Sola scriptura advocates: Acts 15, & doctrinal guidance?

[guanophore]

There is evidence that many in the early church advocated as SS approach. I’m buying “its not historical” argument for one second. When I make a statement, its up to me to prove it.

No, there really is not any evidence in the early church for SS. Any excerpts that have been taken to support that errant doctrine are taken out of context. All of the early fathers were Catholic, so they did not espouse SS.

Neither of us accept the ancient faith, or we would be Orthodox

I assure you I have been Byzantinianized.

I am an Orthodox in communion with the successor of Peter.

I’m not sure what to make of your answer. I agree that you receive them, and your receive them with docility as your church commands. The more I think about the “issues” here, the real issue is whether one accepts the claims of the Roman Church.

You are right about receiving with meekness the implanted Word from the Apostles that is able to save our souls. The Catholic Church is not “Roman”, though. And even Orthodox who are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome still hold to the same Sacred Traditions as they were handed down to them by their Apostles.

Either you accept them or you don’t. Everything else flows from that. If you believe the church was founded on Peter, and that he was the first Pope, and the Pope and the Magisterium are infallible, then you will accept their teachings, even if they don’t sit right with you.

This is true. We are taught to pray through our doubts and misgivings. Just as Peter said “to whom shall we go?, you have the Words of eternal life!” They didn’t understand it either, but they trusted Him enough to stick with HIm.

Thomas was in disbelief, and prayed that the Lord “Help my unbelief”!

It is faith, seeking understanding. We accept the Teachings because we have confidence in their Source.

That may be, but the point remains, Christ teaching from tradition does not prove that those traditions are true or that he valued and authorized tradition.

How do you figure not? Why would he base His teachings on falsehoods? Honestly…

I was provided with actually one-this one about Moses’ seat, where Christ directly taught from tradition. One reference. He taught from scripture over 100 times. That hardly shows equality between the two in his eyes. When we look at the big picture, he definately follows a Prima Scriptura mindset, if not SS.

Sacred Tradition is not about numbers, it is about perspective. Every scripture used by Christ and the Apostles was framed according to HIs PERSPECTIVE. You can’t really count numericaly a point of view. When the Reformers jettisoned the Apostolic point of view, they began to substitute it with their own. They thought they were getting it “direct from scripture” but it was coming through their own lenses.

The Marian doctrines are a good example. Don’t you think the Apostles would know if the mother of Jesus had other children? So, since they taught she did not , we understand the scriptural references in the light of this truth we have received.

Until it is proven, it is self assumed.

Do you honestly believe the Apostles “self assumed” their authority?

Since you reject the proof for the authority of the church that exists in the Scriptures, I don’t think there is any other witness that you would accept.

This clearly shows that one standard of proof is held for Roman claims, and another for SS. I do see the Catholic line of reasoning however and will admit its not unsound.

The claims are not “Roman”, Johnny. They are the doctrines of the faith passed down from the Apostles. They have been received by 22 other Catholic Rites that are not “Roman” (Latin) and the Orthodox, Egyptians, Assyrian and Orientals that are not in communion with “Rome” but still hold these tenents of the faith.

No, just that what was taught orally was written down in order to preserve it for us. If it was written down it certainlty wouldn’t disappear!

I would have, if the HS had not preserved it. That which was not written down was preserved the same way - by divine intervention.

So it is not a body of teachings given orally apart from scripture? That seems to be what most Catholics told me Tradition is.

No, Sacred Tradition cannot be “apart” from scripture, and the body of teachings are supported by both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. They are two strands of one cord.

I would venture to guess that most Catholics cannot properly define a majority of the faith into which they were baptized. I know that I could not before I undertook in depth study.

So traditions are oral teachings then? I thought Tradition was just how we understand the scriptures? Which is it?

Both. But there are are not any Sacred Traditions that have not been written by this time.

Its a rhetorical question. If you can’t show it though, fine with me.

If you will not accept the testimony of the Holy Scriptures with regard to the authority of the Church, then it is unlikely that you will accept any other.

 

[elvisman]

I don’t think that praying for the dead is the issue here. In the Maccabees text, the soldiers in question had committed a mortal sin, correct? If so, this cannot be proof for the doctrine of purgatory as I understand it. If one does in Mortal sin, they are damned, correct? If they committed only a venial sin, it would be rock solid proof for the doctrine.

**The Catholic Church teaches that we leave ALL to the mercy of God upon death. The Church does not presume to know whether or not ANY person has gone to hell. If my brother murdered somebody and was shot by the police - I would pray to God for mercy on his soul. I don’t know what may have happened in the seconds before his death and I would not presume that he went to hell because it is not for me to condemn anybody’s soul.

THIS is why the warriors were prayed for in Maccabees. It is a good and noble thing to pray for the dead.

Orthodox Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Anglicans all pray for the dead in their liturgies (granted for different reasons). When it comes to Matthew 12:32, the issue is what Christ meant “the age to come” which has a hugely eschatological tone. You are welcome to correct my misunderstanding here, but as far as I am aware, a soul that enters purgatory for the forgiveness of their sins does so upon death, prior to entrance into heaven, or will this occur after the return of Christ? The Catholic church does not buy into some form of soul sleep do they?

**A soul enters Purgatory - or a state of Purgation - to be purged of their sin. Rev. 21:27 emphatically states that nothing unclean can enter heaven - not even Luther’s “snow-covered dunghills”. We cannot fool God and that is not the purpose of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. We must be made pure and righteous before entering heaven. **
As C. S. Lewis once said, "God’s grace demands Purgatory."

No, the Church does not believe in soul-sleep.

There are three possible meanings for the rock in this passage. 1) Peter 2) Christ 3) Peter’s confession of faith. Peter as the rock presents the strongest case for the Catholic claim, but does not prove the claim itself. As one Catholic pointed out on this forum, there are Protestant scholars that believe that Peter was the rock and have said so in their works. If that proved the Catholic claim to them, then why are they still Protestant That seems odd to me.

None the less, I am attempting to harmonize Matthew 16:16-19 with other passages in the New Testament, which describe Christ as the rock, Christ as the chief cornerstone. Outside of this passage, say in a Pauline or other New Testament Letter, where is Peter referred to as the rock. Eph 2:20 says Christ is the chief cornerstone. Acts 4:11 says Christ is the stone the builders rejected.

Its not that I don’t see a Petrine primacy. My view tends to be that he is a first among equals. Christ said he would build his church on Peter-to single him out so to speak, but the scriptures tell us that the Church is built on all the Apostles and Prophets, not just Peter. That points to the fact that Peter is the first among equals for me.

I am aware of the texts which call Christ the rock and cornerstone. I am also aware of the verse I furnished before that referred to Abraham as the Rock. I am aslo aware that Jesus called Peter the Rock. Karl Keating gives a great explanation of why the downplaying of this honor simply doesn’t make sense:
***Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. ***

 

[PbloPicasso]

As requested, I will address post #99
I don’t think that praying for the dead is the issue here. In the Maccabees text, the soldiers in question had committed a mortal sin, correct? If so, this cannot be proof for the doctrine of purgatory as I understand it. If one does in Mortal sin, they are damned, correct? If they committed only a venial sin, it would be rock solid proof for the doctrine.
…

A few thoughts.
Matt 16:16-19 Peter the rock … I’d like to point out that Jesus says “I will give you the keys”. This hadn’t taken place yet. So Jesus, as always, is the rock. But he appoints Peter to take care of that rock, the Church and gives him authority along with the disciples. They knew what he meant, they passed it on. Now read Isaiah 22:20-25. Read this chapter, but pay attention to the near identical choice of words that the Lord, Jesus, uses in Matt 16. I don’t believe you can get much clearer than this. This is partly why the Protestants concede to the meaning of Peter the Rock.

There is no doubt that this very same concept is practiced on some level in all Churches and ecclesial communities. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and there is not doubt about it. However, it is logical to see that if someone separates themselves from the Church authority and waits 500 years they stil never had the authority to continue separated from the Church. But, She, the Church, reaches out to all of our brethren in the Lord, hoping to be reunited in Christ. This celebration is coming up in a couple of weeks in celebration of the conversion of Paul. This is one of the main points made to me that convinced me the logic of the office of Peter, the Rock, the Pope, the spiritual father of the Church to whom we turn.

John 20: 21-23 notice Jesus “sends” the as the Father sends him [Jesus. He also gives them the power to forgive sins. He breaths on them, which is a sign of the Holy Spirit. Notice during the mass that the priest breaths on the elements as he consecrates them.

**Matt 23 Notice that in verse 2, Jesus refers to the “seat of Moses” and the scribes and pharasees occupying it… Papacy… So with this concept go back to the previous links I provided. Go to the different translations, Greek and Hebrew. It’s there and it actually makes sense.

Macabees is pre-Church. purgatory is a term made up to describe the state of man after they die if they are in the state of grace but have non-deadly sins - reparation. In fact, none of us know how long it lasts. We’re simply jabbing in the dark if we try. The old testament scripture on this situation doesn’t move me. The “clowd of witness” Paul uses does inspire me and made very conscious of Saints watching over us with Angels. Several things take place in the Old Testament that are frankly confusing anyway. but it is interesting to see how the Old Testament foretells the new and the New fulfills the old… The story of Moses circumcision. Ever read that one? Whew, and we thought we had it rough.

Just a few of my thoughts that convinced me to return to the Church with not only my body but my entire heart and mind coming together in communion with the Catholic Church. I prefer the term “Church of Christ” when thinking about the Church. It’s Catholic and that makes sense. But most of my life, before, during, after and returning I’ve always called myself a Christian…that happens to be Catholic. So I use “Christian” when I’m saying I’m Catholic which is the fullness of truth.

I’d like to take a jab with an analogy from my work experience. A resident is also a citizen. But a citizen is a resident sort of defines where someone resides. a Citizen is a more generalized term that also denotes that I not only live in a particular community but am also a tax paying person with rights. That’s a Christian compared to a Catholics. Both are true and both have meaning. It may not be the best analogy, but it’s my one stab at fame on here… Please leave donations in my in-box. Thank you. No. Really. Leave it in my inbox.

 

[guanophore]

I am not sure where you are getting that from. That’s not my intension at all. My intension was to show that it is inadaquate proof for the doctrine of purgatory.

Oh! thank you for clarifying. Yes, we are WAY off topic on this one. However it does highlight an important point that is relevant to this discussion.

The Catholic faith is not extracted from the scriptures as are the doctrines of bible christians. From our point of view, any scripture is inadequate “proof for the doctrine”, because our doctrines do not emanate from bible proofs. All of Catholic doctrine comes from Christ. Instead of the Bible being the "proof text’ of doctrine, it was in fact produced by the doctrine, since the Church and the doctrines preceded the Scripture.

The purpose of giving you the Maccabean passage was to demonstrate that the concept of Purgatory predated the Christian Church.

Seemed more like a game of "look I can prove I am smarter than you" rather than a real discussion to get the heart of the matter and discern the truth. I don't get that vibe from you at all.

We all know in part, and iron sharpens iron!

Just because I won’t back down to you guys is not a reason for me to do any reflection. If I am in violation of any rules, I expect a moderator to contact me personally. Defending what I believe to be true is not a violation of the rules.

That depends upon how you go about your defense. We all must be in compliance with the guidelines. The reason I asked you to reflect on why you are here is because this is a forum for Catholic Answers. We are not here to give you a forum to promote your faith. If you are not here to get Catholic Answers, you may not be in the right place.

It is also not our need or desire to get you to “back down” from us. We don’t need to pressure or force you into accepting our perspective. We are here to offer it, and explain how we came by it. Are you sure this is what you want?

 

[guanophore]

. Part of the process of guiding the church to all truth was to guide the church to discern what was scripture and what wasn’t. I mean there’s nowhere in the Bible that says “and these are the inspired books, so trust them only…Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians…and so on”

Ok, so we are in agreement on this point. How is it that it is so easy for you to accept that the HS was leading the Church in this, but in all the other doctrines you are contesting, they were not? How is it that Jesus was so weak and disinterested that He could not reveal to the Church they were in error?

Just wondering out loud…doesn’t that mean that the scriptures have more authority than the church because they looks to the scriptures as affirmation of their authority?

The Apostles taught that the two are equal and inseparable strands of one cord. They validate one another. This is why, when Sacred Tradition was jettisoned during the Reformation, the result was deformation of the doctrines of the faith. Another result was furhter splintering, which is what happens when the Truth is not adhered to. Unity results from adherance to Truth.

We are told to test everything, to hold fast to that which is good. Its not that tradition (or reason or experience) is totally rejected, but if these promote something that is false, it is to be rejected.

Indeed, but by what standard does one determine what is false? Nowadays, it seems much like it was in pre-dynasty Israel. There is no authority in the land so “each man did what was right in his own eyes”.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb: No, just that what was taught orally was written down in order to preserve it for us. If it was written down it certainlty wouldn’t disappear!

The burden of proof would be on those who deny oral Apostolic Tradition. They must show scripture saying ALL oral tradition is now in the written tradition of scripture or they must show scripture alone, which cannot be done. Paul tells us; our gospel WHETHER by WORD or our EPISTLE. If ALL oral Tradition was to have been included in the written form of Scripture, then scripture should tell us so. Instead it tells us to HOLD TRADITION.

2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY word, OR our epistle] [Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH what he has LEARNED (oral Tradition) and the written Tradition (Scripture) which Paul calls OUR GOSPEL.]

[2Tm3:10 BUT THOU HAST FULLY KNOWN MY DOCTRINE, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience, 11 … 12 … 13 … 14 But CONTINUE THOU IN THE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST LEARNED AND HAST BEEN ASSURED OF, KNOWING OF WHOM THOU HAST LEARNED THEM; 15 AND that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and IS PROFITABLE FOR doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.] Paul is instructing Timothy to use BOTH oral Tradition, LEARNED from Paul, as well as written Tradition=scripture, the scriptures never say scripture alone. Oral Tradition and written Scripture Tradition must always agree. By the way verse [15 and that FROM A CHILD thou hast known the holy scriptures,] That would be the Old Testament only, there was no New Testament when Timothy was a child.

1TIM 6: Timothy, keep that which is COMMITTED TO THY TRUST, avoiding profane and vain babblings,

PHILIP 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do]

1 THES 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard, of us ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Jn 14: 26: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you].

2TIM 2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And the THINGS that thou hast HEARD of me among many witnesses, the same COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS also.

2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth in US.

Timothy received the gift of the Holy Spirit by laying on of hands. Holy orders, ordination, apostolic succession, in an unbroken line from the apostles, to bishop, to bishop till the end. It is thru the Holy Spirit that oral apostolic tradition is kept and discerned, by the church, as opposed to a tradition of men. Scripture tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, NOT INDIVIDUALS, 1Tm 3:15. The church’s testimony is of no less value than scripture, because the Holy Spirit is the origin of both and ACTIVE IN BOTH, the Church discerned the cannon of scripture. The council of Jerusalem wrote to the churches, Act15:28 For IT SEEMED GOOD TO THE HOLY GHOST AND TO US]

[2THES 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of US.] It seems Tradition is of such importance that one who does not follow them are to be shunned. Sounds like, [Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, **TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

[Eph3:7 Whereof **I WAS MADE A MINISTER, ACCORDING TO THE GIFT of the grace OF GOD given unto me BY the effectual WORKING OF HIS POWER. 8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; 9 And TO MAKE ALL MEN SEE what is **THE FELLOWSHIP ** of THE MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world hath been HID IN GOD, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent THAT NOW unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places MIGHT BE KNOWN BY THE CHURCH the manifold wisdom of God,] [2Cor5:20 Now then **we are ambassadors for Christ, as though GOD did BESEECH YOU BY US: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.]

Oral Tradition is found in the writings of the fathers, Councils of the Church, prayers used and Church liturgy or worship, etc… I cannot PROVE the Apostles specifically taught anything or wrote anything. Not even those books of the NT. I can only give evidence, from TRADITION, those particular books are inspired and handed down by the Apostles, thru TRADITION handed on by the Church, the pillar and groud of TRUTH,

 

[elvisman]

A few thoughts.
Matt 16:16-19 Peter the rock … I’d like to point out that Jesus says “I will give you the keys”. This hadn’t taken place yet. So Jesus, as always, is the rock. But he appoints Peter to take care of that rock, the Church and gives him authority along with the disciples. They knew what he meant, they passed it on. Now read Isaiah 22:20-25. Read this chapter, but pay attention to the near identical choice of words that the Lord, Jesus, uses in Matt 16. I don’t believe you can get much clearer than this. This is partly why the Protestants concede to the meaning of Peter the Rock.

I agree with some of what you say but I have to point out a couple of things that just don’t jive here.

First of all, you claim that Jesus is the rock in this passage, which makes absolutely no sense when read in context. Jesus is blessing Peter here because his confession of faith. As in the essay by Karl Keating that I provided in my last post, it is a three-fold blessing and the gift of the keys of the Kingdom. I makes no sense whatsoever to downplay Peter as he is blessing him and installing him as his chief steward.

You then go on to say that the Rock is the Church, which Peter is to take care of. I have never heard this theory before from any theologian - Protestant or Catholic. You seem to want to give the title of “Rock” to everybody but the intended recipient, which is Peter.

You are right about the passage in Isaiah. This is a foreshadowing of the authority of Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Remember, we don’t see tradition as totally useless.

I think this is an example of being damned with faint praise?

 

[jlhargus]

PLEASEEEEE …wut EXACTLY are these wonderful SACRED TRADITIONS that were passed down???

JL: The big one for you would be, which books are inspired, the trinity, mode of baptism, infant baptism, the Creeds, doctrinal decisions of Councils, etc… The entire teachings of Christ were Orally Traditioned by the apostles. Some of those Traditions were later written in scripture. At lest twenty years before the first word of the NT was even penned the Church was up and running, preaching, teaching, converting and living out that faith once delivered to the saints, Jude1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

A Tradition that non-Catholics use would be found after the Lord’s prayer, For thine is the kingdom and the power and the Glory now and forever. Some traditions of men made doctrines of God, by some, sola scriptura, faith alone, baptism not a sacrament, All oral Traditions in Scripture. None of those are in the Bible, but actually contradict it.

 

[jlhargus]

Originally Posted by PbloPicasso
A few thoughts.
Matt 16:16-19 Peter the rock … I’d like to point out that Jesus says “I will give you the keys”. This hadn’t taken place yet. So Jesus, as always, is the rock. But he appoints Peter to take care of that rock, the Church and gives him authority along with the disciples. They knew what he meant, they passed it on. Now read Isaiah 22:20-25. Read this chapter, but pay attention to the near identical choice of words that the Lord, Jesus, uses in Matt 16. I don’t believe you can get much clearer than this. This is partly why the Protestants concede to the meaning of Peter the Rock.

JL: Well Christ is now reigning and we enter the kingdom by water and the Spirit Jn3:5. You must believe in that tradition of men the secret Rapture.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I am not sure where you are getting that from. That’s not my intension at all. My intension was to show that it is inadaquate proof for the doctrine of purgatory.

Oh! thank you for clarifying. Yes, we are WAY off topic on this one. However it does highlight an important point that is relevant to this discussion.

The Catholic faith is not extracted from the scriptures as are the doctrines of bible christians. From our point of view, any scripture is inadequate “proof for the doctrine”, because our doctrines do not emanate from bible proofs. All of Catholic doctrine comes from Christ. Instead of the Bible being the "proof text’ of doctrine, it was in fact produced by the doctrine, since the Church and the doctrines preceded the Scripture.

The purpose of giving you the Maccabean passage was to demonstrate that the concept of Purgatory predated the Christian Church.

We all know in part, and iron sharpens iron!

That depends upon how you go about your defense. We all must be in compliance with the guidelines. The reason I asked you to reflect on why you are here is because this is a forum for Catholic Answers. We are not here to give you a forum to promote your faith. If you are not here to get Catholic Answers, you may not be in the right place.

It is also not our need or desire to get you to “back down” from us. **We don’t need to pressure or force you into accepting our perspective. We are here to offer it, and explain how we came by it. **Are you sure this is what you want?

I really get what you mean with the stuff I put in bold. No, I’m not here to turn Catholics away from Catholicism and make them non Catholics. I am here to seek truth. You see, I was…well am, a confirmed Catholic. You see from these discussions that I began to have doubts about the faith some time ago. I hope that maybe I can find where I can stand spiritually long term. I thought that would be Anglicanism but there is so much mess going on there. Perhaps my confirmation was premature, or maybe one day I can return to the church when my faith is more solid, I don’t know.

 

[JohnnyReb]

The Catholic Church teaches that we leave ALL to the mercy of God upon death. The Church does not presume to know whether or not ANY person has gone to hell. If my brother murdered somebody and was shot by the police - I would pray to God for mercy on his soul. I don’t know what may have happened in the seconds before his death and I would not presume that he went to hell because it is not for me to condemn anybody’s soul.

THIS is why the warriors were prayed for in Maccabees. It is a good and noble thing to pray for the dead.

I know the church has beautification and sainthood for certain believers who the church declares to be in heaven, but beyond them, does the church presume anyone else to be in heaven? I ask this because purgatory cleanses the person to enter heaven. So if they are in or go to purgatory, they will make it to heaven. Doesn’t that assume the soldiers prayed for would go to purgatory then heaven?

A soul enters Purgatory - or a state of Purgation - to be purged of their sin. Rev. 21:27 emphatically states that nothing unclean can enter heaven - not even Luther’s “snow-covered dunghills”. We cannot fool God and that is not the purpose of Christ’s perfect sacrifice. We must be made pure and righteous before entering heaven.
As C. S. Lewis once said, “God’s grace demands Purgatory.”

Yeah, not all non Catholics are fans of Luther’s snow-covered dung hill, simul justus et peccator or whatever theology. Wesley wasn’t in his views of sanctification, which were highly influenced by Catholic and Orthodox thought. Thats a whole other discussion and off topic though…

I am aware of the texts which call Christ the rock and cornerstone. I am also aware of the verse I furnished before that referred to Abraham as the Rock. I am aslo aware that Jesus called Peter the Rock. Karl Keating gives a great explanation of why the downplaying of this honor simply doesn’t make sense:
Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority.

So are you saying that even if I view Peter as the rock, first among equals among the apostles (which tends to coinside with the Orthodox view more than the Catholic one) on of which whom the church is built, I am downplaying his role? I am down playing his role if I don’t do all the way and call him the first Pope in the Catholic sense?

I do see where the position that the rock is Peter’s confession is the rock would down play him. In fact, that seems like the purpose of such an interpretation.

 

[guanophore]

I really get what you mean with the stuff I put in bold. No, I’m not here to turn Catholics away from Catholicism and make them non Catholics. I am here to seek truth. You see, I was…well am, a confirmed Catholic. You see from these discussions that I began to have doubts about the faith some time ago. I hope that maybe I can find where I can stand spiritually long term. I thought that would be Anglicanism but there is so much mess going on there. Perhaps my confirmation was premature, or maybe one day I can return to the church when my faith is more solid, I don’t know.

This is a personal question, so you are under no obligation to answer it, but I am curious, whyu would you wait to return to the Church until your faith is more solid?

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints! It is through the Church that our faith is guided and strengthened. This is the way the Lord set it up.

I think your confirmation was not pre-mature, it is obvious that you are sincere about seeking the Truth. You have some issues to work through, but we all have had, and do have, those.

It seems like you did come to the right place, because this is a good environment for you to explore all of your conflicts and disagreements. You will be in my prayers, along with other seekers here at CAF.

 

[JohnnyReb]

No, there really is not any evidence in the early church for SS. Any excerpts that have been taken to support that errant doctrine are taken out of context. All of the early fathers were Catholic, so they did not espouse SS.

You’re not the first Catholic to say that to me, and probably won’t be the last

This is true. We are taught to pray through our doubts and misgivings. Just as Peter said “to whom shall we go?, you have the Words of eternal life!” They didn’t understand it either, but they trusted Him enough to stick with HIm.

Thomas was in disbelief, and prayed that the Lord “Help my unbelief”!

It is faith, seeking understanding. We accept the Teachings because we have confidence in their Source.

Yeah, we are confident in scripture, because we believe that it represents in its fullness, apostolic teaching-teaching everything we need for salvation. When I challenged a Catholic about naming something that is not in the Bible that is necessary for my salvation, he offered the canon of scripture and the fact that the Bible is not self authenticating. Not real convincing to the non Catholic, especially because we look to tradition to establish the canon, and for such things as who wrote certain Gospels.

Sacred Tradition is not about numbers, it is about perspective. Every scripture used by Christ and the Apostles was framed according to HIs PERSPECTIVE. You can’t really count numericaly a point of view. When the Reformers jettisoned the Apostolic point of view, they began to substitute it with their own. They thought they were getting it “direct from scripture” but it was coming through their own lenses.

The Marian doctrines are a good example. Don’t you think the Apostles would know if the mother of Jesus had other children? So, since they taught she did not , we understand the scriptural references in the light of this truth we have received.

Of course they would know. If they were germaine to the Gosple in any form, they would have been included in the scriptures, like everything else relevent to it, such as the points taught by the Nicene Creed. The entire Nicene Creed can be established and affirmed by the scriptures without a reference to tradition. But there is the thread about that particular teaching in which I am participating. My position may surprise you.

But when you say its Christ’s point of view, non Catholics are skeptical. We see it as the RCC’s point of view. We don’t equate the two in our minds like Catholics do.

Do you honestly believe the Apostles “self assumed” their authority?

Since you reject the proof for the authority of the church that exists in the Scriptures, I don’t think there is any other witness that you would accept.

No, and that is the problem, if its not in the scriptures, clearly, we do not accept it.

The claims are not “Roman”, Johnny. They are the doctrines of the faith passed down from the Apostles. They have been received by 22 other Catholic Rites that are not “Roman” (Latin) and the Orthodox, Egyptians, Assyrian and Orientals that are not in communion with “Rome” but still hold these tenents of the faith.

Ok I get your point, I only say Roman not out of disrespect but to affirm my own conviction that the Catholic church, the entire church, is not just the 22 rites of the CC, but all believers everywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant. For me, if a dogma is declared in the medevil period or modern times, it is hardly Apostolic in nature. The dogmas that I have questioned from the RCC were declared post schism with the Orthodox and after the Ante-Nicene period.

would venture to guess that most Catholics cannot properly define a majority of the faith into which they were baptized. I know that I could not before I undertook in depth study.

Well if true thats a shame, but that is hardly just a Catholic problem…one Baptist preacher in Tennessee-when I was living there, got into a lot of trouble by saying the Baptists were “as bad” as the Catholics in this regard.

 

[JohnnyReb]

This is a personal question, so you are under no obligation to answer it, but I am curious, whyu would you wait to return to the Church until your faith is more solid?

The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a hotel for saints! It is through the Church that our faith is guided and strengthened. This is the way the Lord set it up.

I think your confirmation was not pre-mature, it is obvious that you are sincere about seeking the Truth. You have some issues to work through, but we all have had, and do have, those.

It seems like you did come to the right place, because this is a good environment for you to explore all of your conflicts and disagreements. You will be in my prayers, along with other seekers here at CAF.

I am willing to discuss this privately

 

[guanophore]

I know the church has beautification and sainthood for certain believers who the church declares to be in heaven, but beyond them, does the church presume anyone else to be in heaven? I ask this because purgatory cleanses the person to enter heaven. So if they are in or go to purgatory, they will make it to heaven.

Actually it is called beatification. To be beatified is to be recognized for being blessed of God. No, the Church only declares those to be in heaven that God has revealed are there. We know there are many there about whom it has not been revealed.

Yes, purgation is the cleansing by fire of the saved, because nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Doesn't that assume the soldiers prayed for would go to purgatory then heaven?

The Scripture indicates it was noble to pray for the dead who has a sin against them because it was believed that such prayers were helpful. The Jews did not refer to this state of the afterlife as “purgatory” (this is a much later Latin term), but they called it Abraham’s bosom (the place of the righteous dead). The passage indicates that the Jews believed it was possible to have sins of this life forgiven in the next. Jesus confirms this.

Matt. 12:32: And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Wesley wasn’t in his views of sanctification, which were highly influenced by Catholic and Orthodox thought. Thats a whole other discussion and off topic though…

Something to look forward to!

So are you saying that even if I view Peter as the rock, first among equals among the apostles (which tends to coinside with the Orthodox view more than the Catholic one) on of which whom the church is built, I am downplaying his role? I am down playing his role if I don’t do all the way and call him the first Pope in the Catholic sense?

I am not sure, since I am not sure what your understanding is of “Pope in the Catholic sense”. The role of the successor of Peter grew as the Church grew. In the NT Jesus describes it as a mustard seed growing to the largest tree. I can see how it is difficult to recognize the Church when today’s tree is compared to the mustard seed visible in the NT.

I do see where the position that the rock is Peter’s confession is the rock would down play him. In fact, that seems like the purpose of such an interpretation.

Well, the Church has always understood this in a multilayered manner. Jesus is THE Rock, of course, the Cornerstone, and He grafted Peter into Himself, making him rocky as well. Peter’s statement is also a rocky statement. And we are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, being added into the building as individual stones. We can all benefit from the rockiness that Jesus provided.

 

[guanophore]

You’re not the first Catholic to say that to me, and probably won’t be the last

Why do you think that might be? Is it just Catholics spewing drivel, or do you think there might be some validity to this? Catholics highly value Scripture, and consider it essential, materially sufficient, and authoritative. These are the attitudes that you will find in the writings. None of these should be mistaken for SS.

I make you a challenge. Any reference you can find in the Fathers for SS, I can show you from the same author evidence that they did not believe it.

Yeah, we are confident in scripture, because we believe that it represents in its fullness, apostolic teaching-teaching everything we need for salvation.

Why does it not say this about itself?

Why does it say otherwise?

Why was this notion unheard of prior to the Reformation?

When I challenged a Catholic about naming something that is not in the Bible that is necessary for my salvation, he offered the canon of scripture and the fact that the Bible is not self authenticating. Not real convincing to the non Catholic, especially because we look to tradition to establish the canon, and for such things as who wrote certain Gospels.

I agree. I think the Church itself is a much better example. Jesus deemed the Church necessary to our salvation, and it is not confined to the Scriptures. He left the care of souls in the hands of men, who, inspired by the HS, would feed and care for the flock.

He did not intend for people to extract the faith from a book, apart from the faith that authored the book.

Of course they would know. If they were germaine to the Gosple in any form, they would have been included in the scriptures,’/quote]

This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise. The Scriptures were never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. It is also false that everything germain to salvation can be found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures point to the Church as having responsibility for our souls.
JohnnyReb;7430667:

like everything else relevent to it, such as the points taught by the Nicene Creed. The entire Nicene Creed can be established and affirmed by the scriptures without a reference to tradition.

The Nicene Creed is itself a product of Sacred Tradition, as are the Scriptures. You seem to be intent upon setting the two in opposition to one another, which they are not. They support and intertwine with each other. They confirm one another.

But when you say its Christ’s point of view, non Catholics are skeptical. We see it as the RCC’s point of view. We don’t equate the two in our minds like Catholics do.

Yes. Our separated brethren have good reason to be skeptical. For centuries, corrupt Eurpoean RC clerics claimed to speak for Christ, and spoke as wolves in sheeps clothing instead.

One thing that might help you lift your head out of this rut is to shake off the attachment of “Roman” to the CC. The Latin or “Roman” Rite is only one of 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It so happens that the Latin Rite is the most common here in America and in Anglican Europe, and most Catholics are not even aware of the rest of the Church.

If your accusations can be proved against all the other non-Roman Rites, then you may have a case, but since they cannot, then you just come across narrow minded and uneducated.

No, and that is the problem, if its not in the scriptures, clearly, we do not accept it.

If that were true, then you would not accept the canon, the trinity, worship on Sundays, or the doctrine of SS.

None of these are found in the Scriptures, but all are espoused by most non-Catholics.

to affirm my own conviction that the Catholic church, the entire church, is not just the 22 rites of the CC, but all believers everywhere, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant.

Yes, the CC teaches that there is only ONE CHURCH, and therefore, all who are members of Christ are members of His One Body, the Church.

For me, if a dogma is declared in the medevil period or modern times, it is hardly Apostolic in nature.

Well, this is an artificial standard you have created yourself and imposed upon the Church. Just like the books of the NT were inspired the moment they were written, and did not become inspired in 382 AD when the canon was closed.

The dogmas that I have questioned from the RCC were declared post schism with the Orthodox and after the Ante-Nicene period.

Yes, but they are not “roman”. And you are also questioning doctrine that the Orthodox also accept pre-schism, like the primacy of Peter.

 

[elvisman]

I know the church has beautification and sainthood for certain believers who the church declares to be in heaven, but beyond them, does the church presume anyone else to be in heaven? I ask this because purgatory cleanses the person to enter heaven.
So if they are in or go to purgatory, they will make it to heaven. Doesn’t that assume the soldiers prayed for would go to purgatory then heaven?

**1st of all – the Church *has declared some people to be in heaven. Those who have not been declared are not ***assumed to be in heaven as they are left to the mercy of God.

That being said – the Church does not declare anybody as having gone to or experienced Purgatory. The Church also does not declare anybody as having gone to hell.

Yeah, not all non Catholics are fans of Luther’s snow-covered dung hill, simul justus et peccator or whatever theology. Wesley wasn’t in his views of sanctification, which were highly influenced by Catholic and Orthodox thought. Thats a whole other discussion and off topic though…

Fair enough.
So are you saying that even if I view Peter as the rock, first among equals among the apostles (which tends to coinside with the Orthodox view more than the Catholic one) on of which whom the church is built, I am downplaying his role? I am down playing his role if I don’t do all the way and call him the first Pope in the Catholic sense?

Matt. 16:16-19** clearly shows Peter Primacy. Whereas ALL of the apostles are later given the power to bind and loose - only Peter is given the Keys. **

**The fact that Peter is given the power to bind and loose before the rest also bolsters this position. **

I do see where the position that the rock is Peter’s confession is the rock would down play him. In fact, that seems like the purpose of such an interpretation.

**I also think that, given the context **of Scripture in regerds to Peter, calling him “first among equals” is also an effort to downplay his importance as Christ’s chief agent/vicar.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Why do you think that might be? Is it just Catholics spewing drivel, or do you think there might be some validity to this? Catholics highly value Scripture, and consider it essential, materially sufficient, and authoritative. These are the attitudes that you will find in the writings. None of these should be mistaken for SS.

I make you a challenge. Any reference you can find in the Fathers for SS, I can show you from the same author evidence that they did not believe it.

I’m sure that you could, because that is exactly what happened with the guy I talked to last.

I agree. I think the Church itself is a much better example. Jesus deemed the Church necessary to our salvation, and it is not confined to the Scriptures. He left the care of souls in the hands of men, who, inspired by the HS, would feed and care for the flock.

Thats a good example, and I’m not going to twist your words, but you do believe that the Catholic church is the church of scripture and its claims are taught there, just not limited to there.

Of course they would know. If they were germaine to the Gosple in any form, they would have been included in the scriptures,’/quote]

This is a false conclusion, based upon a false premise. The Scriptures were never intended to be a complete compendium of the faith. It is also false that everything germain to salvation can be found in the Scriptures. The Scriptures point to the Church as having responsibility for our souls.

The Nicene Creed is itself a product of Sacred Tradition, as are the Scriptures. You seem to be intent upon setting the two in opposition to one another, which they are not. They support and intertwine with each other. They confirm one another.

This sort of implies that they both get their authority from tradition. That makes tradition the ultimate authority, and scripture subject to it, not even equal.

Yes. Our separated brethren have good reason to be skeptical. For centuries, corrupt Eurpoean RC clerics claimed to speak for Christ, and spoke as wolves in sheeps clothing instead.

Who holds these men accountable and how?

One thing that might help you lift your head out of this rut is to shake off the attachment of “Roman” to the CC. The Latin or “Roman” Rite is only one of 23 Rites in the Catholic Church, all in communion with the Bishop of Rome. It so happens that the Latin Rite is the most common here in America and in Anglican Europe, and most Catholics are not even aware of the rest of the Church.

Probably so, because I knew that there are many Rites in the CC.

If that were true, then you would not accept the canon, the trinity, worship on Sundays, or the doctrine of SS.

The only one that I think is problematic is the canon. The rest can deduced from the scriptures, and if someone does not find that convincing, then tradition is helpful to clarify their objection.

Well, this is an artificial standard you have created yourself and imposed upon the Church. Just like the books of the NT were inspired the moment they were written, and did not become inspired in 382 AD when the canon was closed.

Well thats exactly it, the books did not become inspired then, they were inspired as soon as they were written, and they were used in the church long before 382.

YGM.

 

[elvisman]

Well thats exactly it, the books did not become inspired then, they were inspired as soon as they were written, and they were used in the church long before 382.

You’re right.
However - NOBODY knew it until the Church declared them canonical under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide his Church to ALL truth (John 16:12-15).

There were MANY books that were considered useful in those first few hundred years that ultimately didn’t make the cut in the canon of Scripture. Remember - even one of Paul’s letters didn’t make it. In Col 4:16, we read of his Letter to the Laodiceans that wasn’t included in the canon of Scripture.

MANY people wanted the letters of Clement and Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and others included but ultimately, it was God’s Church that made the decision with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.