since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need...

[benhur]

The “recognition” is in fact that they have some truths mixed with errors. Yet another misrepresentation, for how does salvation take place? How come that the Vatican II teaching is misrepresented?

Precisely because the redeemed person, as all are redeemed by Christ’s suffering and crucifixion, and who may become saved, **is saved only through Christ’s Catholic Church as the *Catechism of the Catholic Church ***(CCC) explains.

It is through the Church, which carries on and makes present the salvific work of Jesus Christ in the world, that all who are saved reach heaven (even if it is perhaps only there that they realize it). Those who, through no fault of their own, have never known Christ or his Church can still be saved. But their salvation, too, is the effect of Jesus working through his Church. In a positive sense, this theological principle “means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body” (CCC 846, quoting Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 14).

Correct. Thought of adding that but did not, and did not mean to misrepresent. Yes, the Catholic Church takes credit for all salvation, even in P and O folk, and yes, we are not in fullness in truth or communion (though I say we won’t notice any difference in C’s or P’s as we stroll down heavenly gold laid roads together). I see you did not represent the whole thrust of LG either.You could have quoted the part I referred to, so all could see for themselves. Not to mention the part o having to be ignorant of Catholic doctrine, or how any mortal sin can be wiped away without an authorized priest.

It is not easy to represent the complete CC teaching on those not in union with Rome.

 

[Abu]

benhur #773
I see you did not represent the whole thrust of LG either.You could have quoted the part I referred to, so all could see for themselves. Not to mention the part o having to be ignorant of Catholic doctrine, or how any mortal sin can be wiped away without an authorized priest.

Anyone who is guilty of not taking the trouble to seek the Truth, or coming to know it yet not following it, can expect the Christ to judge them accordingly.

Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, 14:
“Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”

15: “And so the Spirit stirs up desires and actions in all of Christ’s disciples in order that all may be peaceably united, as Christ ordained, in one flock under one shepherd.”

That is in His Catholic Church and no other.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

The context of the scripture of holding on to “tradition” must also be considered in context of apostles.

Absolutely! No argument there!

It is their “word” we are to hold on to.

Both written AND oral. Lest you neglect the Apostles commending the Early Church for holding firm to both written AND oral traditions. Do you have the authority to decide which traditions are inspired and which are not?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

As the church progressed not only the oral was counterfeited but Writ also.

And who or what has the authority to say which oral tradition and which written authority is counterfeit and/or heretical?

" it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists." as put forth by Brown commentary.

And what gives you the Authority to say which tradition is inspired and which tradition is not?
12845915:

The CC has filtered out many "traditions’’ and is very careful in accepting any. So the protestants just filter a little more stringently than you.

Or could it be since the oral traditions the Apostles taught were passed down to the Early Church Fathers, to present day and for this reason has greater authority to say who h oral teachings of the Apostles were authentic and which are the counterfeit? That to me only seems quite logical.
12845915:

Again, I do believe in “tradition”, even church, community. I do believe in oral transmission of Truth. I do not say you add to Scripture but to"tradition" as if it were from the mouth of Peter or Paul, and claim its 100% infallibility ,100% of the time.
Blessings

Yes, the point is…as I said before, who gives you the authority to which is the authentically true tradition that hasn’t been added to subtracted?

Besides… You seem to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible alone or tradition alone is the authority. None of that is true.

The Catholic Church has the following:

. Magisteriam
2. Sacred Scripture
3. Sacred Tradition

All together.

 

[clem456]

… Not to mention the part o having to be ignorant of Catholic doctrine, or how any mortal sin can be wiped away without an authorized priest.

A good illustration of a difficulty here.

any mortal sin can be wiped away without an authorized priest.

can be more fully stated as “God can wipe away any mortal sin”. There is a difference.

In any and every case God has the only power to confer the gift of reconciliation. He shares that gift with the Church, and provides a normative way for reconciliation to be realized. There is a connection and cooperation between the human and divine. God provides grace, we respond. The sacrament of reconciliation recognizes that we live in a community of faith, and that God’s power to reconcile and forgive is always realized in that community setting. We don’t approach God -any of us- in a hyper-individualized way. If we know that God has instituted a normative way for reconciliation, or anything else for that matter, why would we choose to insist on our own way?

As with infallibility, this gift of reconciliation is God’s sharing of his self with us, not an assertion of power by human beings.

 

[benhur]

In any and every case God has the only power to* confer the gift of reconciliation. *He shares that gift with the Church,

and in a hyper institutionalized way ? As thru a consecrated, ordained priest from a bishop with proper succession?

We don’t approach God -any of us- in a hyper-individualized way.

Yes, mediators to the Mediator.The OT helps see this.

Yes there is corporate approach but also, as many mystics and Saints have shown, an individual, even hyper, approach to God. And we can mediate for one another, just as we can confess our faults one to another. So community ? Yes. So institutional ? Not.

If we know that God has instituted a normative way for reconciliation, or anything else for that matter, why would we choose to insist on our own way?

Institution is the key word. Like Peter wanting to institutionalize the grandiose scene at the Transfiguration. Everything in a nice orderly box. Pipelines to graces. In my opinion the Wind has never been so “channeled”.

As with infallibility, this gift of reconciliation is God’s sharing of his self with us, not an assertion of power by human beings

Understand Clem. I know you understand others see it a bit differently.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

And who or what has the authority to say which oral tradition and which written authority is counterfeit and/or heretical?
And what gives you the Authority to say which tradition is inspired and which tradition is not?

We are just like you (CC and PC) in that we both discern, we just a little more stringently.

Or could it be since the oral traditions the Apostles taught were passed down to the Early Church Fathers, to present day and for this reason has greater authority to say who h oral teachings of the Apostles were authentic and which are the counterfeit? That to me only seems quite logical.

My friend, we disagree on scripture, and we do also on early fathers, even HIStory. WE both look at the same thing, yet beauty (Truth) is in the eyes of the beholder.“To him that hath and ear…”,well we all have ears yet…

Yes, the point is…as I said before, who gives you the authority to which is the authentically true tradition that hasn’t been added to subtracted?

You should be honored for we do what you do, copycatters, just fussier.

Besides… You seem to imply that the Catholic Church teaches that the bible alone or tradition alone is the authority.

I have not either/or’ed in a while and do not imply such a thing. Yes, the tree legged stool. Understand. Thank you

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Both written AND oral. Lest you neglect the Apostles commending the Early Church for holding firm to both written AND oral traditions. Do you have the authority to decide which traditions are inspired and which are not?

Correct. “Word/tradition” is both oral and written.

Yes we also have authority.Can you share it? The crux of the matter. What got Luther in trouble, and Joan of Arc, and a few others. Nothing new. OT saints frequently had problem with status quo also.

 

[benhur]

Anyone who is guilty of not taking the trouble to seek the Truth, or coming to know it yet not following it, can expect the Christ to judge them accordingly.

Is there any hope then, for God said, “no man seeks after me”, Romans 3:11 ?

 

[juliamajor]

the bible isn’t the only thing. Isn’t there a neat verse that says Jesus’s his Grace is sufficient for us?

 

[Abu]

benhur #781

To my:
*Anyone who is guilty of not taking the trouble to seek the Truth, or coming to know it yet not following it, can expect the Christ to judge them accordingly. *
benhur replied:
Is there any hope then, for God said, “no man seeks after me”, Romans 3:11 ?

Actually even the New King James version has: “There is none that understands; There is none who seeks after God (ver 11). Could that be anyone who knowingly refuses to accept what Christ has established, and the St Paul whom God then enlightened so dramatically to preach the same message?

So the ONLY answer is Christ’s own Catholic Church – why practise the futility of denying the Christ when He so clearly established His Church on Peter?

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8). St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem once St. Peter spoke.

 

[clem456]

and in a hyper institutionalized way ? As thru a consecrated, ordained priest from a bishop with proper succession?

hyper institutionalized?
This is what I said.

Originally Posted by clem456 View Post
In any and every case God has the only power to confer the gift of reconciliation. He shares that gift with the Church,

Not sure what you mean by hyper-institutionalized. Does God have the power to forgive sins, or does he not? Surely you don’t argue with God’s power to forgive sins as he sees fit?

Yes there is corporate approach but also, as many mystics and Saints have shown, an individual, even hyper, approach to God.

Those saints would cringe in horror to think that the example of their lives is taken out of the ecclesial context.

And we can mediate for one another, just as we can confess our faults one to another. So community ? Yes. So institutional ? Not.
Institution is the key word. Like Peter wanting to institutionalize the grandiose scene at the Transfiguration. Everything in a nice orderly box. Pipelines to graces. In my opinion the Wind has never been so “channeled”.

I find it a little disingenuous that you dispute the institutional nature of the Church, all the while apologizing day after day for your own view of what church looks like among men. I think you can see the disconnect.
Should Christ’s way have a communal expression or not? You seem to have a firm idea of how faith should be expressed, or we would not be having this discussion, right? Apparently you don’t think the Catholic Church expresses it well.
So, it’s obvious you do believe in institution, it’s that you dispute specifically Catholic institution. Not a problem. I respect your beliefs, but let’s not claim you don’t believe the Church is institutional because your own words dispute your claim on a daily basis. You consistently advocate for an institutional church, as you see it properly constituted.
So your assertion that confession to a priest is not valid because it’s institutional is… what?

The Church is institutional due to the nature of it’s founder and head. Christ was incarnated and came to live among us, gives his mission to his disciples. To claim the Church is not instituted denies the Incarnation. God’s revelation of himself in the incarnation asks for a human response. Christ’s Church is a real thing, existing in time and space. It has a form, a structure, it builds buildings and feeds the poor. While transcending our humanity, it is fully human, just like Christ. It is instituted. It has rules and observances, dogmas and doctrines (right? again, if it does not, what in the world are we going on about here???)

The assertion that the Church should not be institutional is a non-starter.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

My friend I, actually all of us, believe stuff that is 3 to 4 thousand years old. We are sons of Abraham, even believers in the Garden promise to Adam and Eve. Our "traditions’’ go way back.

You have failed to understand what I had stated.

I said, "you believe in a Tradition that began 1500+ years after Christ while the Catholic Church teaches a Tradition taught by Jesus and was passed down to the Apostles. The Apostles taught these traditions to the next generation of Church Fathers… then you have the era of the Early Church Fathers, you also have Sacred Scripture that the Protestant Churches reject. It is through all these we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Traditions we’re taught to hold Sacred enough to hold firm to are the Traditions the Catholic Church continues to hold firm to. These traditions are both oral and written. Since you were not present you do not have the authority to tell us which of these Traditions are man made and which of these Traditions are of God. You personally have absolutely zero authority to say which is Tradition and which is not Tradition, or the authority to believe in one Tradition over the other. You believe there is no way of knowing but that is the biggest load of you know what and doesn’t make logical sense at all! I mean, seriously!! You don’t think that the Apostles couldn’t have had the guidance of the Holy Spirit to make sure they were able to pass on all the Traditions Jesus taught. You think the Apostles gave a blind commendation of Traditions being taught, Traditions the Early Church Fathers were taught? It is also through the writings of the Early Church Fathers we gain a glimps of what the Church continued to be taught following the deaths of the Apostles. Again, oral tradition is not just the letters the Apostles sent the various churches… Traditions are also the oral teachings… while both are Tradition they are also different from one another and complimentary with one another. What you see in the writings of the Early Church Fathers and Sacred Scripture Protestants had to either accept and become Catholic or reject and remain Protestant are the oral teachings the Apostles passed down to those they discipled. While the Early Church Fathers didn’t have any of their writings canonized their writings neither subtracted nor added to what Jesus taught. Plus, you gain a glimps of what the Early Church believed for the first few centuries of the Churches existence.*** Again, are you going to believe a Tradition that began some time in the 1500s over a thousand years after Christ or a Tradition the Apostles Taught and commended the Church to hold firm to?*** *** I’m not going to give any credit to doctrine and tradition that’s basically newly developed.*** I see greater credibility to doctrine and tradition taught by the Early Church and THE BEST WAY to know what the Early Church was taught is to read what the Early Church Fathers were teaching. Go ahead, compare what the Early Church Fathers taught, compare it to Sacred Scripture and compare it to what the Catholic Church has historically taught. You’ll see consistency.

Consistency within the context of historical teachings of the Catholic Church brings far greater credibility than believing in ones own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture and a tradition developed over a thousand years after the deaths of the Apostles.

 

[benhur]

hyper institutionalized?

fits your hyper-individual application.

Not sure what you mean by hyper-institutionalized. Does God have the power to forgive sins, or does he not? Surely you don’t argue with God’s power to forgive sins as he sees fit?

Surely you don’t argue against that He may see fit do so inside and outside the confessional, with and without a priest, before a congregation and in a prayer closet ?

Those saints would cringe in horror to think that the example of their lives is taken out of the ecclesial context.

To have a hyper mystical experience(s) with God does not have to be outside of ecclesial context (unless one is hyper about something else).

I find it a little disingenuous that you dispute the institutional nature of the Church, all the while apologizing day after day for your own view of what church looks like among men. I think you can see the disconnect.

Not sure what you mean by “apologizing for my view of church”.

So, it’s obvious you do believe in institution, it’s that you dispute specifically Catholic institution. Not a problem. I respect your beliefs,

Clem ,this is much better. Your next statement is what I do not understand and seems contradictory, “but let’s not claim you don’t believe the Church is institutional”

So your assertion that confession to a priest is not valid because it’s institutional is… what?

No, it is my assertion the CC institutionalizes the “confessional” rendering reconciliation invalid other ways.

The assertion that the Church should not be institutional is a non-starter.

Agree. Seems you are stuck in either/or mode with me. I do not say the Church is “invisible”. The ecclessia is a visible Body, even an institution.

As you posted, “it’s obvious you do believe in institution,”.

 

[clem456]

fits your hyper-individual application.

Surely you don’t argue against that He may see fit do so inside and outside the confessional, with and without a priest, before a congregation and in a prayer closet ?

.

I never claimed otherwise.
Neither does the Catholic Church.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

This is like an argument just for it’s own sake. :whacky:

 

[benhur]

.
Consistency within the context of historical teachings of the Catholic Church brings far greater credibility than believing in ones own fallible interpretation of Sacred Scripture and a tradition developed over a thousand years after the deaths of the Apostles.

So the reforemers did not have ecclesial offices but rather were mechanical engineers, for they reinvented the wheel ?

 

[benhur]

I never claimed otherwise.
Neither does the Catholic Church.

Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

This is like an argument just for it’s own sake. :whacky:

Well sorry . I thought The CC says “priests/presbyters” outside of proper succession (as found in CC and O mostly) do not have legitimate authority, to “forgive sins” or Eucharist, ordain others etc ?

Are you or the CC saying I can go into my prayer closet and confess to Christ personally and be forgiven with out confessing to a priest ?

 

[clem456]

Well sorry . I thought The CC says “priests/presbyters” outside of proper succession (as found in CC and O mostly) do not have legitimate authority, to “forgive sins” or Eucharist, ordain others etc ?

Are you or the CC saying I can go into my prayer closet and confess to Christ personally and be forgiven with out confessing to a priest ?

God himself is not bound by his sacraments.
That being said, there is a normative way that is instituted. Sacraments are established by Christ through his institution the Church, which is Christ’s mystical body. The sacraments flow from Christ, they are not a merely human tradition run amok. Christ as God Incarnated in human flesh comes into the full human condition. He is the institution. The Church has a real presence in him. Sacraments express and signify this deeper reality.

For myself as a Catholic, who knows the Church and gives my assent to the Church, I am bound to go to confession for forgiveness of sins. To do otherwise would be a rejection of Christ’s gift to us. A Bhuddist who does not know about the Church explicitly might have his sins forgiven by God in a way unkown to us. I can’t tell you how your sins are forgiven Ben, that’s not my job. I would just observe that you probably know more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics, for what it’s worth.

In any event, the forgiveness of sins, as with salvation itself, is grace that flows through the Church as Christ’s mystical body. This “channel” is not something human beings created arbitrarily.
I am not a theologian, if anyone would like to clarify/correct this please do.

 

[SjMelnychuk]

So the reforemers did not have ecclesial offices but rather were mechanical engineers, for they reinvented the wheel ?

The Reformers rather started with a misinformed thesis of their objections regarding afaith that they themselves failed to understand and what more, those who followed the Reformers continue to form a theological basis with a faulty foundation. Eventually such faulty foundation crashes like a house of cards.

Martin Luther didn’t actually reject the Catholic Church like so many of the Reform followers. Plus, Martin Luther didn’t reject the Sacred Traditions of the Church either!

Did they reinvent the wheel?

Well, look at the teachings of the Apostles and then look at the teachings of the Early Church Fathers to know what the Church Jesus established. Compare the teachings with Sacred Scripture. I doubt God abandoned the early church.

 

[benhur]

The Reformers rather started with a misinformed thesis of their objections regarding afaith that they themselves failed to understand and what more, those who followed the Reformers continue to form a theological basis with a faulty foundation. Eventually such faulty foundation crashes like a house of cards.

Martin Luther didn’t actually reject the Catholic Church like so many of the Reform followers. Plus, Martin Luther didn’t reject the Sacred Traditions of the Church either!

So apparently his misinformed notions did not reject any Catholic notions, or was he not a “reformer” ?

Did they reinvent the wheel?

Well, look at the teachings of the Apostles and then look at the teachings of the *Early Church Fathers *to know what the Church Jesus established. Compare the teachings with Sacred Scripture. I doubt God abandoned the early church.

You are right that Luther was still very Catholic in some respects, but other reformers did even more looking at apostolic,early fathers and scriptural teachings.

Maybe they felt “their” reform was further evidence of His divine shepherding thru the ages.