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

[benhur]

God himself is not bound by his sacraments.
That being said, there is a normative way that is instituted.

I understand the CC makes allowance for the obvious (that He is not bound by sacraments) yet tries to hold onto the sacraments as the instituted norm.

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.

I would say the same of “rites” beliefs.

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.

Well the way is known and I think the CC and others attempt the explanation.

I can’t tell you how your sins are forgiven Ben, that’s not my job.

Well thank you Clem but you know some say how they are not forgiven, or thru whom they are not.

I would just observe that you probably know more about the Catholic Church than most Catholics, for what it’s worth.

Again, thank you and I can read in between the lines (of Lumen Gentia /brothers in other churches and the woes of rejecting CC with or in accountable knowledge)

I

 

[SjMelnychuk]

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

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.

Martin Luther is not the Reformer that most Reformers would admit. However, such reformation brought the heretical teach of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. I think if Martin Luther could have seen what resulted with stamping the thesis on the church doors, I think Martin Luther would have done things differently.

He didn’t reject the veneration of Mary and the Saints.
He didn’t reject the Sacramental life of the Catholic.

Yet most every reformist do.

Martin Luther also didn’t reject the Catholic Church yet most reformists do.

It was however, Martin Luther who tried unsuccessfully to remove James and Revelations from the bible including other books in the bible. It was Martin Luther who added we’re saved by faith ALONE. However most Protestants fail to actually take a good look at James 2:24 that says we are justified by works NOT faith alone and it is the Protestants that have added and subtracted to the gospels and after just a few hundred years there’s such wide and heated debate on what the bible actually teaches one wonders how people can honestly say bible alone is good enough and trust in their own interpretation of scripture and quite honestly just assume their discernment is accurate and that they are superior when it comes to hearing God’s voice.

And honestly, the bottom line is… I have faith in an all powerful all knowing God who is present with us today and present in history who is present outside of time as we know it, I have faith in this God who in Jesus established His Church. I also have faith that this all powerful and all knowing God would also see fit to preserve the Church He established from error.

See, this has been said multiple times and yet you either ignore it or you haven’t actually been reading the comments of other people. So which is it? Are you blind? Can you read? Or have you been willfully skipping over the comments you actually don’t have an answer for? Because in a way, you’ve made up your own tradition and whether you see it or not you hold up your own tradition as more inspired than the tradition that Jesus and the Apostles established.

Furthermore, Catholic do not rely on Tradition Alone and we don’t rely on the Bible alone. We have a THREE FOLD way of preserving truth.

1. Sacred Scripture
2. Sacred Tradition
3. Apostolic Authority/ Magesterium.

Together in harmony as Catholics we look to all three to guide us to knowing truth. We are a body, we are in communion with one another. We don’t rely on our own understanding.

A Protestant will always have to defend their own authority because essentially a Protestant is by nature is placing themselves in that place of authority, even if they say otherwise, when it comes to reading the bible they can’t really answer the question, “by what authority or whose authority do they stand upon for the interpretation of the bible,” if their answer is God they’ve just become their own Pope.

 

[benhur]

A Protestant will always have to defend their own authority because essentially a Protestant is by nature is placing themselves in that place of authority, even if they say otherwise, when it comes to reading the bible they can’t really answer the question, “by what authority or whose authority do they stand upon for the interpretation of the bible,” if their answer is God they’ve just become their own Pope.

Again, quite “either/or”. So if you have free will and personal convictions even illumination you must be your own pope ? Interesting. Luther may have said it tongue in cheek(we are our own popes) ?

 

[benhur]

It was however, Martin Luther who tried unsuccessfully to remove James and Revelations from the bible including other books in the bible

.What, his right side of the brain that put it in won out over his left side that didn’t want to ?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Again, quite “either/or”. So if you have free will and personal convictions even illumination you must be your own pope ? Interesting. Luther may have said it tongue in cheek(we are our own popes) ?

Well, if the bible is all we need then we become our own authority on what the bible actually says and well, with 30,000 + denominations that can’t agree on doctrine…clearly to me that speaks to the fact that we need something more than just the bible…like a living authoritative voice if you will, a living organism to preserve truth… ie the church = pillar and foundation of truth

The Protestant dilemma … Protestants become their own Pope when they say their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right therefore people who disagree with them must either be reading the bible wrong and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit. And well since you can never be wrong that means people who disagree with you don’tknow the bible and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit … So which is it? Are you your own Pope or can you at least admit that you could be wrong and don’t have an infallible knowledge of Sacred Scripture?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

.What, his right side of the brain that put it in won out over his left side that didn’t want to ?

Have you not heard that Martin Luther wanted to cut James and Revelations from the bible? Ya, because these books debunk faith alone teaching and with a closer look affirms Catholic teaching.

Martin Luther had ideas and disagreements with what the Catholic Church taught but his motive wasn’t to form a new church. He believed in most things you reject including Mary as Queen of Heaven and the Sacramental life of a Catholic. He was more Catholic than what most Reformists care to admit and the fact that Martin Luther tried unsuccessfully to cut James and Revelation beggs the question as to who has the authority to decide what letters and writing are inspired and what isn’t, who ultimately has the authority to say what is and what isn’t included in the bible. If the bible is all we need then there’s somebody who decides…question is, you follow the Protestant Canonized Sacred Scripture and reject what was Canonized in the 3rd/4th century. Question is, by whose authority? What gave the Reformists the authority to cut books of the bible out? I mean, no Protestant ever seriously answers or even asks that question. If the bible is as important as Protestants claim it’s very important to ask why the original canonized Sacred Scripture was basically rejected.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, if the bible is all we need then we become our own authority on what the bible actually says and well, with 30,000 + denominations that can’t agree on doctrine…clearly to me that speaks to the fact that we need something more than just the bible…like a living authoritative voice if you will, a living organism to preserve truth… ie the church = pillar and foundation of truth

The Protestant dilemma … Protestants become their own Pope when they say their interpretation of Sacred Scripture is right therefore people who disagree with them must either be reading the bible wrong and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit. And well since you can never be wrong that means people who disagree with you don’tknow the bible and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit … So which is it? Are you your own Pope or can you at least admit that you could be wrong and don’t have an infallible knowledge of Sacred Scripture?

 

[benhur]

Have you not heard that Martin Luther wanted to cut James and Revelations from the bible? Ya, because these books debunk faith alone teaching and with a closer look affirms Catholic teaching.

 

[benhur]

Well, if the bible is all we need then we become our own authority on what the bible actually says and well, with 30,000 + denominations that can’t agree on doctrine…

Yes, it is sad that there are 30,000 views on Christology, and baptism, and regeneration, and ecuharisting, of heaven and hell, of Writ contents etc…? .

clearly to me that speaks to the fact that we need something more than just the bible…like a living authoritative voice if you will, a living organism to preserve truth… ie the church = pillar and foundation of truth

Yes, we have that, 30,000 and two of them (Orthodox and Catholic).

therefore people who disagree with them must either be reading the bible wrong and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit. And well since you can never be wrong that means people who disagree with you don’tknow the bible and/or don’t have the Holy Spirit

This is also very Catholic …

Are you your own Pope or can you at least admit that you could be wrong and don’t have an infallible knowledge of Sacred Scripture?

Why, nobody says this, of having infallible knowledge of Writ, not even CC (though she is the leader in saying she is infallible on faith and morals).

 

[joe371]

Yes, it is sad that there are 30,000 views on Christology, and baptism, and regeneration, and ecuharisting, of heaven and hell, of Writ contents etc…? .Yes, we have that, 30,000 and two of them (Orthodox and Catholic).
This is also very Catholic … Why, nobody says this, of having infallible knowledge of Writ, not even CC (though she is the leader in saying she is infallible on faith and morals).

Everyone agrees that Jesus Christ established one church because he said: “I will build my church” not - I will build my churches. Benhur, shouldn’t we all want to belong to the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem on Pentecost - once we have determined where that one church is, in the world today? Or should we just be content with churches we know were founded by mere sinful men and woman?

 

[joe371]

Why, nobody says this, of having infallible knowledge of Writ, not even CC (though she is the leader in saying she is infallible on faith and morals).

The Catholic Church leaders, beginning with the apostles, are all fallible people. You and I, a long time, agreed on this point. If God can infallibly guide the fallible apostles, then surely God can do the same for their successors such as Luke and Mark - right?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Yes, it is sad that there are 30,000 views on Christology, and baptism, and regeneration, and ecuharisting, of heaven and hell, of Writ contents etc…? .Yes, we have that, 30,000 and two of them (Orthodox and Catholic).
This is also very Catholic … Why, nobody says this, of having infallible knowledge of Writ, not even CC (though she is the leader in saying she is infallible on faith and morals).

And here’s the point that has been made previously in this thread. If you believe the bible is the sole rule of faith then you must believe the Apostles were wrote the letters wrote the letters infallibly. So if God used the Apostles infallibly in the word of God why is it so hard to believe with God being omnipotent (all powerful) could use continue to to use people infallibly to preserve the Church He established. You see, God used the Apostles to write letters, letters even Protestants will say are infallible. I got news for you, in case you didn’t read previous threads, the infallible word of God was written by fallible people infallibly! If God can use fallible people to write the infallible word of God then God can use fallible people infallibly. That means, that Catholics are not wrong to believe that God can establish Apostolic Authority using fallible people infallibly is Magisterium and Papal Authority. Is God not the same yesterday, today, and forever? You have to admit that if God was all powerful enough to use enable the Apostles to speak infallibly then He can still choose to preserve His Church the same way! I mean, to say He can’t goes against God’s nature and would call into question the infallibility of God’s word making accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture a moot point, ah another Protestant dilemma we face… We cannot say he can use people to speak infallibly 2000 years ago to the Church and then say but today He can’t. Either he can or he can’t. God is outside of time therefore He can and eternally able to do so as He chooses. So Catholics are not wrong to believe God can use fallible people infallibly.

 

[joe371]

And here’s the point that has been made previously in this thread. If you believe the bible is the sole rule of faith then you must believe the Apostles were wrote the letters wrote the letters infallibly. So if God used the Apostles infallibly in the word of God why is it so hard to believe with God being omnipotent (all powerful) could use continue to to use people infallibly to preserve the Church He established. You see, God used the Apostles to write letters, letters even Protestants will say are infallible. I got news for you, in case you didn’t read previous threads, the infallible word of God was written by fallible people infallibly! If God can use fallible people to write the infallible word of God then God can use fallible people infallibly. That means, that Catholics are not wrong to believe that God can establish Apostolic Authority using fallible people infallibly is Magisterium and Papal Authority. Is God not the same yesterday, today, and forever? You have to admit that if God was all powerful enough to use enable the Apostles to speak infallibly then He can still choose to preserve His Church the same way! I mean, to say He can’t goes against God’s nature and would call into question the infallibility of God’s word making accurate interpretation of Sacred Scripture a moot point, ah another Protestant dilemma we face… We cannot say he can use people to speak infallibly 2000 years ago to the Church and then say but today He can’t. Either he can or he can’t. God is outside of time therefore He can and eternally able to do so as He chooses. So Catholics are not wrong to believe God can use fallible people infallibly.

Makes perfect sense to me. Jesus told His fledgling Catholic Church leaders that He would guide them into all truth until the end of time, as per scripture. Sadly, many nonCs believe that Jesus abandoned His Church, doctrinally speaking…

 

[benhur]

Everyone agrees that Jesus Christ established one church because he said: “I will build my church” not - I will build my churches. Benhur, shouldn’t we all want to belong to the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem on Pentecost - once we have determined where that one church is, in the world today? Or should we just be content with churches we know were founded by mere sinful men and woman?

Well, the early church after Christ followed Peter and Paul , who called themselves mere men and sinners.

 

[benhur]

The Catholic Church leaders, beginning with the apostles, are all fallible people. You and I, a long time, agreed on this point. If God can infallibly guide the fallible apostles, then surely God can do the same for their successors such as Luke and Mark - right?

Good memory. Absolutely. Now where do the wolves come in that were foretold ? How can one tell if we (and I do mean all churches /individuals) have not done what OT Israel did with some of her prophets who railed against status quo wolves ?

 

[benhur]

And here’s the point that has been made previously in this thread. If you believe the bible is the sole rule of faith

Again sole as in superlative final norm , not as only authority.

So if God used the Apostles infallibly in the word of God why is it so hard to believe with God being omnipotent (all powerful) could use continue to to use people infallibly to preserve the Church He established.

Totally agree and have stated we are infallible when we speak infallible truths. When you tell me Jesus loves me and died for me, that is Truth even perfect truth.

I got news for you, in case you didn’t read previous threads, the infallible word of God was written by fallible people infallibly! If God can use fallible people to write the infallible word of God then God can use fallible people infallibly. That means, that Catholics are not wrong to believe that God can establish Apostolic Authority using fallible people infallibly is Magisterium and Papal Authority.

Totally agreed except for your institutionalizing and then guaranteeing, presuming God’s unconditional, infallible graces upon it and only it (CC), and always on faith/morals/doctrine.

The pope and your magisterium can and has indeed spoken many times quite infallibly.(to which I, we are fully indebted to). So have other patriarchs and and teachers though not in full communion with Rome.(also I am indebted to).

God not the same yesterday, today, and forever? You have to admit that if God was all powerful enough to use enable the Apostles to speak infallibly then He can still choose to preserve His Church the same way!

Amen brother. Just as God could use 12 scheming, carnal brothers to make a Jewish nation (light to the world), and Saduccees and Pharisees and kings and judges to guide and teach her, I suppose he can use Catholics and Orthodox and Protestants in that same quest, His quest. What a powerful testimony, that despite our differences God can graciously work love in our hearts and be one before the fallen world. He can work both ways.

As for me, sure it is easier to work with those I am prone to feel unified with (protestants), but that is me, and God is bigger, is He not? Shouldn’t I be bigger ? After all as you posted, "God is outside of time therefore He can and eternally able to do so as He chooses"

Blessings

 

[mlz]

I am noticing that my dear Protestant brother must view the “Church” as a novisable church as in not having structure or authority , in other words not an institutional church … Very, very typical of a Protestant view. But… Was that Christ’s intention- a fragmented, loosy connected but ununified Christian Church and witness to the world??? Christ desired His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is referred to in the early creeds of the Curch!
Praise be to God!
mlz

 

[joe371]

Well, the early church after Christ followed Peter and Paul , who called themselves mere men and sinners.

I was merely contrasting the founder of Jesus’ church (which is Jesus, the God-Man) with the founders of man-made churches (all of whom are sinners). Everyone agrees that Jesus Christ established one church because he said: “I will build my church” not - I will build my churches. Benhur, shouldn’t we all want to locate and belong to the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem on Pentecost to which the apostles, Peter and Paul belonged, once we have determined where that one church is, in the world today? Or should we just be content with churches we know were founded by mere sinful men and woman?

 

[joe371]

I am noticing that my dear Protestant brother must view the “Church” as a novisable church as in not having structure or authority , in other words not an institutional church … Very, very typical of a Protestant view. But… Was that Christ’s intention- a fragmented, loosy connected but ununified Christian Church and witness to the world??? Christ desired His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that is referred to in the early creeds of the Curch!
Praise be to God!
mlz

And yet every Protestant Church is highly visible with certain structure and authority - instituted by someone other than Jesus. Strange…

 

[joe371]

Good memory. Absolutely. Now where do the wolves come in that were foretold ? How can one tell if we (and I do mean all churches /individuals) have not done what OT Israel did with some of her prophets who railed against status quo wolves ?

So, we agree that God can infallibly guide the fallible successors such as Luke and Mark - right? OK, cool. Why couldn’t God continue to do the same for the successors of Luke and Mark? After all Jesus promised to send the HS to guide the Church leaders (beginning with the apostles) into all truth. Prior to that in John 14:16, Jesus promised to be with them forever. Even if he did not it makes no sense to promise the preservation of doctrinal truth, but only until the last apostle dies.

Foretold: "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.’

Because I said so. LOL… Seriously though - because, unlike OT Israel, Jesus promised to guide His one church into all truth, forever.