'Sola Caritas' Trumps 'Sola fide'

[MagdalenaRita]

Same way Peter knew, professed Christ to be the Son of God. He heard and even saw the Word of God … with divine revelation.

So I agree with this and so does the Catholic church. We know what we know because of Divine Revelation. The question is, who is God giving Divine Revelation to. Where has God divinely revealed His truths.

Salvation and Truth is of the Jews,

Yes.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in us, even as Truth and Wisdom and Love. They are not a respector of persons.

Yes, this is true and I completely agree, God is not a respector of persons, though, He also does not lead us into different Truths. So, I would ask, why is what you believe the Gospels to mean right and true when the protestant pastor or protestant person down the road says its something else.
See this is the thing that brought me out of protestantism, too many different theologies. I was tossed around by every wind of doctrine and my head was swimming in confusion.

Just as they would not tell us things differently from themselves to us, or say different things , they would also not withold things from those who diligently ask and seek.

Absolutely true, which brings me back to there is only one truth and where would that be found? In our own individual thoughts when we read the Scriptures or did God leave us a visible place where He does reveal truth to us. I came to realize that He did and He absolutely had to because He is not the author of confusion.

God bless.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Jesus and the apostles were thought to be Korahs, rebels ,even of Satan, untraditional, throwing it all aside, ( tradition, early fathers, magisterium, writ).

No, not quite. Jesus and the apostles did not throw all of tradition aside. Jesus followed the Jewish laws. He was circumcised in the temple, He went to the Passover with His family, He went to the other Jewish festivals, He became angry when the temple was not being used as it was meant. No He did not throw off all of tradition and definitely not throw off the early fathers or magisterium because He had not given them to us yet. He said He came to fulfill the law, not throw it aside.

Are we Korahs, obstinate rebels rightly to be deposed as such, or are we prophets of God, messengers like Elihu, thru whom God speaks into a season, rightly to be listened to and not obstinately and wrongly deposed as rebels.

Probelem is, if you are prophets, why are your prophecies not all the same? Whose prophecy do we listen to? Whose do we choose?

I would say the one that has been protected and lasted since Christ.

And if I remember right, those Korahs didn’t have too happy of an ending and neither did any false prophets.

I am just saying be cautious thinking that you are prophets.

 

[fhansen]

So beware, both sides can be obstinate. Are we Korahs, obstinate rebels rightly to be deposed as such, or are we prophets of God, messengers like Elihu, thru whom God speaks into a season, rightly to be listened to and not obstinately and wrongly deposed as rebels.

Or, rebels may always like to fashion themselves to be the free-thinking mavericks, bearers of truth. But that’s not necessarily the case, is it? In my estimation the Reformers threw the baby out with the bath water- missing or distorting the truth in the process. Otherwise, while the Church teaches that introspection and renewal is always called for, how many times do we need to overthrow and correct the old, as Jesus did? Calcification is one thing, along with the human tendency to fall into legalism or a mechanical practice of faith, but to say the Church teachings were wrong was just plain…wrong. And Reformers were/are not necessarily in agreement with their own teachings to begin with, and their offspring even less so now.

I think so. The kind of faith that is implied by " faith alone". That is, a totally different faith/ belief that devil’s have.

And yet some on this very thread seem to object: Faith alone must be alone.

 

[mcq72]

No, not quite. Jesus and the apostles did not throw all of tradition aside.

agree and never said otherwise, but tell that to His contemporaries:

Jesus and the apostles were thought to be Korahs, rebels ,even of Satan, untraditional,

 

[MagdalenaRita]

but tell that to His contemporaries:

Jesus and the apostles were thought to be Korahs, rebels ,even of Satan, untraditional,

So, if you are referring to the pharisees and other Jewish leaders who were very bothered by Christ and things He said, and we know that Jesus actually did not rebel against Jewish law but actually followed the law and fulfilled the law, wouldn’t it be wise not to be what the pharisees thought Jesus was?

Wouldn’t it be wise not to throw off tradition but rather to follow the Tradition Christ handed down to us? Wouldn’t it be wise to obey the laws Christ gave us and then when we fail, as we will, repent and confess?

Also, Christ did not rebel against Satan. To rebel is to go against an authority. Satan never had authority over Christ.

 

[mcq72]

Probelem is, if you are prophets, why are your prophecies not all the same? Whose prophecy do we listen to? Whose do we choose?

were they all the same for Israel ? That is the point, one must rightly discern, as always, ever since there have been more than one “opinion”. at the garden. Each word on its own merit. The Sadducees were not all wrong, nor the Pharisees ect.

And by the way , where they are all the same you still disregard ( the papal office is just one that come to mind.

those Korahs didn’t have too happy of an ending and neither did any false prophets.

and you miss my point, so did many of the righteous prophets, per the word of the Lord reminding the obstinate.

I am just saying be cautious thinking that you are prophets.

lol, of course, and be cautious in counting us out…are you (me), doing that in fear and trembling…the perceived rebel always has much more to lose, and therefore would seem to have thought more deeply.

 

[mcq72]

Absolutely true, which brings me back to there is only one truth and where would that be found?

The Lord asks the same question, and we are to be presumptuous, and that infallibly ?

See this is the thing that brought me out of protestantism, too many different theologies. I was tossed around by every wind of doctrine and my head was swimming in confusion.

Straw man partly, yes a shame on division. yet why were you divisive ? Why did you hop around and not stick to your spiritual birthplace ? Why did you go looking at another( within and without Protestantism) ? I have not gone from baptist to Lutheran to Presbyterian , all confused and non trusting. And if i have , it has not been catastrophic, just as a Catholic liking one Parish anointing and leading over another , or for certain things. I mean there are for example of just one denomination, Assembly of God churches all around the world , with onesss in teaching and practice.

We are all the same on this. I would hope you are Catholic because she is primarily correct in doctrine and practice, and secondarily because of “oneness”, even an easy peasy, nice and tidy walk. I mean many have left such tidiness and comfort because conviction on doctrine was more important. But yes, we all seek oneness and truth , just as we await His coming to make all things perfect , on heaven and earth, fully.

Absolutely true, which brings me back to there is only one truth and where would that be found? In our own individual thoughts when we read the Scriptures or did God leave us a visible place where He does reveal truth to us

Are we really asking is He there , or is He here, like lost sheep? Otherwise, yes and yes to your questions, individually and corporately, not either or , or first here , then there.

Did Peter rest on his contemporary magisterium/leaders or on divine revelation ?

All i know I can not be separated from divine revelation, which must be in unity with the church. The church is made up of individuals who have had much the same revelation. Individuals then make up any offices for our benefit.

I do not believe that I am over here and the church over there. I do not believe I must seek truth over there any more than right here. We all have the head Shepherd in us, and not any more over there.

 

[ArchStanton]

Are you partaking of the banquet or the buffet?

 

[mcq72]

r , rebels may always like to fashion themselves to be the free-thinking mavericks, bearers of truth. But that’s not necessarily the case, is it?

Correct. i made no such case. Korah was wrong , just as Ananias and Saphira were wrong and rightly judged.

In my estimation the Reformers threw the baby out with the bath water- missing or distorting the truth in the process… to say the Church teachings were wrong was just plain… wrong .

Partly agree, happens when both are obstinate…I mean you threw out all reformers points of contention, and still do today, defending perfection in your church on doctrine etc.

Reformers were/are not necessarily in agreement with their own teachings to begin with, and their offspring even less so now.

So sadly true. Yet even where they are in agreement , it is for nought on Catholic ears.

And yet some on this very thread seem to object: Faith alone must be alone.

on works yes.But I was actually thinking of johan saying something similar to you , that faith is not same as devils , that it is transformative i believe he said,wish i had exact words from his post .

it is detractors who try to define faith alone by definig faith as exactly that of devils

 

[mcq72]

Are you partaking of the banquet or the buffet?

the banquet. i only buffet my flesh lol

 

[fhansen]

But yes,a Christian walk cant go wrong being and acting in His love shed abroad in our hearts…and thank you, that is simply put.

Hmm, can’t go wrong. Love is a side benefit I guess, sort of a nicety instead of the heart and soul of our faith. Ok …forgive me…but, that’s just not quite what Christianity is about- misses the mark as it were. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all in all-and what everything is all about-but God happens to want us to be something too, something like Him. He wants us to choose love; to choose Him first above all else and to conform to that image with His help. There is nothing wrong and everything right with His demanding obedience from Adam, and realizing that obedience finally as His creation comes to fulfill all obedience, whether that first command to Adam or the law given to Moses or the greatest commandments given by Christ, via love, a love that only He can mold into us while also recognizing that such love is possible only to the extent that we willingly embrace it.

Again, otherwise human history and God’s patient dealing with man for centuries makes no sense at all; He may as well have just placed us in heaven to begin with if that’s the only place that this authentic justice/righteousness aka love can be achieved. And that’s the point; we’re to begin here; with the help of grace we’re to do the work of shunning evil and choosing good now. And we’ll be judged on how well we’ve done. God doesn’t necessarily expect absolute perfection now, even if He created us with such an end in mind, but like the servants in the Parable of the Talents He’s expecting us to invest what’s given and to return something. Anyway, this demand, this obligation to love, is good. I know, why would God obligate me to anything?? Then again, why would God send others to hell? By His whim, or by their choices/actions?

 

[ArchStanton]

So you are in line with the early Christian beliefs?

 

[mcq72]

So, if you are referring to the pharisees and other Jewish leaders who were very bothered by Christ and things He said,

yes, what else would I be referring to, and lol, they were more than bothered…they thought they were righteously indignant…they put Him on cross for it

and we know that Jesus actually did not rebel against Jewish law but actually followed the law and fulfilled the law,

Correct.

wouldn’t it be wise not to be what the pharisees thought Jesus was?

Correct

Wouldn’t it be wise not to throw off tradition but rather to follow the Tradition Christ handed down to us? Wouldn’t it be wise to obey the laws Christ gave us and then when we fail, as we will, repent and confess?

Absolutely

Also, Christ did not rebel against Satan. To rebel is to go against an authority. Satan never had authority over Christ.

Correct. Never said otherwise. Only wrote, meant , His detractors said He was “of Satan”, in league with and empowered by.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

and we are to be presumptuous, and that infallibly

W don’t presume and if you are referring to the infallibility of the Pope that is only in certain situations, when he is speaking from the chair of Peter and setting down doctrine.

why were you divisive ? Why did you hop around and not stick to your spiritual birthplace ?

That is a good question and I have a similar story as you will hear from others. I was raised Catholic, kind of walked away from God in college, as happens in college and when returning to my faith, I listened to those outside of the Church along with those inside the Church. A little too much ecumenism. So I got very confused.
See I found out that those protestants that are born and raised in a particular denomination are pretty much going to stay there and assume that is what all protestants believe. They do not realize how much division there is out there. And when a new Christian or a poorly catechized Catholic enters into the protestant world, where do they go? Who do they believe? Most poorly catechised Catholics who leave the Church end up in non-denominational communities because they do not know where else to go. It is too confusing. It is like a forest. So it wasn’t I who was divisive. I just entered into the world of divisiveness.

I would hope you are Catholic because she is primarily correct in doctrine

Yes, that is absolutely why I am not Catholic. I may not understand everything or understand why God did and does things the way He does but I believe it is truth.

Did Peter rest on his contemporary magisterium/leaders or on divine revelation ?

There wasn’t a magisterium at the time. He was given that Divine Revelation because of who he was, the rock Christ would build His Church on and continue giving that Divine Revelation.

I do not believe I must seek truth over there any more than right here.

Where we seek Truth is very important. A little bit of deception can harm a whole lot of truth.

 

[mcq72]

So you are in line with the early Christian beliefs?

yes and no. Which beliefs and practices ? What is early , the book of Acts or 150 AD or 450 AD etc. ?

But apostolic yes… or as Barnabas says:

“Those of us knowledgeable of the Lord’s precepts keep them , as many as are written”

 

[ArchStanton]

Which beliefs and practices ?

That shows a bit of buffet [instead of banquet]

 

[fhansen]

Partly agree, happens when both are obstinate…I mean you threw out all reformers points of contention, and still do today, defending perfection in your church on doctrine etc.

Um, so how does one object to the church’s doctrine unless they believe their own doctrine to be perfect instead?

So sadly true. Yet even where they are in agreement , it is for nought on Catholic ears.

But the source of their disagreement is the issue. That source, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which they agree on), is the same source of the disagreement on matters of the faith.

 

[mcq72]

That shows a bit of buffet [instead of banquet]

ohhh, I am thick…did not understand your original question…did you even get my joke, I only buffet the flesh , as per Paul doing so also, to, “a blow especially with the hand”, as opposed to eating/serving style…but honestly as to seeing which beliefs and practices we follow today, the comparison is just that, and why we do or don’t do exactly as early church, that is something else. For example, using honey and milk in baptism ritual I don’t think any do today , as some did back then. Hey but we use eggs at Easter! Nor do we sell all and hold all in common with church, but we have Bingo and bazaars!

 

[Johan]

Faith implies more than trust or reliance here; it to means to act, to follow, to live as if one believes, having come to know the true and living God.

Umm, no. “Faith” means precisely what it means: faith. To believe and to trust. Nothing more or less. It does not strengthen your argument to redefine words.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’

This oft-quoted passage tells us what will happen to the false prophets (Matt. 7:15), who will claim to have prophesied, driven out demons, and performed miracles in the name of Christ (v. 22). A sola fide-ist would of course not try to “defend” him-/herself by pointing at his/her works.

(Faith, for one thing, is intended to produce this true righteousness, not to replace or act as the equivalent of it.)

Says the Bible nowhere. On the contrary, Paul speaks of the righteousness that comes through faith as “not His own” (Phil 3:9). In fact, Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30), and He has already perfected us by His blood (Heb. 10:14).

Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God."

It appears to me that you do not like such “personal” questions, but do you consider yourself a child of God?

 

[ArchStanton]

What are your biggest obstacles concerning the Catholic Church? [authority?, baptism?, Eucharist?, etc]