Sola scriptura and the never ending battle

[Salvatore123]

heart4home,

You raise an interesting point:“When our priests, bishops or even say the Pope start to teach contrary to what is in the Catechism then who should we trust? The priests interpretation of the Catechism or our own?”

1. Regarding biblical canon, Trent specifically declared the list of books that were deemed to be canonical and thus inspired by the Holy Spirit as being the complete biblical Word of God. Because of this infallible teaching, we KNOW that the Bible we have today is accurate, and we are NOT free to disagree. To not believe would relegate us to the realm of protestants - a land where no one can “count” on anyone for truth. For them, they are “on their own” (and that is sad).
2. I have researched the issue of “catechisms” for years, and as far as I can tell, the only “officially sanctioned” catechism was the Catechism of the Council of Trent. That Council ordered that a catechism be promulgated so as to not only be a fountain of knowledge for the people, but also as a guide for clerics in instructing the faithful. The catechism published under the reign of JPII, however, was done so on JPII’s initiative and was an attempt (and an excellent one) to “modernize” catholic teaching in light of advances in technology (in vitro fertilization, birth control, etc.).
3. This last part may very well invite some people to take issue with what I say, but I feel safe in saying it: unless the Catholic Church, either through the Holy Father speaking ex cathedra, or the Magisterium speaking as one, has spoken on matters of faith or morals, anything else said is NOT something to which we owe our assent of belief.

For example, JPII said that capital punishment should be abolished, as it was no longer needed because man had developed ways to punish criminals. Well, JPII’s statement on capital punishment was only what one would call a “prudential judgment”, and NOT an official teaching of the catholic church. In fact, the catholic church could NEVER forbid capital punishment for the simple reason that it has always been taught as being a proper method of dealing with certain criminals. Should we lessen the use of capital punishment and save it for only the most heinous of crimes? Absolutely. Could JPII, on his own, “officially declare” that capital punishment is contrary to God’s law and thus must be banned in all circumstances? Absolutely not.

It is the same with the situations you mention - when clerics speak differently about certain subjects.

Unless the Catholic Church has taught infallibly about a particular matter of faith and morals, then NO catholic is obliged to BELIEVE what has been said by such clerics. Now, that does not give us license to disobey “lawful” (from a church standpoint) orders from one’s bishop, a cardinal, or the Holy Father. We always owe obedience to the Church and its leaders. But we do NOT surrender our consciences to every word spoken by every cleric, unless they speaking a Catholic “truth”.

At my Pre-Cana meeting, a priest - at a roundtable discussion - told the participants that “one should do what one’s conscience tells you to do” regarding artificial birth control. As soon as he said that, I immediately left the meeting, and but for the fact that I knew a Vicar in the Diocese, I doubt I would have received my certificate of completion necessary for me to marry. The use of artificial birth control to prevent pregnancy is an infallible doctrine of the church that has NEVER been taught as permissible under ANY circumstances. This was contrary to DOGMA.

In an example regarding NON-dogma, a bishop (who is now deceased) in our parish out of the blue prohibited receiving communion at the altar rail. I am from a very conservative parish (we even have an approved weekly 1962 Latin Rite mass that I attend), and our priest was very conservative. He balked at the “order”, and ended up leaving our parish. Many parishioners were so upset at this turn of events, that the priest who replaced our original priest felt compelled to write a letter to our parish in which he said that the prohibition regarding the altar rail was meant to prevent the appearance of “division” within our church. Quite frankly, the reason given was meant to quell a minor uprising, and it did not address a basic question posed by one of our parishoners who was around 95 years old at the time: “Father, why is it suddenly wrong for me to receive communion in the same manner as I have been doing so for almost 90 years - how does that hurt or divide anyone?”

Of course, no answer was forthcoming because no valid answer could be found.

Nevertheless, we, as catholics, had to obey the bishop and we had to stop receiving communion at the altar rail (except, of course, those of us who attend the Latin mass), no matter how upset or wrong we thought the order.

I don’t like the idea of saying this, as I am an orthodox Catholic of the Latin Rite who agrees (how could I not and remain catholic?) with EVERY dogma/doctrine infallibly taught by my church, and I obediently follow my church even on matters that are not dogmatic or doctrinal, so long as they do not compromise dogmatic/doctrinal teaching. But I think the bishop was wrong in forbidding use of the altar rail, and as a result, he caused unnecessary discord that has still not fully disappeared (although it did, to a great degree, when he was removed as bishop and sent to another diocese).

So, all of this is a roundabout way of saying that we are free to believe whatever we want, so long as that belief is not contrary to dogma/doctrinal teachings of the church, and we owe obedience to our clerics so long as doing so is not contrary to dogma/doctrinal teachings of the church. In the end, a priest’s opinion about a part of the catechism that seems at odds with the wording, may very well be contrary to “official” church teaching, and thus something to which you do NOT owe assent of belief.

 

[PJM]

=Womanoffaith10;9318924]My protestant friends are always questioning my beliefs based on the protestant idea of sola scriptura. I understand that the Catholic faith is based on both scripture and tradition, but the problem then becomes how biblically based is tradition? I need a better understanding so I can better explain our faith. I understand their confusion when I explain something that isn’t clearly illustrated in the bible…ie Marian devotion and our great emphasis on her. Can someone please explain this a little better to me?

All I can do dear friend is try

The first thing one ought to IMO ask themselves is WHY Mary; the Mother of our God is not more prevelant in the bible? The answer is critical for our understanding of Catholic Marian Doctrines.

The answer is the Bible is about God; about Christ, not Mary whose role is essential but at a secondary level . Mary while potentionally very important to ones slavation efforts is nevertheless NOT critical, NOT absolutely essential.

Notice also how Joseph dies before the Mission of Christ begins. That too is no accicent. And permitted by God so that more clarity about “My Father” could be accepted and Jesus could be recogonized as “The Son of God.”

The Catholic Traditions stem from a culture that held mothers and wifes in high esteem; even if they were publically “second class citizents.” The Kings Mother had a throne near the Kings for example.

1 Cor. 11 2: 2 “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you”

2 Thess. 2: 13 “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thess. 6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us

What is miised very often is the Unique, and exclusive honor it is to have been selected to become the “Mother of God” **Mary was selected out of BILLIONS OF other women. **The ONLY women EVER for this honor!

Also NOT recogonized in that Because god is and MUST BE perfect; Mary too HAD TO BE “perfect[ed]” in order to become the Mother of God. God COULD NOT [theologically impossible] be born from an (name removed by moderator)erfect Mother. MARY IS THE ONLY PERFECT IN EVERY WAY PERSON/ male or female in the history of the WORLD and humaity!

Why would SHE NOT be so honored? The real Issue is NOT Mary; but the GRAVE misconception that MAry id placed by Catholics on the same “plane” as God and that we “WORSHIP HER!”.

We DO NOT WORSHIP MARY! Worship is reservered to God alone. But Mary’s UNIQUE position and access to her Son gives US the MOST effective Intercessor possible. When Mary adds Her own prayers for us ontop of ours there effectiveness increases abundtly.

It is FAR MORE correct in understanding that we pray THROUGH, not too Mary as our Mother also.

Hail Mary, [Lk. 1:28]
Full of Grace [Lk. 1:28]
The Lord is with thee [Lk 1:27]
Blessed are you among all women [Lk 1:42]
And Blessed in the fruit of your womb: Jesus [Lk. 1;42]
Holy Mary [Lk.1: 28]
Mother of God 1:35
Pray for us sinners [our Catholic petition]
Now and at the hour of our death
Amen” **

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

 

[hawkeye125646]

Catholic apologetics Sola Scriptura

Read Mattew 28:19-20 He did not say Write the gospels!
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Preach, not write!

Read Luke 1:1-4 This Gospel was written, to ensure that the oral teachings were accounted for!

ReadJohn 20:30 and: John 21:25 If these were not written in scripture, how are we to follow ALL that Jesus taught? Through Oral Tradition
Acts 8:30-31 and Hebrew 5:11-12 . We need help interpreting scripture. By Jesus’ 1 TRUE, HOLY and ASPOTOLIC CHURCH
Acts 15:1-14 Peter made a ruling, without the use of sacred scripture. This also shows that Peter is the leader of the Apostles!
Acts 17:28 The poet is not contained in scripture
1 Cor 5:9-11 I In verse 9, this is not part of sacred scripture. As such, this was outside!
1 Cor 11:2 . Paul is asking to obey Oral tradition
Phill 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. Heard (Oral!) is bolded 1 Thess 2:13 Oral tradition is given to the Church
1 Thess 3:10 The letter, that is written, by St Paul was not sufficient for strengthening the faithful!
2 Thess 2:14-15 It does not say Letter alone!
2 Thess 3:6 There is no scriptural verse that commands us to obey sacred scripture
1 Timothy 3:14 Paul wanted to speak to them. He wrote, to explain if he was going to be late!
2 Timothy 2:2 . He never commanded them to write it down. Just to teach the lessons!
2 Timothy 3:14 But Being assured is through teaching. You will notice this is before verse 16 and 17!
2 Peter 1: 20 -21 Teachers are needed to interpret sacred scripture
2 Peter 3:15-16 Not all of Paul’s letters were in canon. They were ourside of sacred scripture. For sacred scripture is sometimes hard to understand.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. We have to TEST all things and people.

This is a dissertation of www.scripturecatholic.com May God bless you!

 

[hawkeye125646]

Mary is our Mother and Queen of the New Davidic Kingdom

1 Kings 2:17-20 in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the King does not refuse his mother. Jesus is the new Davidic King, and He does not refuse the requests of his mother Mary, the Queen. in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom, the Queen intercedes on behalf of the King’s followers. She is the Queen Mother (or “Gebirah”). Mary is our eternal Gebirah. in the Old Testament Davidic kingdom the King bows down to his mother and she sits at his right hand. We, as children of the New Covenant, should imitate our King and pay the same homage to Mary our Mother. By honoring Mary, we honor our King, Jesus Christ.

1 Kings 15:10-13 the Queen Mother is a powerful position in Israel’s royal monarchy. Here the Queen is removed from office. But now, the Davidic kingdom is perfected by Jesus, and our Mother Mary is forever at His right hand.

2 Chron. 22:10 . here Queen Mother Athalia destroys the royal family of Judah after she sees her son, King Ahaziah, dead. The Queen mother plays a significant role in the kingdom.
Nehemiah 2:6 the Queen Mother sits beside the King. She is the primary intercessor before the King.
Psalm 45:9 . the psalmist teaches that the Queen stands at the right hand of God. The role of the Queen is important in God’s kingdom. Mary the Queen of heaven is at the right hand of the Son of God.
John 2:3 this is a very signifcant verse in Scripture. As our mother, Mary tells all of us to do whatever Jesus tells us. Further, Mary’s intercession at the marriage feast in Cana triggers Jesus’ ministry and a foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration of the Lamb. This celebration unites all believers into one famiy through the marriage of divinity and humanity.John 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim.
John 19:26 Jesus makes Mary the Mother of us all as He dies on the Cross by saying “behold your mother.” Jesus did not say “John, behold your mother” because he gave Mary to all of us, his beloved disciples. All the words that Jesus spoke on Cross had a divine purpose. Jesus was not just telling John to take care of his mother
Rev. 12:17 this verse proves the meaning of John 19:26. The “woman’s” (Mary’s) offspring are those who follow Jesus. She is our Mother and we are her offspring in Jesus Christ. The master plan of God’s covenant love for us is family. But we cannot be a complete family with the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of Christ without the Motherhood of Mary.

Another dissertation of www.scripturecatholic.com May God bless all of you!

 

[PJM]

=hawkeye125646;9344565]Catholic apologetics Sola Scriptura

Read Mattew 28:19-20 He did not say Write the gospels!
Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Preach, not write!

Read Luke 1:1-4 This Gospel was written, to ensure that the oral teachings were accounted for!

ReadJohn 20:30 and: John 21:25 If these were not written in scripture, how are we to follow ALL that Jesus taught? Through Oral Tradition
Acts 8:30-31 and Hebrew 5:11-12 . We need help interpreting scripture. By Jesus’ 1 TRUE, HOLY and ASPOTOLIC CHURCH
Acts 15:1-14 Peter made a ruling, without the use of sacred scripture. This also shows that Peter is the leader of the Apostles!
Acts 17:28 The poet is not contained in scripture
1 Cor 5:9-11 I In verse 9, this is not part of sacred scripture. As such, this was outside!
1 Cor 11:2 . Paul is asking to obey Oral tradition
Phill 4:9 Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you. Heard (Oral!) is bolded 1 Thess 2:13 Oral tradition is given to the Church
1 Thess 3:10 The letter, that is written, by St Paul was not sufficient for strengthening the faithful!
2 Thess 2:14-15 It does not say Letter alone!
2 Thess 3:6 There is no scriptural verse that commands us to obey sacred scripture
1 Timothy 3:14 Paul wanted to speak to them. He wrote, to explain if he was going to be late!
2 Timothy 2:2 . He never commanded them to write it down. Just to teach the lessons!
2 Timothy 3:14 But Being assured is through teaching. You will notice this is before verse 16 and 17!
2 Peter 1: 20 -21 Teachers are needed to interpret sacred scripture

This is a dissertation of www.scripturecatholic.com May God bless you!

What a limited understanding this post expresses:

IF the Bible did not exist; would / could Catholism or Protestansism even exist today.

The MANDATE of Christ to His Church; through His Apostles and by absolute necessity there successors in Matthewn 28:16-20 could not be fulfilled without succesion. Sucession would be at the least extremely limited and handicaped without the Catholic Bible.

Secondly: the terms " to bind and loose" [Matthew 16:19; to Peter and the Mt. 18:18 the other Apostles] reference unlimited Powers of Governance. Guided, guarded, and protected by BOTH Christ and the Holy Spirit. [John 17:15919; John 20:19-22]. ONLY the CC, who birthed the Bible GUIDED BY GOD [2nd. Tim. 3:16-17] have this warranty of THUTHFULL and Complete Teachings.

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

PLACE this back into its context and you’ll NOTE that Christ /God was speaking ONLY to His Apostles and there successors.

This too HAD TO BE if Christ commands, teaching and mandates were to be fulfilled.

And while I could refute so much more; This rebuke will surfice…

2 Thess 3:6 There is no scriptural verse that commands us to obey sacred scripture

Deut.4: 2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.} … Prov.30: 6 “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” … Rev.22: 18” I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,”

Mark.1: 15 "and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Mark.8: 35 "For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it"

Matt.24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Mark.8: 38 “For whoever is **ashamed of me and of my words **in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Luke 9:26 “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”

John.5: 24, 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

John.8: 31, 37, 43, 51 “Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. [NOT a new phenomena] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

The purpose of this post escapes me:shrug:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[PJM]

=Womanoffaith10;9318924]My protestant friends are always questioning my beliefs based on the protestant idea of sola scriptura. I understand that the Catholic faith is based on both scripture and tradition, but the problem then becomes how biblically based is tradition? I need a better understanding so I can better explain our faith. I understand their confusion when I explain something that isn’t clearly illustrated in the bible…ie Marian devotion and our great emphasis on her. Can someone please explain this a little better to me?

Try this If it can be done with humor and charity?

One assumes that if there position REALLY is Soloa Scriptura then they ought to believe ALL that the Bible teaches:

Here are soldily Biblical Teachings that most protestant do not accept:

1. The Primacy of Peter:
   Mt. 16;15-19 [the NT has at least 50 “Peter First” passages
2. The REAL Presence Catholic Holy Communion
   Christ Own Words, Plus Mt 26:26-28; Mk.14: 22-24’ Lk. 22:19-21, John 6 especially vrs.53-60; Paul 1st. Cor.11: 23-29

3 Sins and the forgiveness of them:
1 John 1:6-10;John 5:16-17 and especiall John 20:19- 23 supported by Mt. 19:17

There’s alot more, but this ought to make the essentail truth clear

AND if they insist on there own private RIGHT to self-interpert:

2nd. Peter 1: 20-21 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

John.3: 36 “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

John.14: 26 [Here Jesus address precisly and exclusively His Apostles: “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

John.5: 24, 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

John 5: 37 “And the Father who sent me has himself borne witness to me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen; and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life [Speaking of accepting the entire WORD of GOD]. I do not receive glory from men. [Meaning disobedience is rampant!] But I know that you have not the love of God within you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not receive me” [Obey Me!]

1Tim.3: 15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth“. [All SINGULAR] The CC.

Eph.1: 13 “In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,…

2 Thess. 1: 8 “nflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might”

Hope this helps you, but do this ONLY if it can be done with charity:thumbsup:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

 

[hawkeye125646]

What a limited understanding this post expresses:

IF the Bible did not exist; would / could Catholism or Protestansism even exist today.

The MANDATE of Christ to His Church; through His Apostles and by absolute necessity there successors in Matthewn 28:16-20 could not be fulfilled without succesion. Sucession would be at the least extremely limited and handicaped without the Catholic Bible.

Secondly: the terms " to bind and loose" [Matthew 16:19; to Peter and the Mt. 18:18 the other Apostles] reference unlimited Powers of Governance. Guided, guarded, and protected by BOTH Christ and the Holy Spirit. [John 17:15919; John 20:19-22]. ONLY the CC, who birthed the Bible GUIDED BY GOD [2nd. Tim. 3:16-17] have this warranty of THUTHFULL and Complete Teachings.

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”

PLACE this back into its context and you’ll NOTE that Christ /God was speaking ONLY to His Apostles and there successors.

This too HAD TO BE if Christ commands, teaching and mandates were to be fulfilled.

And while I could refute so much more; This rebuke will surfice…

Deut.4: 2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it; that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.} … Prov.30: 6 “Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar.” … Rev.22: 18” I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,”

Mark.1: 15 "and saying, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”

Mark.8: 35 "For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it"

Matt.24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”

Mark.8: 38 “For whoever is **ashamed of me and of my words **in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Luke 9:26 “For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, of him will the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in his glory and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.”

John.5: 24, 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"

John.8: 31, 37, 43, 51 “Jesus then said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you continue in my word, you are truly my disciples, I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me, because my word finds no place in you. [NOT a new phenomena] Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. Truly, truly, I say to you, if any one keeps my word, he will never see death.”

The purpose of this post escapes me:shrug:

God Bless,
pat/PJM

I was explaining the www.scripturecatholic.com site, which provides these affirmations… If you were to read those verses, you will see the corrolation with the statement, being provided. May God bless you!

 

[benjohnson]

Sola Scriptia simply says that the Bible has all you need for salvation.

It does not say that it has all you need for running a church.

Lutherans have no qualm with Catholic teachings as long as it doesn’t contradict the word of God.

 

[PJM]

=Womanoffaith10;9318924]My protestant friends are always questioning my beliefs based on the protestant idea of sola scriptura. I understand that the Catholic faith is based on both scripture and tradition, but the problem then becomes how biblically based is tradition? I need a better understanding so I can better explain our faith. I understand their confusion when I explain something that isn’t clearly illustrated in the bible…ie Marian devotion and our great emphasis on her. Can someone please explain this a little better to me?

IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK; TO EXPECT THAT ONE WHO PROFESSES THIS BELIEVE CAN’T PROVE IT BIBLICALLY?

gOD bLESS,
pat/PJM

 

[PJM]

=benjohnson;9345849]Sola Scriptia simply says that the Bible has all you need for salvation.

It does not say that it has all you need for running a church.

Lutherans have no qualm with Catholic teachings as long as it doesn’t contradict the word of God.

My friend that is an OPPS! Because it does:

Mt. 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” THESE TERMS WERE COMMON AT THE TIME AND USED BY KINGS OF WALLED IN CITIES LIE JERUSALEM TO GRANT UNLIMITED AUTHORITY OF GOVERNANCE AND ANSWER ONLY TO THE KING: this is precisely what Christ had it mind with Peter.

See Mt. 18:18 where it is then also given to the other Apostles

Mt.28:19-20 [Apostles ONLY] “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

IN ORDER TO FILL THIS MANDATE SUCCESSION HAS TO BE NECESSARY

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. “ … John.20: 22 “And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” … Acts.1: 2 “until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen”

GOD ALWAYS TAUGHT ONLY: God, set of Faith beliefs and One Church…ALL HIS!

John.10: 16 “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd”

Eph. 4: 1-7 “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all lowliness and meekness, with patience, forbearing one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

John 17: 21-22 “that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one”

Eph. 3: 9-10 “And to make all men see what is the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things; that through the church [singular] the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places. This was according to the eternal purpose which he has realized in Christ Jesus our Lord,

SHARE WITH US PLEASE WHERE WHAT CATHOLIC TEACH OR BELIEF “CONTRADICTS” WHAT THE BIBLE [WHICH BY THE WAY IS A CATHOLIC BOOK] TEACHES.

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

 

[benjohnson]

SHARE WITH US PLEASE WHERE WHAT CATHOLIC TEACH OR BELIEF “CONTRADICTS” WHAT THE BIBLE [WHICH BY THE WAY IS A CATHOLIC BOOK] TEACHES.

God Bless you,
pat/PJM

I just wanted to clear up the Lutheran prospective on Sola Scriptura - we don’t think that you can just plunk down bibles to make great Christians. Remember, the whole idea of Sola Scriptura came about as a reaction to the some members of the Catholic church abusing their God-given mandate - paying for indulgences and simony for example. Sola Scriptura was a way to express that those practices were wrong, and to refocus on what we felt was most important.

As the Catholic church backed off of those practices, modern Lutherans have fewer qualms, and indeed some of us look to the Catholic church for inspiration and guidance while still maintaing our bibles close at hand. For example, my rather pro-life streak comes from the Pope’s Humanae Vitae.

To answer your question directly: Papal Infallibility is perhaps the largest stumbling block for me when it comes to reconciliation with the Catholic church. I understand that Papal Infallibility is rarely asserted, and in the examples of it’s use I can find no fault in the pronouncements, but my reading of the bible would seem to indicate that the only infallible man was the Son of God.

Thanks for the blessing! May God bless you too.

 

[Ion]

There is a fundamental difference between Catholic and Protestant thinking about origins.

Catholics start with Church, from which scripture is derived. Protestants start with scripture and from scripture derive their doctrines and various churches. To Catholics that doesn’t make sense, since Jesus started a Church and members of the Church wrote Christian scripture. Church creates scripture, not scripture creating Church! Protestants have it backwards.

And, since scripture is all they have, they are free to interpret the bible into as many ways as each interpreter’s pecadillos demand!

Indeed, our Lord didn’t write a book and handed it down.
The writings of the Tradition add up to the Bible in the same manner with the writings of the Prophets that were added to the Books of Moses.
Luther didn’t want them because without them his job was far more simple: Sola Scriptura meaning only Scriptura + his writings…

 

[mackbrislawn]

To answer your question directly: Papal Infallibility is perhaps the largest stumbling block for me when it comes to reconciliation with the Catholic church. I understand that Papal Infallibility is rarely asserted, and in the examples of it’s use I can find no fault in the pronouncements, but my reading of the bible would seem to indicate that the only infallible man was the Son of God.

I understand why it would be a stumbling block. I am not a fan of the idea myself, even if it is true, because it does create a stumbling block. Councils have been used to answer pressing problems. So why not continue to use them? I don’t know, although councils are expensive and time consuming.

Infallibility means to be prevented by the Holy Spirit from error. The apostles were also infallible because they had the Holy Spirit behind them when they taught. Since they had been sent directly by Jesus to teach, they were also inspired. Infallibility does not imply inspiration, like the apostles had been.

 

[PJM]

=benjohnson;9347064]I just wanted to clear up the Lutheran prospective on Sola Scriptura - we don’t think that you can just plunk down bibles to make great Christians. Remember, the whole idea of Sola Scriptura came about as a reaction to the some members of the Catholic church abusing their God-given mandate - paying for indulgences and simony for example. Sola Scriptura was a way to express that those practices were wrong, and to refocus on what we felt was most important.

As the Catholic church backed off of those practices, modern Lutherans have fewer qualms, and indeed some of us look to the Catholic church for inspiration and guidance while still maintaing our bibles close at hand. For example, my rather pro-life streak comes from the Pope’s Humanae Vitae.

To answer your question directly: Papal Infallibility is perhaps the largest stumbling block for me when it comes to reconciliation with the Catholic church. I understand that Papal Infallibility is rarely asserted, and in the examples of it’s use I can find no fault in the pronouncements, but my reading of the bible would seem to indicate that the only infallible man was the Son of God.

Thanks for the blessing! May God bless you too.

Sincere thanks Ben, for sharing these insites:thumbsup:

A couple of points for your consideration.

First one must be able in judging Catholism, to seperate “Mother Church” from those who are or claim to be Her members. The members; like all humanity ARE sinners; but “the Church” as the Bride of Christ is, and has to be “Perfect” like Christ; and CANNOT sin.

Second: Is a right understanding of “Infallibility”. This is no human invention. Infallibility flows from God THROUGH whomever He choses. In defining “Infability” the Church Fathers were only explaining in a different manner what the Bible and God Himself warrants and insures.

John.14: 26 “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. “ … **John.20: 22 **“And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” … **Acts.1: 2 “**until the day when he was taken up, after he had given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen”

Along with the Key’s HAD to come BOTH the essential authority and Power and the Mandate. And Both come with Christ own and Personal warranty of teaching ONLY THE truth.

In John 17; 15-19, and again in John 20:21-22 God passes on HIS very own Powers and Authority to Peter and, through Peter; the other Apostles His WIll. “AS THE FATHER SENT ME, SO TOO I SEND YOU!” [The NT has at least 50 Peter First; as evidence of the papacy desired by God]

And the mandate: Mt. 28:16-20 "Now the eleven disciples [apostles] went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. "And Jesus came and said to them, ***“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. *** Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, [the ENTIRE WORLD]baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

John 17:15-20 "I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth.
As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world.
*** And for their sake I consecrate myself, that they also may be consecrated in truth***. [And knowing that humanity demands evidence; Christ ADDS] "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word",

Because ALL of these WORDS of Christ are meant exclusively for Peter and the Apostles, it is in an absoute sense that ANY Papal or magisterium Teaching on ONLY the matters of “Faith or Morals” that MUST be believed by all can be in error. Christ has promised it and MUST Personally Insure it.

*Mt. 16-18-19 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church [singular] ***, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

NOT ALWAYS GRASPED is that these two passages cannot from Gods Own persepective be seperated. The promise, Authority and the WARRANTY by God are "ONE."

I hope this adds to your understanding? papal Infalability pronouncements are extremely rare and limted to Dogma’s NOT because God does not ALSO warrant ALL Doctines as well; but as to not risk incorrect human understanding unnecessarily.

God Bless you Ben!
pat/Pjm

 

[PJM]

=mackbrislawn;9348542]I understand why it would be a stumbling block. I am not a fan of the idea myself, even if it is true, because it does create a stumbling block. Councils have been used to answer pressing problems. So why not continue to use them? I don’t know, although councils are expensive and time consuming.

Infallibility means to be prevented by the Holy Spirit from error. The apostles were also infallible because they had the Holy Spirit behind them when they taught. Since they had been sent directly by Jesus to teach, they were also inspired. Infallibility does not imply inspiration, like the apostles had been.

SURE IT DOES

PLEASE READ POST #34,

GOD BLESS YOU,
pat/PJM

 

[benjohnson]

Sincere thanks Ben, for sharing these insites:thumbsup:

A couple of points for your consideration
God Bless you Ben!
pat/Pjm

Thanks PJm for your time and consideration - you’ve been helpful for understanding.

The second hurdle for Lutherans accepting Papal Infallibility is historical - when Lutherans think of the papal office, we don’t think necessarily of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. We think of 500 yeas back to Leo X - who, if you don’t mind me saying so, did have a few flaws. In addition to turning us out, he built up Rome at the expense of the outlying church, and was a bit too lavish on himself.

If you look how intentionally humble Lutheran churches are to this day - this too is a reaction to lavishness of Rome and Church in Leo X’s time.

Thankfully, after Leo X, the Catholic church never allowed a non-clergy member to become Pope and I think it’s fair for Lutherans to say Popes have had the blessing of the Holy Spirit subsequent to that troubling era.

So as long as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility isn’t retroactive to Leo X, we may be able to come to an agreement.

Thanks again!

 

[PJM]

=benjohnson;9349407]Thanks PJm for your time and consideration - you’ve been helpful for understanding.

The second hurdle for Lutherans accepting Papal Infallibility is historical - when Lutherans think of the papal office, we don’t think necessarily of John Paul II or Benedict XVI. We think of 500 yeas back to Leo X - who, if you don’t mind me saying so, did have a few flaws. In addition to turning us out, he built up Rome at the expense of the outlying church, and was a bit too lavish on himself.

If you look how intentionally humble Lutheran churches are to this day - this too is a reaction to lavishness of Rome and Church in Leo X’s time.

Thankfully, after Leo X, the Catholic church never allowed a non-clergy member to become Pope and I think it’s fair for Lutherans to say Popes have had the blessing of the Holy Spirit subsequent to that troubling era.

So as long as the doctrine of Papal Infallibility isn’t retroactive to Leo X, we may be able to come to an agreement.

Thanks again!

AMEN Brother!

He was without doubt one of the worst popes in our history! BUT; even with him; God INSURED that NO NEW TEACHINGS on matters to be believed in Faith or Morals were issued; and that is PROOF-POSITIVE of God keeping is “WARRANY of TRUTH” Promise.

I do a weekly “Faith Lesson” mailing to more than 90 people; many of whom have taken my FREE course, ***“Building Blocks of Our Catholic Faith” where ***we endeavor not only to share our beliefs BUT to explain Why we believe and on WHAT grounds [HOW] we are able to believe them.

Just this week we began our Study of TRENT and much that surrounds it. So I know of what you speak.

God’s continued blessings Ben,

pat/PJM

 

[mackbrislawn]

SURE IT DOES

PLEASE READ POST #34,

GOD BLESS YOU,
pat/PJM

You mean to say infallibility does imply inspiration?

That is not my understanding. The apostles and scripture writers were inspired as well as infallible. With inspiration, information is given directly to the (name removed by moderator)ired person. Not so with infallibility; it is more of a negative guarantee in that the infallible office will be prevented from teaching error. Not that the infallible office or institution will be given the truth directly, but that the office or institution will not be allowed to teach something not true.

 

[stewstew03]

I just wanted to clear up the Lutheran prospective on Sola Scriptura - we don’t think that you can just plunk down bibles to make great Christians. Remember, the whole idea of Sola Scriptura came about as a reaction to the some members of the Catholic church abusing their God-given mandate - paying for indulgences and simony for example. Sola Scriptura was a way to express that those practices were wrong, and to refocus on what we felt was most important.

As the Catholic church backed off of those practices, modern Lutherans have fewer qualms, and indeed some of us look to the Catholic church for inspiration and guidance while still maintaing our bibles close at hand. For example, my rather pro-life streak comes from the Pope’s Humanae Vitae.

To answer your question directly: Papal Infallibility is perhaps the largest stumbling block for me when it comes to reconciliation with the Catholic church. I understand that Papal Infallibility is rarely asserted, and in the examples of it’s use I can find no fault in the pronouncements, but my reading of the bible would seem to indicate that the only infallible man was the Son of God.

Thanks for the blessing! May God bless you too.

Papal infallibility isn’t really about the Pope, it’s about the Body of Christ.

 

[PJM]

=mackbrislawn;9350115]You mean to say infallibility does imply inspiration?

Exactly:

That is not my understanding. The apostles and scripture writers were inspired as well as infallible. With inspiration, information is given directly to the (name removed by moderator)ired person. Not so with infallibility; it is more of a negative guarantee in that the infallible office will be prevented from teaching error. Not that the infallible office or institution will be given the truth directly, but that the office or institution will not be allowed to teach something not true.

As the net effect is the same; I fail to see the signifiance of your point:shrug: NO DOUBT its just me:blush:

Why is the idea of Inspiration so foreign? Is this not the COMMON path of the Holy Spirt?

God Bless,
pat/PJM