A
ArchStanton
Guest
They were mentioned in response to ‘no Catholic Church’ [or not the same church]
- Status
M
mcq72
Guest
Well, yes. You dont want to be like the Pharisee who when giving alms thanked God for not being a sinner (batting 1000) like the poor person next to him ?
Claiming a batting average of 1000 is not good on this side, but only when we are in field of dreams.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Ok lol…care to go on record about same and be lockstep with CC .
It is speculation that the term Catholic was being used at the end of Johns long life. Close but speculation. Certainly not for other apostles.
Last edited:
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Sorry, I thought you counted the 4 heresies I mentioned and that I went 3-4
M
mcq72
Guest
I meant you struck out on one of the four heresies. Can you guess which one ?
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Here’s the thing though… the early church wrote about this Catholic church and if you look at the core, you will find unity, priests, deacons, bishops, the Eucharist, baptism, saints, etc.
A
ArchStanton
Guest
Well let’s see… [thinking out loud] --to reform is from within [so it can not be the 16th century]…hmmm that leaves – wait a second, the umpire has just looked at the replay and I was safe at first – 4-4 [H. Wagner]
F
fhansen
Guest
"Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you." James 4:8
God wants to exalt us- snow-covered dung-heaps need not bother knocking on heaven’s door.There’s no limit to holiness BTW. And this is a continuous process, a process we must be involved in. If you or I were to fulfill the greatest commandments, incidentally, we would achieve perfection in righteousness, and sin would be totally excluded. We weren’t designed for unrighteousness-that comes from parting company with God. Here we’re to learn to draw near, instead.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, that darn obligation thing. Maybe we prefer no burden to even a light one?
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, Sola Gratia and Solus Christus for sure. Throw in Solus Amor and we’d just about be there.
We decide which slavery to be involved with. And then we continue to decide and confirm and make our election sure as we walk in God’s ways and do His will-or not. Perseverance has a meaning-but only because of the very real possibility of not persevering.
Merit is not a bad word. We “merit” justification by faith, for one, confirmed by Baptism. That is to say, no faith, no justification. We can merit salvation by doing the work God has prepared for us to do. Both, the Church teaches, faith and works, are gifts of grace, free gifts. This is not the same as legalism or trying to earn ones way to heaven even as we must be aware that we must work, we must be vigilant, strive, persevere, with this new righteousness, the life of the Spirit, given us; this is to obey and carry out God’s will, as Jesus did. Obligation is simply not a bad thing, even if it places a relatively light burden upon us.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Yet faith is a gift, for the asking, which is also a gift.
F
fhansen
Guest
They were also told to hold to unwritten teachings/traditions. This can include those proper understandings of teachings that are otherwise often vague in Scripture or even seemingly contradictory-involving many beliefs and practices of the Church that have simply been understood a certain way since time immemorial. A person picking up the bible and reading it without any (name removed by moderator)ut from others sources and witnesses would very possibly just walk away quite confused. Even the deity of Jesus can be argued plausibly either way from Scripture. Anyway, the bible is far from a catechism-different purposes.
F
fhansen
Guest
Synergy:
"Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Be wretched and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom. Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you." James 4:8
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, the catch all verse from Paul ( to hold on to traditions (teachings) he gave. Of course he wrote that while oral gospel giving apostles were still active, and when they had put very little (up to half?) in writing yet.
My quote is from Catholic Barnabus, writing after the apostles ceased and all writings had been given. The “teachings/ tradition” was now in writing.
Again, not doing away with oral teachers, just that their norm was now in writing. They could not be “unbiblical” in their teaching.
Last edited:
J
Johan
Guest
One of my posts was flagged and removed—not because I have been abusive against anyone, but simply because I stated that the Catholic church is not the universal church founded by Christ. Tell you what, moderators: here I am, come and get me. Please suspend my account. I will never admit that the Catholic church is the universal church founded by Christ. Enjoy your censorship and your filter bubble. I have already had enough here.
F
fhansen
Guest
No, and the bible could never conflict with the teachings they received. But 1) many Sola Scriptura adherents frequently disagree on what Scripture teaches to begin with, and 2) Luke 1:14 is simply a reiteration in writing of Lukes particular understanding of the gospel-no way is it claiming to be exhaustive-or else the gospel of Luke should’ve been sufficient in itself. It’d be self-serving fantasy to extrapolate from there that the New Testament is meant to cover every last detail of the faith, even if at least some sort of material evidence within it points to all Christian beliefs and practices.
For example, going by Scripture alone SS adherents debate over baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, the role of man’s will, whether or not Christ is really present in the Eucharist, whether or not one can lose their salvation, whether or not faith necessarily spawns works and whether or not it must do so, whether the Sabbath must still be observed as the law spells out or whether the Lord’s Day can replace the seventh, whether Jesus died for all or only for the elect, whether or not humans are predestined to hell, even the deity of Jesus and the doctrine of the Trinity.
All of these except for perhaps the last were simply held to be understood and practiced a certain way since the beginning by all the ancient Churches; there never was controversy regarding them. And in the last instance the Church was necessary to decree against Arianism, based on Scripture and how she’s always understood the matter (Tradition). The Church was also critical in assembling the canon of Scripture which would never have made it into our little hands today without that effort. At the Council of Orange she defended grace against Pelagianism, etc, etc. There would be no Christian faith today if not for the faith having been preserved and passed down by the Church, in her Scripture and in her Tradition and by her people.
Last edited:
F
fhansen
Guest
Whoa-we agree her on something Johan! The flagging criteria on CAF can be really lame. I’ve been flagged a few times myself.
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
I hope you do not go…you have made it interesting here. Many thought provoking ideas. It is true that this is a Catholic forum but this particular one is titled Non-Catholic Religions so it is ironic that one cannot state their own beliefs and viewpoints without getting in trouble.ArchStanton:
One of my posts was flagged and removed—not because I have been abusive against anyone, but simply because I stated that the Catholic church is not the universal church founded by Christ. Tell you what, moderators: here I am, come and get me. Please suspend my account. I will never admit that the Catholic church is the universal church founded by Christ. Enjoy your censorship and your filter bubble. I have already had enough here.
M
mcq72
Guest
Yes, further writ was forthcoming after Luke. Later canon was closed.
Tradition/ teachings keep coming to this day. But Jesus warns not to negate ( or add?) Scriptural intent in doing so, as was done by Israel.
I feel it is self serving fantasy for a church to proclaim that further revelation is exclusive to her and perfectly and equally God breathed as the apostles writings in every jot and tittle of teaching on faith and morals.
Yes, the CC does have scripture as a norm equal to tradition. She does try to be “scriptural”. Yet this rule also is used, that if not found in scripture, it must then not go against scripture.
The latter to me is a sort of adding to scripture, as opposed to teaching that is used to further describe what is in bible.
It is adding only in sense of declaring what is to be believed, obeyed, as the Word of God, from God. ( though not in His written Word the bible). In essence the catechism is equally authoritative.
Yet Barnabus says keep, obey “what is written”, meaning our bible, and not extrabiblical writings, declarations, that may have started to already surface in his time.
So for me, teachings like the Assumption of Mary, which have zero historical basis in NT, should not be held as equally authoritative as say our Lord’s Resurrection.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Agree, except for the troublesome capital T.
Differences can no longer be discussed on their own merit, or strictly from apostolic biblical view, as Anthanasius once did for example. Now, at the end of the day, one is swatted with the mootness of any contrary position with the “T”.
Last edited:
- Status