sola scriptura

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. Logically speaking isn’t the following true, in this order:

Jesus established His church. Jesus sent to His church the Paraclete to guide His church forever (which is why we can trust the church in terms of defining doctrine as well as codifying sacred scripture). Jesus’ church, in terms of leadership, did as He requested and taught orally i.e. tradition, both oral and written, as per Saint Paul. Eventually, certain books of sacred scripture were called into question by some, in certain parts, necessitating the need for Jesus’ church leaders (using tradition as the touchstone) to determine what should be included and excluded?

If so, then even though sacred scripture + sacred tradition comprise the word of God, as per sacred scripture, and is therefore the absolute norm by which everyone is held accountable, Jesus’ church leadership, forever guided by God, is still the key to doctrinal unity?

Hi Joe,
The first paragraph I get. I’m not sure, however, that I follow the second.

Jon

 

[joe370]

I love my protestant brothers and sister.

But why dont we take sola scriptura literally, and just read the bible during

service and have no preaching.

In short to be really bible based, why dont we stop all preaching and just have

someone read out of the bible without any sermons.

Of course your question would have to to be addressed to each and every non-catholic church. Jesus, obviously, is no longer temporally present with us. Therefore, He uses His church as a sacramental channel to transmit and safeguard the deposit of faith so that each and every generation (not just the 1st, 4th, 15th century generations) can have access to the deposit of faith. After all Jesus said: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
The first paragraph I get. I’m not sure, however, that I follow the second.

Jon

Does Jesus use His church (as opposed to any one person) as a channel to transmit and safeguard the deposit of faith so that each and every generation (not just the 1st, 4th, 15th century generations) can have access to the deposit of faith. After all Jesus said: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe,
The first paragraph I get. I’m not sure, however, that I follow the second.

Jon

I used to wonder, long ago, does the following still apply: "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth (sacred tradition) or by letter (sacred scripture) "?

 

[Traverse]

Traverse,

I responded with the commentary saying that what is temporary is our living on earth with the Holy Spirit guiding us. You are taking the verse out of context and not reading the whole thing…read the whole passage including verses at the end.

You can disagree …

This is an example of the problem with Sola Scriptura.

There’s not much I can do if you think I’m taking that verse out of context. I do indeed disagree with that commentary, but this isn’t a problem with sola scriptura so much as it is a problem with people choosing to see different things that aren’t there.

The commentary you posted suggested that the entire chapter is about how love endures into the after life. However, it completely ignores the verse about “when the perfect comes.” If you think it’s talking about Christ there then there is still going to be a period on earth when that happens so either way you end up with spiritual gifts ending on earth.

The chapter is primarily about love in the context that the spiritual gifts the church has are temporary and therefore we must devote ourselves fully to love and charity because that is what will last. The chapter is talking about how we lack full knowledge and the gifts are each a part of full knowledge (which is why “the perfect” being Christ doesn’t make sense, the perfect is talking about the complete revelation of God, which is made up of the different parts).

The truth is we have two different conclusions on what “the perfect” means but that has nothing to do with taking that one verse out of context. Nothing in the chapter even describes death. That is an inference you are making based on nothing that I can see.

But again, this is a completely different topic. The topic here is sola scriptura, but our disagreement about this passage of scripture has nothing to do with the “problem of sola scriptura.” As I’ve said before, you can’t blame the differences that people see in the text as a problem with sola scriptura when both the catholic church and orthodox church claim to have sacred tradition and yet aren’t even in communion with one another. It goes both ways. But you don’t see me saying "That’s just another problem with sacred tradition and then using an emoticon.

 

[PRmerger]

As I’ve said before, you can’t blame the differences that people see in the text as a problem with sola scriptura when both the catholic church and orthodox church claim to have sacred tradition and yet aren’t even in communion with one another.

I can’t think of any verses that the EO interpret differently than the CC, save Matt 16:18.

What verses are you thinking of, Traverse?

 

[guanophore]

With the exception of the Sadducees (who only existed for about 250 years), yes. It’s as irrelevant as liberal Catholics who deny the the canon today. The fact is, even if you want to include the Sadducees, at a minimum, the Torah was recognized. This could not have been possible if the paradigm you provide is true.

If this were true, Protestants and Catholics would have the same canon. The reason we do not is because Luther chose to go with the canon defined by the Palestinian Jews that rejected Jesus, while the CC adopted the Canon used by Jesus and the Apostles, the Alexandrian Septuagint.

If you need an authority to tell you what's Scripture, then what authority gave your authority the authority?

Yes. Jesus gave this authority to the Church.

See, the Catholic has the same issue to deal with because we are discussing ultimate authorities here.

I agree. The difference is that we have resolved the issue, because we know that Jesus gave the authority to His One Church to discern and declare the canon.

The problem for you is that the CC has erred countless number of times, while the Scriptures have remained the same.

-Travis

Actually, that is not a problem for us, since it is your personal opinion, and it happens to contradict the Word of God. I would say that it is more a problem for YOU, since you seem to espouse this unbiblical position.

Jesus declared that He would lead His Church into “all Truth”, and that the gates of hell would not prevail. Catholics believe He has done this, and has infallibly protected His Holy Bride from teaching error.

The CC cannot “err countless number of times” or even one time. Her Head is Christ, and she is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. These Divine elements prevent her from error because they are divine, and cannot err.

 

[guanophore]

Dude…this is a Catholic forum. For me to respond to everything isn’t possible.

At the top of the thread is a “view first unread” buttton. If you use this, it will prevent you from missing posts. It keeps track of where you read last.

How do you know what was passed down?

It has been infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church. We believe that God is able to preserve His Word where He placed it, in the Church.

I already commented on this.  Do you think that Moses was not moved by the Holy Spirit to record the words for scripture or do you think he merely copied down oral tradition and was not inspired at all?

Bot things are true. There is more than one strand of Sacred Tradition included in the inspired text.

God specially prepared a people so that they would know how to keep and preserve His sacred words. This is how the OT was preserved, despite being given to a nomadic people, many wars, dislocations, and other disasters. God is able to preserve His Word.

My answer for how the account of history got from Adam to Moses is that Moses was inspired by the Holy Spirit, as the bible itself already says.  He was not writing his own thoughts, he was writing while inspired.

Indeed. He was putting to parchment the Sacred Tradition that had been passed down through the Generations.

I don’t dispute any of this. You make the mistake of my saying that oral tradition is no longer relevant means that His word has passed away.

I understand that you are only asserting that the oral tradition has passed away. You believe that “all” is contained in scripture, which is a falsehood. You must embrace this falsehood to justify rejecting God’s ability to preserve His Word in the Church where He placed it.

All I said was that oral tradition, which was of importance and guided by the Holy Spirit, was eventually recorded in sacred scripture. Why record scripture if it serves no purpose?

Now you are going to the opposite extreme. You are inferring that, if Sacred Tradition is valid, then Scripture “serves no purpose”. This is a strawman. Catholics receive and follow the Apostolic commandment:

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

You are unable to follow this commandment, because you were separated during the Reformation from the unwritten part of the traditions that were taught by the Apostles. Both are equally important, as the Apostle states.

Why not just have sacred tradition if you believe that the Holy Spirit keeps the church from error? What is the purpose of the written word in your eyes?

They are two inseparable strands of the Divine cord of Revelation. The two together comprise the once for all divine deposit of faith. Jude 3
I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Traditions that were taught, by word of mouth, and by letter.

I didn’t say that. In fact I believe that one of the ways the Holy Spirit did maintain the Word of God in the believers was by making sure it was written down as an everlasting record.

Yes, we believe this also, but we have not become faithless as you have, that He is too weak, or disinterested to keep His Word where He placed it among the believers. In your view, the weakness of men is stronger than the power of God, so that the Word of God in the believers got “lost”.

This is actually quite inaccurate. The trinity is described in scripture, it just doesn’t have the name “trinity.”

You can use the little blue mark next to the posters name to track the messages backwards. if you follow the chain of replies, you will see that your accusation was that the CC has not defined “one word” not found in the scriptures. So in fact, my answer to you is quite accurate. The Trinity is a term developed by the CC to denote what is described in Scripture.

That definition came almost 100 years before the NT canon was closed, by the way.

Likewise, scripture reveals for us that the saints met on Sundays.

Care to substantiate that?

There is MUCH MORE evidence that they met on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturdays).

That is why we meet on Sundays. Sacred Tradition doesn’t reveal this, it was already revealed.

Try making that case with Scripture, Trav. I think you will find that there are many more references to Sabbath observance in the NT than any Sunday meetings. You will also not find ANYWHERE in the NT any commandment of God or an Apostle that the Sabbath instituted by God in Genesis has been set aside. There is no authorization given in Scripture to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is completely a decision of the Catholic Church, made by her own authority. Try any of the Sabbatarian threads here in CAF. You will find plenty of evidence that your position from Scripture is quite weak.

In fact, I would raise a question as to why the catholic church sees fit to celebrate mass on every day of the week when Sacred Tradition/scripture only sets aside the authority to celebrate on Sundays.

Perhaps when you can produce a verse for this, we can continue on this point?

 

[guanophore]

I haven’t ignored anything. I don’t recall the question being posed to me specifically.

Although the answer doesn’t really enter into this conversation.

How can the source of the supposed bible not be pertinent to a discussion of sola scriptura? Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the schools have stopped teaching any logic whatsoever.

If Sola Scripturists are going to assert that all of Christianity should be based upon the collection of written documents claimed to be the New Testament, then should not the source of that collection be able to withstand some scrutiny?

I don't deny that tradition is why we have the bible.

This is actually a very magnanamous concession.

 I submit that the presence of one important tradition doesn't mean that there are more to follow.

I agree with you. However, this important tradition needs to be an infallible one. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing that what you have in your hand is actually the inspired and inerrant Word of God. So, how is it that the Church was able to make even ONE important infallible decision?

Then there is the previous record of decisions, beginning with the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and the Church Councils. It is from these that we have the other equally important decisions such as the concept of the Trinty, hypostatic union, Theotokos, etc, etc.

And, as has been mentioned, observance of the Sabbath on Sunday rather than Saturday, which also has no Scriptural mandate.

The relevant of how we know what the bible is doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we, now that we do have the bible, look for instruction outside of it.

Is this subject causing you so much distress that you are unable to form coherent sentences?

The Source of the canon of scripture most certainly is relevant for us, because Catholics are still following the Apostolic commandment that was abandoned by the Reformers;

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates we should CEASE to follow this command.

It is the instruction outside of the canon that founded the Church, developed the doctrines, and closed the canon in 382 AD. The closing of the canon was not an occasion to abandon the portion of the Apostolic Teaching that was not contained in it.

The fact of the matter is that everyone who espouses Sola Scriptura embraces instruction from outside of the Bible. Some, like JonNC, are honest about embracing Apostolic traditions that come through Sacred Tradition. Others, many of whom are ignorant and unaware of the sources of that instruction, deny they use it, or believe they don’t, even while they are influenced by their pastor’s extrabiblical ideas on a weekly basis.

 

[guanophore]

Anyway, you are stating that because some people ignore passages of scripture that scripture is therefore not a valid teaching tool?

No. We are saying that, if Scripture alone were sufficient, these groups would not exist. The reason they exist is because it is possible to get off track reading the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:15-17
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

By what standard do we determine who are the ignorant and unstable?

1 Corinthians 13:8-10
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

This is something I’ve brought up before that I haven’t seen anyone acknowledge. There was a time in the early church where things were different than they are now. It is an easy inference to see that in the early church we knew what scripture was because of our gifts of the spirit. Today we only have the remnant, scripture.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.

Well, you have only a remnant, but the CC still has the charismatic gifts, as well as the Word of God deposited among the believers. This is because we followed the Aposotlic commandment to hold fast to the traditions, whether they are by word of mouth, or by writing.

The "perfect’ that is to come referenced in the above passage is Christ at the parousia. Until that time, the Church will need to continue in the Word and be nourished by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. the gifts mentioned above are for the building up of the Church.They will be needed until the Church is taken up and espoused to the Groom.

 

[guanophore]

 Tweetie,

Read your posts. Your experience with your father is one of the reasons that I find AA not to be helpful. You point out that he stopped drinking and that is good. The problem is that he lost his faith in the process.

It is fine if you decide that AA is not helpful to you. It may be that some people get sober and lose their faith, but countless more FIND their faith again through 12 step programs. I agree, they do not work for everyone, and there are some people that cannot benefit from them because they are spiritually immature or are unable to manage the concept of a power greater than themselves. But there are people who are helped and healed through them.

 

[PRmerger]

IIn fact, I would raise a question as to why the catholic church sees fit to celebrate mass on every day of the week when Sacred Tradition/scripture only sets aside the authority to celebrate on Sundays.

Wow. In all my years here on the CAFs this is the first time I’ve come across this objection.

Really? You are objecting to Mass being celebrated daily?

Firstly, you are incorrect in saying that Sacred Tradition only sets aside Sundays.

Secondly, you are incorrect in saying that Scripture only sets aside Sundays for worship.

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.–Malachi 1:11

The CC is the ONLY church that fulfills this prophecy. From the rising of the sun to its setting, all around the planet, the Mass is offered somewhere on this earth. How awesome is that!!

 

[guanophore]

I already covered this actually. The bible discusses how this happened.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment.
But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.
Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues.
But all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.

It was through the gift of prophecy, a gift given to certain individuals in the early church.

Yes, but then, we know there were many heretical sects that also claimed to have the spirit of discernment and prophesy, many of which, like the Gnostics, had their own books also. So, by what standard is a persons spiritual gift discerned? Whose prophetic discernment is considered valid?

Do you know the other criteria that was used to decide what books belonged in the canon, in addition to this one?

 

[Traverse]

I can’t think of any verses that the EO interpret differently than the CC, save Matt 16:18.

What verses are you thinking of, Traverse?

I’m not talking about differences in scripture interpretation but differences in sacred tradition.

Plus doesn’t the orthodox church have a different canon?

 

[Traverse]

I understand that you are only asserting that the oral tradition has passed away. You believe that “all” is contained in scripture, which is a falsehood. You must embrace this falsehood to justify rejecting God’s ability to preserve His Word in the Church where He placed it.

That is a fair assertion. Please show me how it is a falsehood. Also, please show me how sacred tradition is required for the continued preservation of His Word.

Now you are going to the opposite extreme. You are inferring that, if Sacred Tradition is valid, then Scripture “serves no purpose”. This is a strawman. Catholics receive and follow the Apostolic commandment:

Perhaps you’re right and that is a huge extreme. No purpose isn’t quite right, but I admit freely I don’t understand the need for sacred tradition AND scripture. What does sacred tradition provide that scripture does not? Or is it the catholic belief that sacred tradition preserves the bible and that’s the end of it. This is something I’m not clear on.

They are two inseparable strands of the Divine cord of Revelation. The two together comprise the once for all divine deposit of faith. Jude 3
I find it necessary to write and appeal to you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Traditions that were taught, by word of mouth, and by letter.

You can keep using verses like this all you want. I don’t disagree with them. But the context of these passages is that they were written to first century christians who didn’t have the complete bible yet. So of course them keeping to what they’ve learned by word of mouth is important. I won’t dispute that.

Yes, we believe this also, but we have not become faithless as you have, that He is too weak, or disinterested to keep His Word where He placed it among the believers. In your view, the weakness of men is stronger than the power of God, so that the Word of God in the believers got “lost”.

That’s a harsh assumption. I’m not questioning if the Holy Spirit is too weak to preserve sacred tradition. I’m questioning whether the Holy Spirit saw fit to preserve it. I’m not saying the Word of God in the believers was lost at all. After all, we have scripture which we can continuously refer to.

You can use the little blue mark next to the posters name to track the messages backwards. if you follow the chain of replies, you will see that your accusation was that the CC has not defined “one word” not found in the scriptures. So in fact, my answer to you is quite accurate. The Trinity is a term developed by the CC to denote what is described in Scripture.

That definition came almost 100 years before the NT canon was closed, by the way.

Actually I think it was someone else suggesting that sacred tradition doesn’t define anything differently than what scripture already does. I don’t suggest that because I know the catholic church is quite different from any sola scriptura church. But I do find fault with the idea that the trinity is a matter of sacred tradition because it is in scripture. The only thing not in scripture is the label of “trinity.” The “definition” showing up 100 years before the NT canon was closed is irrelevant anyway since I’ve shown that the early church knew what scripture was before the canonization anyway.

Care to substantiate that?

There is MUCH MORE evidence that they met on the Jewish Sabbath (Saturdays).

Sure.

Act 20:7
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them, intending to leave the next day, and he prolonged his message until midnight.

Didache
But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread

Pliny the Younger
they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light

So we know they weren’t keeping the sabbath but were instead devoting themselves to the first day of the week. But they did indeed meet with in the temples on sabbath days. But what was being done?

Act 18:4
And he was reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath and trying to persuade Jews and Greeks.

This is naturally quite different than breaking bread on Saturday.

Now I’m not saying scripture or the church fathers completely forbid breaking bread on any other day of the week, but the example is only that it was done on the Lord’s day, so my curiosity was how it developed in the catholic church to being every day.

You will also not find ANYWHERE in the NT any commandment of God or an Apostle that the Sabbath instituted by God in Genesis has been set aside. There is no authorization given in Scripture to change the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. This is completely a decision of the Catholic Church, made by her own authority. Try any of the Sabbatarian threads here in CAF. You will find plenty of evidence that your position from Scripture is quite weak.

Col 2:16
Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day–

I never said that the sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday. Sunday is not a sabbath. It is the Lord’s Day. But it sounds like you are suggesting that the sabbath day still be observed, which I find no scriptural basis for. Even the big catholic answers magazine banner on the front page says “The Lord’s Day is not a Christian Sabbath.”

 

[Traverse]

Man, so many replies to answer! I’m trying not to ignore anything so bear with me if I do!

How can the source of the supposed bible not be pertinent to a discussion of sola scriptura? Honestly, sometimes I wonder if the schools have stopped teaching any logic whatsoever.

If Sola Scripturists are going to assert that all of Christianity should be based upon the collection of written documents claimed to be the New Testament, then should not the source of that collection be able to withstand some scrutiny?

I agree! In fact, as I’ve said before, that’s why I’m here on this forum at all as I am researching this matter for myself currently. I have more interest in whether or not the catholic church is indeed historically first as it claims to be than whether or not they adhere to sacred tradition. If the catholic church is first then I can deal with getting used to the idea of sacred tradition. However, in reading this thread, I have seem logic problems and I have commented on them. Likewise, I have seen what appear to be contradictions with scripture and I don’t see a problem with bringing those up.

I agree with you. However, this important tradition needs to be an infallible one. Otherwise, there is no way of knowing that what you have in your hand is actually the inspired and inerrant Word of God. So, how is it that the Church was able to make even ONE important infallible decision?

I’ve already commented on this. It was due to the gift of prophecy. And when the bible was assembled all that need be was pass it down through the generations which doesn’t exactly require continued infallibility so much as reverence for the inerrant word.

Then there is the previous record of decisions, beginning with the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, and the Church Councils. It is from these that we have the other equally important decisions such as the concept of the Trinty, hypostatic union, Theotokos, etc, etc.

Again, first century christians who had the benefit of leadership of the apostles gifted with the Holy Spirit, as well as christians gifted with their own spiritual gifts makes for a different environment than we have today. It is my interpretation that the bible claims these gifts were temporary, and furthermore that I do not see these gifts anywhere today. If they continue to exist please show me because then that would be a sufficient converting tool as the gifts were suggested to be in the new testament.

Is this subject causing you so much distress that you are unable to form coherent sentences?

This is a fantastic non-christian jab. Thanks.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

There is nothing in Scripture that indicates we should CEASE to follow this command.

I agree. The suggestion was that what was recorded by mouth was eventually recorded in the complete word of God so you’re following the complete revelation of God in the end. Look at the context of this passage. He is writing to a single church that doesn’t have the bible. Why wouldn’t he encourage them to follow the traditions he’s passed on that they don’t have otherwise.

The question is whether the bible contains all that is sufficient for salvation NOW, not whether traditions were worth following before the bible was complete.

It is the instruction outside of the canon that founded the Church, developed the doctrines, and closed the canon in 382 AD. The closing of the canon was not an occasion to abandon the portion of the Apostolic Teaching that was not contained in it.

The founding of the Church was eventually recorded in the bible, as well as the organization of the church and the positions therein. Scripture contains the doctrines of the church. The only thing it doesn’t contain is the description of the closing of the canon.

I don’t dispute that teaching happened outside of scripture, but I have a problem when you can’t fathom that that teaching was eventually recorded.

 

[Traverse]

No. We are saying that, if Scripture alone were sufficient, these groups would not exist. The reason they exist is because it is possible to get off track reading the Scriptures.

And apparently it is possible to get off track with sacred tradition. That’s my whole point. I haven’t seen the benefit of sacred tradition that you keep insinuating.

Well, you have only a remnant, but the CC still has the charismatic gifts, as well as the Word of God deposited among the believers. This is because we followed the Aposotlic commandment to hold fast to the traditions, whether they are by word of mouth, or by writing.

As I’ve said before, please show me your charismatic gifts. Many of them were for the unbelievers to see.

The "perfect’ that is to come referenced in the above passage is Christ at the parousia. Until that time, the Church will need to continue in the Word and be nourished by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. the gifts mentioned above are for the building up of the Church.They will be needed until the Church is taken up and espoused to the Groom.

I understand that interpretation. It just doesn’t make sense to me. The problem is that this interpretation suggests that the different parts equal Jesus, but they don’t. They equal His message.

Put tongues together, put prophecy together, put knowledge together, you don’t end up with Jesus, you end up with His teaching. So when you take those parts and come up with something “perfect” you end up with the complete word of God, which the early church did not have yet. It is logical to follow that this passage refers to the completion of scripture.

Why warn anyone about the temporary nature of spiritual gifts if it’s only until Jesus comes again and the faithful go to Heaven? What’s the point? It is warning them of a point in which they do not need to be prepared.

 

[Traverse]

Wow. In all my years here on the CAFs this is the first time I’ve come across this objection.

Really? You are objecting to Mass being celebrated daily?

Firstly, you are incorrect in saying that Sacred Tradition only sets aside Sundays.

Secondly, you are incorrect in saying that Scripture only sets aside Sundays for worship.

For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.–Malachi 1:11

The CC is the ONLY church that fulfills this prophecy. From the rising of the sun to its setting, all around the planet, the Mass is offered somewhere on this earth. How awesome is that!!

You’ll see if you read my posts above in response to the other member that I’m not objecting to the idea of Mass being celebrated. I’m asking why when scripture (and from what I’ve read of the ecfs) tradition show celebration of Mass on only the first day of the week. It was question and nothing more, and I never really got an answer.

Scripture doesn’t set aside worship for one day of the week, but it does only evidence that the breaking of bread was on Sunday. If it is the catholic church’s assertion that the other day in which mass was observed simply weren’t mentioned then that is fine, but all I see is an example of it being celebrated on the first day of the week and for me that makes me wonder if the mentioning of that is of some importance. So for a sola scriptura christian why would I celebrate it on any other day?

 

[Traverse]

Yes, but then, we know there were many heretical sects that also claimed to have the spirit of discernment and prophesy, many of which, like the Gnostics, had their own books also. So, by what standard is a persons spiritual gift discerned? Whose prophetic discernment is considered valid?

Do you know the other criteria that was used to decide what books belonged in the canon, in addition to this one?

This is actually my entire point. When the catholic church claims to be THE church, claims to have sacred tradition… how do you know that the claims are accurate?

This is not a question meant to show you that I therefore believe the catholic church is false and get you to look at yourself, I am attempting to ask an honest question and not attack you.

There were divisions from the very beginning before the canonization of scripture. So when a church claims to present the canon, how do you know that is the church and not one of the other divisions?

There was one true church in the beginning, and I believe it has survived to this day. My question is… is this church the catholic church or not?

 

[ffg]

Put tongues together, put prophecy together, put knowledge together, you don’t end up with Jesus, you end up with His teaching. So when you take those parts and come up with something “perfect” you end up with the complete word of God, which the early church did not have yet. It is logical to follow that this passage refers to the completion of scripture.

Had a great Homily this weekend on this subject. I’m sure the three legged stool has already been discussed in this long thread.

With regard to the above, I am curious for further detail on a few points.

How do you not get to Jesus when OT prophets point toward Him as the subject of their prophecy?

Why is it a stretch that if God took His time to come to earth, and prove who He is, that he would not ensure that his purpose be known and his followers know all they need to know? Which includes building a Church, not on land, but on a person, Peter.

What happens to buildings on land? They come and go. People will be around, until the end of time, and so will Christ’s Church that he directly started.