we Catholics disagree with(rightfully so)is the process on how one is to obtain salvation,the classic Protestant understanding of salvation is not biblical and is not in continuity with historical Christianity ,pure and simple.If you were to
read all the Apostolic Fathers eariest writings I do believe you will see that ,if not you are just in denial.God Bless!

 

[Novocastrian]

I can’t give you any more references, Novo.

Perhaps you can ask poco, who also has read the ECFs.

I’d be very interested, Poco

 

[pocohombre]

Nobody even knew that the Bible was even going to exist, until the early 300s AD, and the Bishops of the world were disputing its precise contents for 80 years beyond that. It was not until the Councils of Hippo, Carthage and Rome, later ratified by Pope Innocent I in 405 AD, that the Bible as Catholics know and love it today came into existence.

(The current Protestant Bible is less than 300 years old, just fyi.)

History buffs anywhere? Much more to it than what you propose. Same history, differing takes on it. Selective interpretation/remembrance may we both disdain.

 

[pocohombre]

All do respect to you my Protestant brother in Christ,it is a historical fact that the See of Rome has always held primacy in Christendom.All the early church fathers both east and west attests to this fact,it seems like to me your proof reading and picking and choosing what you want to believe (which is a typical protestant error).The other thing which I would like to point out to you is the fact we Catholics agree with Protestants when they say "By no name under heaven can man be saved ,but by the name of Jesus"and I realize I’m para-phrasing your quote .What we Catholics disagree with(rightfully so)is the process on how one is to obtain salvation,the classic Protestant understanding of salvation is not biblical and is not in continuity with historical Christianity ,pure and simple.If you were to
read all the Apostolic Fathers eariest writings I do believe you will see that ,if not you are just in denial.God Bless!

Hi BG. Actually our error may be more fundamental. For we differ on scriptural interpretation on papal claims, so for sure we will see the same history differently .You see the letter to the Corinthians from the Church at Rome (Clement) as “papal , and I see it as the opposite. But I don’t skip it as I don’t skip your scripture proofs. Thank you for being bold and saying that our salvation gospel is unbiblical. Only a few times have I ventured here to carefully say that about the CC gospel also (don’t want to show “contempt” towards CC and get bounced). But I like it on your part .Call an ace an ace and a spade…”. To be careful I have also said in heaven most all denominations will be present, including Catholic. I have read some of the earliest fathers,not skipping them either .Quite universal .Love em all (the earliest though). Will admit that with Augustine I am not 100% happy, but still will quote him often to show our similarities. Blessings also.

 

[pocohombre]

.

I can’t give you any more references, Novo.

Perhaps you can ask poco, who also has read the ECFs.

I’d be very interested, Poco

" St. Augustine says, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in you O’ God.”
**By imitating the monstrance **and realizing our true purpose and design and fulfilling it
completely the world and we are blessed."… Actually I apologize. I started it by saying church father said, “we are his monstrance”. My notes however quote the Didache: I had “(he) tabernacles in our hearts” (not in a monstrance-my note). PR is right. This takes place after “communion”. I give all quotes dealing with it, for I see it to be quite universal, and no doubt depending on where you sit on RP issue is where you will stand with the Didache:
9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

10:1 And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:
10:2 We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
10:3 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
10:4 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
10:5 but didst bestow upon us* spiritual food and drink* and eternal life through Thy Son.
10:6 Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful;
10:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
I notice the essence is thanksgiving, don’t see any “transformation” request of “sacrifice” and or asking that it be acceptable. it is thanksgiving (eucharist) See mention of cup and bread. See unity for the communion, for at that time it began with one whole loaf at consecration and then broken up (scattered) to be returned as '“one” someday. Again , bread/loaf is also symbol for unity . The “communion” is a holy and only baptized should partake.Also note “His holy name” tabernacles in our hearts .Does not say His Body does. Don’t see any mention of body/blood. He mentions physical food and spiritual food to give thanks for. To me, from the bread and wine being symbols, to symbols of His spiritual presence, to physical presence (consub or transub), all may enjoy, but I am sticking on the first two as I believe the Didache does. (but I am very prejudice and narrow minded on this)

 

[daler]

.
" St. Augustine says, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in you O’ God.”
**By imitating the monstrance **and realizing our true purpose and design and fulfilling it
completely the world and we are blessed."…

. "O Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the winds, and whose breath gives life to all the world, hear me.

I am small and weak; I need your strength and wisdom.

Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset.

Make my hands respect the things you have made and my ears sharp to hear your voice.

Make me wise so that I may understand the things you have taught my people.

Let me learn the lessons you have hidden in every leaf and rock.

I seek strength, not to be greater than my friend, but to fight my greatest enemy, myself.

Make me always ready to come to you with clean hands and straight eyes.

So when life fades, as the fading sunset, may my spirit come to you without shame."

This prayer is attributed to Native American Indian Lakota (Sioux) Chief Yellow Lark in 1887.

.

 

[Novocastrian]

.
" St. Augustine says, “Our hearts are restless until they rest in you O’ God.”
**By imitating the monstrance **and realizing our true purpose and design and fulfilling it
completely the world and we are blessed."… Actually I apologize. I started it by saying church father said, “we are his monstrance”. My notes however quote the Didache: I had “(he) tabernacles in our hearts” (not in a monstrance-my note). PR is right. This takes place after “communion”. I give all quotes dealing with it, for I see it to be quite universal, and no doubt depending on where you sit on RP issue is where you will stand with the Didache:
9:1 But as touching the eucharistic thanksgiving give ye thanks thus.
9:2 First, as regards the cup:
9:3 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the holy vine of Thy son David, which Thou madest known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:4 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:5 Then as regards the broken bread:
9:6 We give Thee thanks, O our Father, for the life and knowledge which Thou didst make known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
9:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
9:8 As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom;
9:9 for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
9:10 But let no one eat or drink of this eucharistic thanksgiving, but they that have been baptized into the name of the Lord;
9:11 for concerning this also the Lord hath said:
9:12 {Give not that which is holy to the dogs.}

10:1 And after ye are satisfied thus give ye thanks:
10:2 We give Thee thanks, Holy Father, for Thy holy name, which Thou hast made to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which Thou hast made known unto us through Thy Son Jesus;
10:3 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
10:4 Thou, Almighty Master, didst create all things for Thy name’s sake, and didst give food and drink unto men for enjoyment, that they might render thanks to Thee;
10:5 but didst bestow upon us* spiritual food and drink* and eternal life through Thy Son.
10:6 Before all things we give Thee thanks that Thou art powerful;
10:7 Thine is the glory for ever and ever.
I notice the essence is thanksgiving, don’t see any “transformation” request of “sacrifice” and or asking that it be acceptable. it is thanksgiving (eucharist) See mention of cup and bread. See unity for the communion, for at that time it began with one whole loaf at consecration and then broken up (scattered) to be returned as '“one” someday. Again , bread/loaf is also symbol for unity . The “communion” is a holy and only baptized should partake.Also note “His holy name” tabernacles in our hearts .Does not say His Body does. Don’t see any mention of body/blood. He mentions physical food and spiritual food to give thanks for. To me, from the bread and wine being symbols, to symbols of His spiritual presence, to physical presence (consub or transub), all may enjoy, but I am sticking on the first two as I believe the Didache does. (but I am very prejudice and narrow minded on this)

Interesting. So, just to declare an interest before I give my opinion, I do believe in the real presence.

BUT, it’s very interesting that it is the *holy name *of the *Father *which is made to tabernacle in our hearts. Not the Lord Jesus, and apparently not (though who could deny that they are here connected??) the body and blood, as you point out. Of course, this could be a deliberate Biblicism rather than a denial of Eucharistic presence; it is a reflection of the name-theology in Deuteronomy, which is keen to stress the presence of God’s name at the “one place” (i.e. Jerusalem, historically) without ever mentioning the Temple. I wonder if the name-theology in the Didache is an attempt to echo this holiness-without-temple thought…

 

[PRmerger]

PR is right.

My favorite 3 words.

 

[PRmerger]

Is this the only part of I.D. that is ineffable “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” or are there other parts. Please I cannot figure out what is and is not fallible; to me it is almost all fallible.

The infallible dogma is that Mary was immaculately conceived.

For without that understanding, one cannot fully embrace the Divinity of Christ, for, as St. Augustine stated (paraphrasing): He who could not be contained was contained in the womb of the Virgin.

 

[Protestor]

Then perhaps you have never read St. Thomas Aquinas?

Peter Kreeft, philosophy professor at Boston College, says this

Faith is the act of the intellect, prompted by the will, by which we believe the truth of all that God has revealed on the basis of the authority of the one who has revealed it. This is essentially the definition used by Saint Thomas Aquinas and medieval scholastic theology.

I have read parts of Aquinas as I am an armchair theologian. Nice quote that is well put. Now we are at an issue of authority. Good Luck

 

[Protestor]

What is this “core set of beliefs”, and where does the Bible say that “A” is a core belief, but “B” is not?

NB: I don’t need the chapter and verse that says, for example, that there is One God. I need the chapter and verse that you use to tell you that belief in One God is a core belief.

I think from the last post a core set of beliefs would be decided by authority.

This is what I am talking about. I know what it would take to convince you that this is what is true. I am not saying that this is the only way to think of this. I am just stating it as a possibility. I know it is not nice when you do not play fair. Also I do not think that I have ever advocated for SS so I do not think that it is necessary for me to only use bible references. I welcome tradition and unlike you I welcome all that people have written. I am not saying that they were right I am just saying that I love theology enough to read non-ecf’s and I do not even like to read.

 

[PRmerger]

I think from the last post a core set of beliefs would be decided by authority.

Excellent.

So you are not Sola Scriptura then.

 

[PRmerger]

I have read parts of Aquinas as I am an armchair theologian.

Just curious–didn’t you say you don’t really like to read? And that the Bible is really the only thing you read? Isn’t part of being a theologian (armchair or otherwise) reading…a lot?

 

[Protestor]

The infallible dogma is that Mary was immaculately conceived.

So from the whole of I.D. the only infallible thing is that Mary was immaculately conceived. I do not think you understand how I cannot take that seriously. If this is to be a document that is authoritative, a document that is supposed to have the same inspiration as the bible.

From Trent fourth session " truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand"

Coming from a house that pretty strictly adhered to SS I have a deep affinity for the bible and respect. What you are saying is that the truths are supposed to be the same in inspiration, and yet one takes up about a chapter or two of the bible to create one truth that is 4 words long, but you cannot reference any part of the document as infallible. This is not something that would have been accepted in cannon of scripture why should I accept it now. I can tell you this much if you want to claim divine authority and be taken seriously the Pope needs to do better.

If this has to do with the I.C. and the other with the assumption. Where do you get her sinlessness or perpetual virginity from. or are those not infallible doctrines

 

[Protestor]

Just curious–didn’t you say you don’t really like to read? And that the Bible is really the only thing you read? Isn’t part of being a theologian (armchair or otherwise) reading…a lot?

I hate reading the bible is the only book (other than Harry Potter) that I have even come close to reading all the way through. Sometimes I say I have read something if I have listened to it on audible. Reading excerpts is fine looking for doctrine or def’s are fine but reading the whole thing is not something I am capable of. I have read all of the books of the bible save Habakuk most a few times over but not all the way through in one shot. I’m at Psalms 104 but I am taking a break and reading Matthew quick. The armchair thing was a pot shot at myself.

 

[PJM]

=eddie too;11514259]believing no one knows what Jesus taught and did for sure is not a very persuasive or cogent argument.

repeatedly denying that the meaning the Church has always given to a particular writing, whether it be part of sacred scripture or not simply begs the question, "where does the follower of Christ go to find certainty about His teachings and His gifts.

it is simple to ask, where do you get that interpretation. but, it is equally simple to answer, that has been the consistent interpretation since the first Pentecost Sunday.

casting down on the teachings we have received from Jesus through His Church does not come from the Holy Spirit.

add to that, the fact that those casting doubt on the correct understanding of sacred scripture have no facts or information to support an understanding different from that we received from the apostles and their successors since the first Pentecost Sunday reinforces the reasonable conclusion that challenging the teachings of the RCC does not derive from the Holy Spirit but derives from the hearts of sinful men.

the sincerity of those rejecting the constant and consistent teaching of the apostles and their successors is not the question. the question is the reasonableness of the contention that Jesus did not provide a mechanism for ensuring that all of His followers had access to the correct understanding and interpetations of His teachings and His life.

the very rejection of apostolic succession is unsupportable by facts or logic. there is NO OTHER MECHNISM available to us to ensure we are receiving the true teachings of and about Jesus.

it is so easy to reject, but rejection is meaningless and absurd without an alternative. and an alternative is meaningless and absurd without being supported by facts, history and logic.

NICELY DONE Eddie!

Thanks

 

[PJM]

=Protestor;11517100]So from the whole of I.D. the only infallible thing is that Mary was immaculately conceived. I do not think you understand how I cannot take that seriously. If this is to be a document that is authoritative, a document that is supposed to have the same inspiration as the bible.

From Trent fourth session " truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand"

Coming from a house that pretty strictly adhered to SS I have a deep affinity for the bible and respect. What you are saying is that the truths are supposed to be the same in inspiration, and yet one takes up about a chapter or two of the bible to create one truth that is 4 words long, but you cannot reference any part of the document as infallible. This is not something that would have been accepted in cannon of scripture why should I accept it now. I can tell you this much if you want to claim divine authority and be taken seriously the Pope needs to do better.

If this has to do with the I.C. and the other with the assumption. Where do you get her sinlessness or perpetual virginity from. or are those not infallible doctrines

You’re problem dear friend, is that you SEEM to not truly WISH to understand.

What God makes possible is an OFFER, NOT a threat,

Simply put:

MARY HAD TO BE [no other option possible once God decided on the Incarnation]
1st. Perfected [through the merits of Her Son] Time does not exist for God everything is “NOW.”

2nd. Then Mary HAD TOO freely choose not too; NEVER-EVER sin

These two conditions HAD too and HAVE too exist BECAUSE GOD IS PERFECT; GOD MUST REMAIN PERFECT [no otipn here], THEREFORE MARY TOO HAD TO BE PERFECTED AND THEN PERFECT IN ORDER TO BE THE MOTHER OF OUR PERFECT GOD. emphasis not shouting here

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mary was immaculately conceived. I do not think you understand how I cannot take that seriously.

So here when we say take seriously, that means a lot of reading of Tradition/Scripture. Many would also argue the teaching itself isn’t needed or to be taken serious in this sense, because the original teaching of the apostolic church already existed. From this the IC was further debated and defined, however though as you read its becomes clear the IC is based on history/tradition/scripture and the CC presents a very tight argument as to the IC being most fitting.

For example how would you define the Nature of Christ in relation to divine/human and mans fall-sin, or Mary in relation to sin and grace? You see you already here are talking aspects of the Trinity, Incarnation, Nature of Christ, and so forth. In essence the mysteries which the Bible doesn’t elaborate on. The tradition of the Church though history does. Scripture isn’t without tradition in this sense or history.

 

[Protestor]

That’s what the word “faith” means - “belief.”

We have “the Catholic faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Catholicism.

We have “the Jewish faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Judaism.

We have “the Islamic faith” which is the set of beliefs pertaining to Islam.

But to “have faith” without at the same time believing something makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Look I understand you might think this. When you say faith means belief this is how I view that statement as being faith≡belief or faith=belief. Either of which do not sit well with me. I am pretty sure that neither one of these actually has to entail the other so ≡ should be out of the question. What I am trying to say is that these words although they have been and still are they should not be used interchangeably. I am not so stupid to think that there are they are not in each others definitions, but English can be a silly language sometimes. Saying you have faith in things, like truths, is cool, but saying you have faith in beliefs is weird. It would be like saying I have belief in these certain beliefs of mine. So my point is that faith does not just mean belief. I think we are past this point now and we are actually trying to figure one faith means.

Side Note

PRmerger:

Hey look here

One faith may be referring to a saving faith. Like we all have faith in Christ (I can add a def from Easton’s dictionary if you want)

Please do not just tell me it is the “apostolic truths” show me that is what I should believe.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

So, now it’s the Roman Catholic position that the Bible is not the word of God? Jesus is the Word of God, the Logos, and the Bible is the word of God.

The Bible is indeed the word of God. The phrase in question is the Logos of God.