Sola Scriptura--now I get

[mmortal03]

mmortal03:

Btw, sorry if I have been misinformed about what Vatican II actually did.

Also, just to make sure I am clear on this, from what it sounds like to me, pedantically speaking, doctrine as a whole CAN “change”, depending on how you define the word “change”. It would seem by how you put it that it would be more accurate to say that doctrine as a whole cannot be “reversed” and individual doctrines also cannot be “reversed”.

If doctrine can be developed, “developing” would imply an addition, and an addition would imply that a “change” occurred in the doctrine. So, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem more appropriate to say that doctrines cannot be “reversed” or “subtracted from”, than to say that they cannot change.

Either way, I wasn’t aware of this specificity that you have now made me aware of, when I made the statement above.

Ok, so I might have answered my own question by actually reading one of those links:

"Doctrinal development brings a clearer and more precise meaning to what has always been held; whereas doctrinal evolution (which was condemned by Pop Pius X), changes what has always been believed. "

What defines “what has always been held”?
Even in the case of “doctrinal development” a “change” or “addition” occurs, but the basic underlying belief is not altered.

So, we can’t “reverse” or “subtract” from a doctrine, but we can “clarify” it.

Can anyone “clarify” my own thoughts? Thanks

 

[JSmitty2005]

mmortal03:

Ok, so I might have answered my own question by actually reading one of those links:

"Doctrinal development brings a clearer and more precise meaning to what has always been held; whereas doctrinal evolution (which was condemned by Pop Pius X), changes what has always been believed. "

What defines “what has always been held”?
Even in the case of “doctrinal development” a “change” or “addition” occurs, but the basic underlying belief is not altered.

So, we can’t “reverse” or “subtract” from a doctrine, but we can “clarify” it.

Can anyone “clarify” my own thoughts? Thanks

I think that the link you’re referring to was a post by USMC. Maybe you could private message him for clarification. He knows his stuff better than I. Sorry, but I can only explain so far.

 

[JSmitty2005]

DARichards:

What is EENS??

Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus = No Salvation Outside the Church

 

[volzcpa]

geno75:

Where is the Mass taught and were was it practiced in the bible.

Here Paul recounts the Last Supper, the first Mass, the “breaking of the bread” about which Christ says “Do this in remembrance of me." Paul also states that the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor 11: 23-30 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.

Here, on Easter Sunday, Christ again celebrates the “breaking of the bread”.
Luke 24:30-35 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread.

Here those baptized on Pentecost, are devoted to the “breaking of the bread” and the “breaking of the bread” is done along with scripture reading in the temple; the same format that is followed in the present day Mass.
Acts 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.
Acts 2:46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts,

Here, again, Paul talks of the “breaking of the bread” being the body and blood of Christ.
1 Cor 10:16-17 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

Here is an Old Testament prediction of a sacrifice and a “pure offering” being offered, a prophecy of the Mass.
*Malachi 1:10-11 Oh, that there were one among you who would shut the doors, that you might not kindle fire upon my altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, says the LORD of hosts, and I will not accept an offering from your hand. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts. *

Here is a tract showing that the early Christians held the “breaking of the bread” as central to their faith.

 

[volzcpa]

geno75:

Jesus fulfilled holy days and feast days as well as the 10 commandments, but yet the CC says he instituted new ones.

While it is true that some of the Jewish feast days were instituted by God, some were begun by kings and rulers of Judah to celebrate particular great works of God. In the Catholic Church feast days and holy days are disciplines which should not be confused with doctrine or dogmas. Disciplines are things that are used to strengthen our faith and can be changed while doctrine defines the faith and cannot be changed.

Do you think it was wrong for the Catholic Church to establish Christmas to celebrate the birth of Christ and Easter to celebrate his resurrection?

You will have to give me your reference where the Catholic Church says Christ instituted new holy days for I do not believe that is part of Catholic teaching.

 

[joshua_b]

Ok I’m issuing a blanket challenge (as a matter of fact Im starting a new thread on this). I want ANYONE who has objections to the Catholic Church to cite me specific examples of any teaching that has changed or that contradicts another Catholic teaching, or any teaching that is unbiblical. If anyone (and it appears several people are) is interested in taking the discussion in this direction, then look for this thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

 

[Stephen_Butler]

Angainor:

To reiterate: the reason I do not test the Bible itself is because it was written by Apostles and OT Prophets.

How do you know that? By what infallible source do you know the bible was written by the apostles and prophets? How do you know that these words on the page are actually what the apostles taught? By what authority was this collection of books declared infallible?

If you reject the authority which declared these writings to be infallible, you reject the infallibility of the writings. This logic is inescapable.

If the very same authority that listed, assembled, and declared the infallible books of scripture also says with complete confidence and authority, with full recent knowledge of history, that the eucharist is to be celebrated in a manner virtually indistinguishable from how it is done today, and this authority can still, today, show you writings that make it clear that this was the practice since the very origin of the church, and this same authority could then, as it can today, show that nothing in the infallible scripture contradicts this practice, then by what test does a protestant deny it?

I am a converted protestant. I converted because I saw and understood the authority. I have had and still have many struggles with the teaching. I have and still do place great value on my freedom to decide things for myself. But, at the same time that I appreciate my intellectual capacity and freedom, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my personal conclusions are more likely to be the truth than the assembled wisdom and witnesses of two thousand years of diligent faith and scholarship. The decision is yours, but as a scholar, intellectual, scientist, and above all Christian, I would encourage you to not place such faith in the capacity of your own reason. If you do, history will one day make a fool of you as it has all others with such notions.

And if you do accept the wisdom of others, place this to the test. If you are trying to validate history, are you likely to get the truth from someone who only looks at it 1500 years after it happened, deliberately and methodically ignoring the documents and testimony of the group who lived it and has kept an unbroken tradition in writing for the entire period during and since? Is that sound scholarship? If you want to study American Indian history, is it wise to methodically ignore what the American Indians tell you? Insist that only archaeology of those from your own organization can produce answers which can be trusted? Is that good science?

 

[Giver]

joshua_b:

Ok I’m issuing a blanket challenge (as a matter of fact Im starting a new thread on this). I want ANYONE who has objections to the Catholic Church to cite me specific examples of any teaching that has changed or that contradicts another Catholic teaching, or any teaching that is unbiblical. If anyone (and it appears several people are) is interested in taking the discussion in this direction, then look for this thread in the Non-Catholic Religions forum.

I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and the true Church of God should follow the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says it is the true church of God. When challenged that their teachings don’t follow the Word of God, a person is told only the Churches interpretation can be valid. Now as long a person accepts that the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority that person will not accept any argument that doesn’t agree with the Churches interpretation, no matter how valid an argument someone may have. The following Scriptures are examples of some very solid arguments.

(John 16:13) “But when the Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he will not be speaking as from himself but will say only what he has learnt; and he will tell you of the things to come.”

(1 John 5: 16) “If anybody sees his brother commit a sin that is not a deadly sin, he has only to pray, and God will give life to the simmer - not those who commit a deadly sin; for there is a sin that is death, and I will not say that you must pray about that. Every kind of wrongdoing is sin, but not all sin is deadly.

We know that anyone who has been begotten by God does not sin, because the begotten Son of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.” So then, brothers, there is no necessity for us to obey our unspiritual selves or to live unspiritual lives. If you do live in that way, you are doomed to die; but if by the Spirit you put an end to the misdeeds of the body you will live.”

(Hebrews 10:26-31) “If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There will be left only the dreadful prospect of judgment and of the raging fire that is to burn rebels. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three; and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment. We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will repay. And again: The Lord will judge his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

Galatians 5:16
“Let me put it like this if you are guided by the Spirit you will be in no danger of yielding to self-indulgence…”. Paul tells us that if, the Holy Spirit guides us, we are in no danger of sinning.

(Romans 12:18-21) “Do all you can to live at peace with everyone. Never try to get revenge; leave that, my friends, to God’s anger. As scripture says: ‘vengeance is mine – I will pay them back, the Lord promises.”

(Luke 6:27-29) “But I say this to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who treat you badly. To the man who slaps you on one cheek, present the other cheek too; to the man who takes you cloak from you, do not refuse your tunic.”

(Matthew 23:8-12) “You, however, must not allow yourselves to be called Rabbi, since you have only one Master, and you are all brothers. You must call no one on earth your father, since you have only one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor must you allow yourselves to be called teachers, for you have only one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you must be your
servant. Anyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and anyone who humbles himself will be exalted.”

(Matthew 6:19) “Do not store up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moths and woodworms destroy them and thieves can break in and steal.”

Now doesn’t it seem strange that a person who is living the whole Word of God can be called evil, because he or she doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

 

[DARichards]

Giver:

Now doesn’t it seem strange that a person who is living the whole Word of God can be called evil, because he or she doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

In my process so far, I have never heard any priest or any one in the Catholic church call someone “evil” because they don’t agree with the teachings of the Church. In fact I have been told that the vast majority of Protestants are “separated bretheren”.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.

 

[Giver]

DARichards:

In my process so far, I have never heard any priest or any one in the Catholic church call someone “evil” because they don’t agree with the teachings of the Church. In fact I have been told that the vast majority of Protestants are “separated bretheren”.

Maybe I am misunderstanding.

Now isn’t that nice. Everything that was said and all you can respond to is: a priest in your experience hasn’t called any one evil. So all the times I have been called evil by priest and others on this forum didn’t happen right?

I had to correct a Catholic Jesuit theologian, who was giving a talk to a large group of Catholics, because he was telling us that when a person received communion they became Jesus. Now I was called evil for daring to challenge a priest.

 

[Mickey]

Giver:

Now doesn’t it seem strange that a person who is living the whole Word of God can be called evil, because he or she doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

I can’t figure out what you are trying to say?

 

[Stephen_Butler]

Giver:

Now isn’t that nice. Everything that was said and all you can respond to is: a priest in your experience hasn’t called any one evil. So all the times I have been called evil by priest and others on this forum didn’t happen right?

I had to correct a Catholic Jesuit theologian, who was giving a talk to a large group of Catholics, because he was telling us that when a person received communion they became Jesus. Now I was called evil for daring to challenge a priest.

If Christians handled these issues perfectly, we wouldn’t need 2 Timothy 2:23-26

Avoid foolish and ignorant debates, for you know that they breed quarrels. A slave of the Lord should not quarrel, but should be gentle with everyone, able to teach, tolerant, correcting opponents with kindness. It may be that God will grant them repentance that leads to knowledge of the truth, and that they may return to their senses out of the devil’s snare, where they are entrapped by him, for his will.

It is easy enough to find instances of Catholic hostility, or anyone else’s hostility for that matter. How we respond to it, irregardless of the source, is where I feel we should focus our attention … that of course being in addition to praying that we are not the ones doing it.

 

[MariaG]

Giver:

Now isn’t that nice. Everything that was said and all you can respond to is: a priest in your experience hasn’t called any one evil. So all the times I have been called evil by priest and others on this forum didn’t happen right?

I had to correct a Catholic Jesuit theologian, who was giving a talk to a large group of Catholics, because he was telling us that when a person received communion they became Jesus. Now I was called evil for daring to challenge a priest.

On this forum someone called you evil? Where? And I hope you reported this personal attack as it is against forum rules.

Conduct rule #1 (Rules)
1.Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.

I would certainly consider calling a person evil to be a personal attack. Where was this done and did you report it? If not you should have.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[DARichards]

Giver:

Now isn’t that nice. Everything that was said and all you can respond to is: a priest in your experience hasn’t called any one evil. So all the times I have been called evil by priest and others on this forum didn’t happen right?

I had to correct a Catholic Jesuit theologian, who was giving a talk to a large group of Catholics, because he was telling us that when a person received communion they became Jesus. Now I was called evil for daring to challenge a priest.

First of all, let me apologize to you for your experiences. Nobody can nullify your experiences and what happened to you. I have had similar experiences with my Evangelical Protestant Pastor in regards to my conversion to the Catholic Church but I don’t condemn the Presbyterian Church, it is just his convictions.

Secondly, there may have been a communicaion gap between what the priest wanted to say regarding the reception of communion and what you heard. The reception of the Eucharist is meant to be a transforming process and every time wereceive the Sacrament we are meant to be transformed more and more into Christ’s image. Also we are solidifying our unity in the Body of Christ. Which in both of these instances, we are becoming Jesus.

 

[Giver]

DARichards:

First of all, let me apologize to you for your experiences. Nobody can nullify your experiences and what happened to you. I have had similar experiences with my Evangelical Protestant Pastor in regards to my conversion to the Catholic Church but I don’t condemn the Presbyterian Church, it is just his convictions.

Secondly, there may have been a communicaion gap between what the priest wanted to say regarding the reception of communion and what you heard. The reception of the Eucharist is meant to be a transforming process and every time wereceive the Sacrament we are meant to be transformed more and more into Christ’s image. Also we are solidifying our unity in the Body of Christ. Which in both of these instances, we are becoming Jesus.

There was no misunderstanding. I got up and very clearly asked him to clarify what he had shared. I said he was wrong, and you know out of all those hundreds of people there, I’m the only one who challenged him. This illustrates to me just how little people listen to the priest or maybe how intimidated they are by them.

 

[Mickey]

Giver:

There was no misunderstanding. I got up and very clearly asked him to clarify what he had shared. I said he was wrong, and you know out of all those hundreds of people there, I’m the only one who challenged him. This illustrates to me just how little people listen to the priest or maybe how intimidated they are by them.

Since you are the only one representing this incident–and the priest is not here to defend himself—your statement is meaningless.

 

[maryj]

Angainor:

Maybe John and Paul knew the Apostles wouldn’t be around forever.

Huh???

 

[Pax]

Giver:

I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and the true Church of God should follow the Word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says it is the true church of God. When challenged that their teachings don’t follow the Word of God, a person is told only the Churches interpretation can be valid. Now as long a person accepts that the Roman Catholic Church is the final authority that person will not accept any argument that doesn’t agree with the Churches interpretation, no matter how valid an argument someone may have. The following Scriptures are examples of some very solid arguments.

…
…
…

Now doesn’t it seem strange that a person who is living the whole Word of God can be called evil, because he or she doesn’t agree with the teachings of the Catholic Church?

Robert,

You have had every challenge you’ve made to Catholic teaching refuted by scripture alone and your arguments are not persuasive. Unfortunately, the reverse of your accusation is true…valid arguments have been presented to you and you simply ignore them.

I also challenge you to show where people on this forum have called you “evil.” In the thread Title of Catholic Priests you accused me of calling you “Judas.” I never did such a thing and I challenged your accusation. You never responded to my challenge and I can only assume it was because you were wrong in accusing me. I have followed most of the responses to your posts carefully and I do not believe anyone has called you “evil.”
You should produce the proof or retract the statement.

Now, you also claim in your latest post that you are “living the whole word of God.” Unfortunately, you are mistaken. Anyone that rejects the NT ministerial priesthood and believes that they themselves can consecrate the Eucharist is not living the whole word of God. You have, instead, rejected some very important parts of the word of God and these things have been demonstrated to you logically using ample amounts of scripture. You need to question yourself and stop imagining that the 2000 years of Christian wisdom found within the Church is inferior to yours.

 

[Pax]

Giver:

Now isn’t that nice. Everything that was said and all you can respond to is: a priest in your experience hasn’t called any one evil. So all the times I have been called evil by priest and others on this forum didn’t happen right?

I had to correct a Catholic Jesuit theologian, who was giving a talk to a large group of Catholics, because he was telling us that when a person received communion they became Jesus. Now I was called evil for daring to challenge a priest.

Robert,

I have also heard a Jesuit priest say some very heretical things at a parish mission I attended. Naturally, I did my best to correct him and to show him from scripture why the Church’s teaching was correct and that his errant views were not. I did this in written form and he never responded. I hope that what I presented to him will give him food for thought.

I have also listened to Father Mitch Pacwa SJ and he is totally orthodox. His knowledge of scripture, church teaching, history, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Aramaic are awesome gifts from God. He is a wonderful Jesuit and is always very charitable. Don’t let your bad experiences drowned out the good.

 

[Angainor]

Stephen Butler:

How do you know that? By what infallible source do you know the bible was written by the apostles and prophets? How do you know that these words on the page are actually what the apostles taught? By what authority was this collection of books declared infallible?

Are you saying there is no way a person could possibly conclude the Bible was inspired without a human authority telling you? Do you not give any recognition at all to the possibility that the truths proclaimed within speak for the Bible’s authenticity?

The authorship of many of the books are known fairly certainly from a historical perspective. The rest are theologically consistant with the known books.

Also, I believe the Church was working to preserve the word of God without requiring the assistance of authoritative individuals.
Stephen Butler:

But, at the same time that I appreciate my intellectual capacity and freedom, I am not so arrogant as to believe that my personal conclusions are more likely to be the truth than the assembled wisdom and witnesses of two thousand years of diligent faith and scholarship. The decision is yours, but as a scholar, intellectual, scientist, and above all Christian, I would encourage you to not place such faith in the capacity of your own reason. If you do, history will one day make a fool of you as it has all others with such notions.

It is not that I put my faith in my own reason above all others. Rather it is my own conscience that I cannot abandon in favor of someone else’s conscience.
Stephen Butler:

And if you do accept the wisdom of others, place this to the test. If you are trying to validate history, are you likely to get the truth from someone who only looks at it 1500 years after it happened, deliberately and methodically ignoring the documents and testimony of the group who lived it and has kept an unbroken tradition in writing for the entire period during and since? Is that sound scholarship?

I believe you are speaking of Martin Luther. He was a priest and a monk, and not ignorant about Catholic history.

Have you ever heard of the game Telephone? “The group” (as you call it) did not live through Catholic history any more than Luther lived through Catholic history. Everyone is born anew and the word can only be passed on to the next generation. At every generation it only human that the retelling can drift away, even ever-so-slightly. After generations this can magnify. Is it your place to say that it is not the Holy Spirit’s work if every now and again the Church does not take a step back, look at the whole picture, and test itself? Why is it impossible that this testing is the normal function of the Church? Can truth not be preserved that way?