Sola Scriptura--now I get

  • Thread starter Thread starter aurora77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Giver:
First you say the Pope and bishops never changed then you say never changed any doctrine to mean the opposite. Well what do you call it where they changed from no war to a just war, and no usury to excessive usury?
Click to expand...
Jesus never explicitly addresses war in the Bible, so please do not claim that he does. Also, during the first century to century and a half after Jesus’ death and Resurrection Christians thought Christ’s return was imminent. They were preparing for His return so the reality of the need for defense was not a focus. So, the teaching on war did not become “the opposite”, it became defined as it had never been previously.

The Church is also not the war-mongering institution you would like to present it to be.

The Catechism emphasizes “Blessed are the peacemakers”:

The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.

2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.

However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed” (Gaudium et Spes 79).

**2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: **
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
The Gospels present Jesus as being generally opposed to violence and encouraging peacemaking, but do not clearly address the question of war fighting.

The Christian tradition seeks to reconcile Christ’s opposition to violence with the protection of the innocent and the preservation of justice and peace.

Instead of extolling the martial virtues, Jesus declares ‘Blessed are the peacemakers; they shall be called God’s children’ (Mt. 5: 10).

BUT

In Matthew 10: 34, Jesus says: ‘You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have come not to bring peace but a sword’.

Christ physically drove the moneychangers from the temple (Jn. 2: 15). And St Paul (Romans, 13: 4) insisted on submission to civil authority, since it came from God. ‘It is not for nothing that they hold the power of the sword, for they are God’s agents of punishment bringing retribution on the offender.’

A leading authority on just war theory, James Turner Johnson, argued that the early Christian rejection of war-fighting and killing stemmed from their expectation that the Reign of God was imminent and not from pacifism. The gradual realisation that Jesus’ Second Coming was taking longer than expected led the Christians gradually to focus on more immediate issues, such as military service. Johnson argues that the sizeable Christian presence in the Roman Army from at least AD 174 indicates that many Christians accepted the legitimacy of military service, and presumably had for some time.

In short, changes in the army, in Roman society and the Christian communities resulted in divergent practices in different parts of the Empire even from early in the second century AD, as the earlier millennial leanings gave way to a realisation that Christians had to contribute to the maintenance of the security of the Empire.

The problem for the Christians was how to maintain the prohibition against killing and violence but also to recognise the need to defend the innocent against violence.

The first major attempt to think through this problem came (well before Constantine) from Clement of Alexandria (AD c.150-c. 215), whom Johnson regards as ambiguous at times, but who could also be seen as the first Christian just war thinker introducing two elements of what would later become standard just war theory, arguing for the defence of the Empire (just cause), on the authority of the emperor (right authority).

www.compassreview.org/winter03/7.html
 
40.png
Giver:
First you say the Pope and bishops never changed then you say never changed any doctrine to mean the opposite. Well what do you call it where they changed from no war to a just war, and no usury to excessive usury?
Click to expand...
Christians have never been pacifists and the Church’s stance on usury has not changed, only developed. You may also want to check out this thread on the topic of pacifism.

“one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one”
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
No, no, no. This is completely different from limbo which was merely theological speculation and was never adopted by the Church as doctrine or priestly celibacy which is a discipline that can be done away with altogether (although it probably won’t be). No salvation outside the Church is DOGMA. Dogmas cannot be changed because they are divinely revealed. Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence declared that the Church:

“firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Cf. Matthew 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It doesn’t get any more authoritative or explicit than that.
Click to expand...
(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

Mark 9:38 – 40) “John said to Him, ‘Master, we saw a man who is not one of us casting out devils in your name; and because he was not one of us we tried to stop him’. But Jesus said, ‘you must not stop him: no one who works a miracle in my name is likely to speak evil of me. Anyone who is not against us is

If what you have written is true, that teaching (dogma) alone tells me that the Catholic Church has been mislead for a long time.
 
40.png
Eden:
The Gospels present Jesus as being generally opposed to violence
Click to expand...
“the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force” (matt 11:12)
 
Giver said:
(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
Click to expand...

This is about those who would come centuries later like the Protestants and claim authority when they had none. The Church was given authority by Christ. Protestants were given authority from Martin Luther.

The description in the Bible passage from Giver sounds a lot like those televangelists “casting out demons” and “working miracles in his name” on TV. I never understand why Protestants don’t recognize that when they quote this passage.
 
Giver said:
(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”
Click to expand...

This is a very Catholic passage in that it exhorts Christians to DO the will of God the Father rather than just accept Him as “Lord.” Even Satan and the demons have accepted that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, but they won’t be saved. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
Angainor:
I’m glad you asked that question. You are right, you would not be welcome as a member of our congregation.
Click to expand...
Of course not - but why not?
40.png
Angainor:
However, our congregation considers itself part of The Church,
Click to expand...
Ah - well just change the subject. So does the Catholic Church “consider” you “part” of the Church.
40.png
Angainor:
but it does not claim to be The Church.
Click to expand...
Of course not - they know that is an untenable claim and they prefer to believe that there is no such thing - that way they can still make all their own rules! Governed strictly by the Bible of course…Im sure you have a point here, but you better state it explicitly rather than making a statement and expecting us to
40.png
Angainor:
Your gatekeepers truely believe they are keeping me out of The Church.
Click to expand...
False accusation - The Church only decides in the affirmative who has died and gone to heaven by declaring them Saints. The Church never decides who has been excluded - even if they exclude you from membership of the Church on earth - you are still not being judged as excluded from the body of Christ. In addition, the Church’s “denying” you approval is not really a “decision” that they make which results in your exclusion from the fullness of membership. It is a statement simply telling you that YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM is preventing you from being a full member of the Church - they are bound to deny you at this time. Big difference. For them to “accept” you with your current beliefs would be a lie. That is what the Church is supposed to do - let you know when your wandering a bit so that you recognize the need for change. It is not all about feeling “accepted” regardless of the beliefs. They are not judging you,as excluded from the mystical body of Christ - which is the Church, nor are they deciding TO exclude you from the mystical body of Christ. Big difference.
40.png
Angainor:
Our congregation exists as a confessional church.
Click to expand...
Why do most nonCatholics seem to do their utmost to hide the actual church they belong to? Does your church not have a name? Can we not validate the claims you make independently like you can for the Catholic Church?
40.png
Angainor:
That is, a congregation of Christians who associate with each other because we have a common confession of truth, that is, a common understanding of the truth. If you do not share our confessions, I do not see why we would naturally choose to associate in the same congregation.
Click to expand...
That is a very whimpy way of saying that if we dont share your common understanding of the truth then NATURALLY we would be excluded from your church - right?
40.png
Angainor:
That does not mean anyone in our congregation presumes you to be outside of Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
Is that explicitly stated as part of your common confession of truth or is that a conclusion you have reached on your own based on YOUR UNDERSTANDING of those confessions? Do you have a website to those confessions?
 
AG… The issue I have with what your saying, is that your form of testimony relies on just the individual. However what if you and your conscience are wrong??? Haven’t you been wrong before…? Scripture says repeadly “Trust in the Lord with all of your heart, and lean not in your own understanding.” Nowhere, in Scripture does it give Individual Christians the authority to test doctrines by themselves for themselves. In the end, it becomes an individualized realtivistic form of Christianity. May I point out another Scripture verse to you: 2 Timothy 4:1-5
1 I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who willjudge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power:
proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers
and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.
But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.

There is also another Scripture verse in Hebrews that says Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they watch on behalf of your souls, as those who will give account, that they may do this with joy, and not with groaning, for that would be unprofitable for you. Hebrews 13:17.

there is also the fact that Corinthians says that any prophecy someone makes is subject to the Church and should be tested by the Church.“Two or three prophets should speak, and the others discern.” (1 Corinthians 14:29).

I would also like to point out when the Church had questions about the Judaizers, they didn’t say each individual decide for yourselfs. No, the Church council decided. According to Galations too, Paul took his revelation to the leaders of the Church in private, to make sure he wasn’t running in vain.

As Christians we have a message to the world, and we must be Scripturally in agreement on the main issues. If there is going to be TRuth. You asked somewhere, how who promised us Truth with certainity, and I would say Jesus Christ did. He promised it when he said that He would send his Holy Spirit who would guide us into Truth… Jesus also said that when a conflict came the conflict, would eventually be brought to the whole Church, and the Church had the authority to decide the matter. He said that when two or more are gathered in his name, He’s there…

For me, this is about truth, and how we can know Truth. It’s not what each of us want it Truth to be…I believe Christ set up leaders in the Church scripturally, and Scripture says to obey those leaders. As such, in order for me to go against the leaders, and all authority is from God… The burden of the proof rests on the people challenging the leaders, Big time.

Now, if the Catholic pope ever said that well Jesus Christ wasn’t God. I’d be out of here faster than you could say Protestant…But that hasn’t happened. I’m also encouraged by the fact that the Church goes by Tradition as well… That they try to be consistent to what the Church has always taught, because that in and of itself is Scriptural. If anyone comes to you with a gospel other than the one you accepted…!

My challenge to you is once again, who does the testing. I would argue that Scripture doesn’t say its the individual. EXCEPT, for in the case of the Bereans, where they were individuals deciding if they wanted to accept the Christian message…Then, the person has the right and responsibility to look things up.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
No, no, no. This is completely different from limbo which was merely theological speculation and was never adopted by the Church as doctrine or priestly celibacy which is a discipline that can be done away with altogether (although it probably won’t be). No salvation outside the Church is DOGMA. Dogmas cannot be changed because they are divinely revealed. Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence declared that the Church:

“firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Cf. Matthew 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

It doesn’t get any more authoritative or explicit than that.
Click to expand...
I don’t see a problem with the current CCC on no salvation outside the church. Remember this, to not submit to church teaching, even as it develops and is further understood, even if at first we don’t “like it” is to be schismatic. I always have to remember that the HS IS protecting the body of Christ from error. If the HS is not doing this then Christ is a liar and we know that is not so.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
 
40.png
St.Eric:
Who is Matt1618 and from what position of authority is he/she writing/speaking from? Is Matt1618 a part os SSPX for instance? In which case we would have to discount the writings of a schismatic.
Click to expand...
No, actually you wouldn’t. Schismatics hold the Catholic faith but are disobedient to the pope. The SSPX does not hold an extreme position on EENS as do some Feeneyite traditionalist groups that verge more on heresy. And Matt1618, if I’m not mistaken, is a fellow CAF member and is not to my knowledge associated with the SSPX at all (even though it wouldn’t make a difference if he was.)
 
40.png
St.Eric:
I don’t see a problem with the current CCC on no salvation outside the church. Remember this, to not submit to church teaching, even as it develops and is further understood, even if at first we don’t “like it” is to be schismatic. I always have to remember that the HS IS protecting the body of Christ from error. If the HS is not doing this then Christ is a liar and we know that is not so.

catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with not “liking it.” It has everything to do with being loyal to Tradition and not straying from the Church’s perennial teaching on this issue.
 
JSmitty2005 said:
matt1618.freeyellow.com/eens.html
Click to expand...

I will read the whole link in time. For right now I have just read the conclusion. What I am seeing is that Matt1618 is stating that the current CCC is not in oppostion to the original 3 decrees. Did you post this link as further explaination of the current CCC on this subject? I assumed from earlier posts that you beleive the current CCC to be out of line with earlier church teching. The link to Matt1618 seems to affirm that the current CCC is in-line with traditional teaching on the subject.
 
40.png
St.Eric:
I will read the whole link in time. For right now I have just read the conclusion. What I am seeing is that Matt1618 is stating that the current CCC is not in oppostion to the original 3 decrees. Did you post this link as further explaination of the current CCC on this subject? I assumed from earlier posts that you beleive the current CCC to be out of line with earlier church teching. The link to Matt1618 seems to affirm that the current CCC is in-line with traditional teaching on the subject.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t surprise me that he holds that interpretation and I personally would like to myself, but I cannot for the life of me reconcile the Church’s stance in the Catechism with that of past teachings. The main reason that I posted that link was to show that this issue really is “de fide” since you said earlier that:
40.png
St.Eric:
I do not think the “no salvation outside of the church” is “de fide” and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to develop it. Much like the theory on Limbo was never a de fide dogma. Or like the discipline of priestly celibacy- there was a time in the church when priests were allowed to marry. However, the practice if celibacy is not dogma, and therefore can change.
Click to expand...
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
It doesn’t surprise me that he holds that interpretation and I personally would like to myself, but I cannot for the life of me reconcile the Church’s stance in the Catechism with that of past teachings. The main reason that I posted that link was to show that this issue really is “de fide” since you said earlier that:
Click to expand...
Have you read the entire link? I am going through it right now and he is making a pretty convicning case. I do now see it is de fide.
Thanks for the link by the way. I think it wil be useful for other threads and apologetics.
 
The CCC’s statement that Protestant “ecclesia communities” are a “means of salvation” seems to go directly against the 18th proposition that Pius IX condemned in his Syllabus of Errors:

Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top