Some think Matthew 4:4 is teaching sola Scriptura

[guanophore]

This does not tell me why communion is not performed as it’s laid out in the Bible.

Catholics received the faith from the Apostles, who were practicing communion for as much as 30 years before the gospels were written. What we do is not from a “bible outline”.

The Bible was never intended to be a complete explanation of the faith. That was given to the Apostles, and they to their successors, the Bishops.

I was taught and received the bread AND wine.

Not likely, unless you had very poor catechesis. You were more likely taught that you received both the Body and Blood!

And that’s my issue, teaching that the bread alone suffices as Christ Body and Blood is wrong teaching because the source from which the sacrament was created shows the consumption of bread AND wine.

The source of the Sacrament is Jesus, not the text. Sometimes the believers did not have both available, but the church teaches that the fullness of the Sacramental celebration exists when both are present. There have been reasons throughout history why communion is sometimes celebrated with only one (usually bread).

In any case, when we consume, it is no longer bread or wine, but the Body and Blood.

 

[medwigel]

The source of the Sacrament is Jesus, not the text. Sometimes the believers did not have both available, but the church teaches that the fullness of the Sacramental celebration exists when both are present. There have been reasons throughout history why communion is sometimes celebrated with only one (usually bread).

In any case, when we consume, it is no longer bread or wine, but the Body and Blood.

When Jesus showed us have to have communion He did it with both bread and wine=body and blood.
Please, please, please show me were communion is taught in the Bible and it’s just the bread alone, or were the Bible says that the bread can represent both body and blood.

 

[medwigel]

Not likely, unless you had very poor catechesis. You were more likely taught that you received both the Body and Blood!

.

No my friend, at my childhood church we were taught that the bread represents His body and the wine represents His blood, and we received BOTH at every mass. My mom was raised the same way as well.
The teaching that 1 can represent both is the poor teaching.

 

[medwigel]

What we do is not from a “bible outline”.

So you are basically saying that you go rogue against the Word of God. Wow, that’s a scary proposition; I wouldn’t want to answer to that charge on the day of judgment.

 

[medwigel]

There are errors in this reasoning. The primary one is that the Church has Jesus as her Head, and the Holy Spirit as her Soul. These divine elements are what provide infallibility, not the fallen men who are members of the Church.

A second error is that men who have sinned cannot perform infallible acts by the grace of God. There are examples throughout the scriptures of miracles performed at the hands of men.

You can’t have it both ways- you can’t say members of the church such as the Pope and Bishops have been given authority to act on the behave of God and are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore are infallible but when they are proven to do something wrong you then say these men are just fallen men who are members of the church.

 

[medwigel]

Not to mention, Jesus established a new covenant. The initiation into this new covenant is baptism, replacing the initiation of circumcision into the old covenant. At what age was Jesus circumcised? 8 days old, as prescribed by the Law (see Luke 2:21).
If infants, including Jesus, were able to be initiated into the old covenant, then there is no reason they cannot be initiated into the new one also.

Baptism is not a replacement or substitute for circumcision. It sounds nice but it’s wrong.
First off, circumcision was just for boys, so are you saying baptism is just for boys only if we are just swapping one for the other?
Second, circumcision was part of a covenant laid out by God and baptism is part of a profession of faith.
Third, baptism can only be done once a profession of faith has been made, and since an infant can’t make a profession of faith they can’t be baptized.

EVERY instance of baptism in the New Testament was done after a profession of faith had been made. You find no instances of babies being baptized in the Bible.

There are instances were children are dedicated to God, such and Samuel and Sampson, but never baptized.

 

[medwigel]

With regard to the authority which decided which books were inspired or not inspired, that’s a red herring question I hear frequently. It completely flips the nature of scripture upon its head. You are saying that scripture is authoritative because the Church declared them to be so. That is bass-ackwards. The scriptures are authoritative because it is the word of God. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” It is their nature as being the product of God that makes them authoritative and infallible. Not only that, they are infallible regardless of whether I acknowledge them as so or not. My declaring them as authoritative or denying that they are authoritative does not change the fact that they ARE authoritative.

OMG yes.
I address this earlier and the example I use was gravity. Gravity existed even before we quantified it in a formula. Sir Issac Newton didn’t “discover” gravity just because he was able to quantify it…gravity exists whether or not we acknowledge it.

 

[medwigel]

Sean I know you don’t believe Christ can’t accomplish what he promised. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to lead them into all truth. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to call the Church the pillar and ground of truth if that could not be done?

God is telling you was the church is suppose to be; He is giving you His vision for the church.
Almost similar to the thoughts that a parent would have for their child, and just like a good parent tries to set up their child for success, so does God try to set us up for success by giving us Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately God’s vision does not take away our free will and therefore members of the church can go against the will of Holy Spirit and stray away from God’s purpose. And true enough there are multiple instances in history were the church and it’s leadership have strayed away from the call of being a pillar and ground of truth.

Adam and Eve knew no sin and even they couldn’t live up to perfection because they had free will.

 

[guanophore]

show me were…in the Bible

You have fallen into the heresy of Sola Scriptura, medwigel. The Church founded by Christ predates the New testament, and our doctrines come from Christ, through the Apostles, not from the pages of the text.

Those who reject the teaching of the Apostles must extract their doctrines from the pages of the Book.

No my friend, at my childhood church we were taught that the bread represents His body and the wine represents His blood, and we received BOTH at every mass.

I am sorry that you were taught wrongly, but what you received at Mass was the Body and Blood of the Lord, not bread and wine.

So you are basically saying that you go rogue against the Word of God.

Of course not! Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition compliment each other. Sacred Scripture is a product of sacred tradition, that is why it is impossible for them to contradict one another. They both come from the Holy Spirit, who cannot contradict Himself.

But we do interpret scripture differently, because we do not read it through the lens of the Reformers, some 1500 years after it was written.

I wouldn’t want to answer to that charge on the day of judgment.

Jesus left a Church, not a 'book". He taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. If He wanted us to be run by the text, He would have done more writing! Or commanded His Apostles to do more writing!

You can’t have it both ways- you can’t say members of the church such as the Pope and Bishops have been given authority to act on the behave of God and are guided by the Holy Spirit and therefore are infallible but when they are proven to do something wrong you then say these men are just fallen men who are members of the church.

Actually, it is both ways, just as it was for the Apostles. They were not impeccable (they made mistakes and sinned) but they still were able to perform infallible acts such as healing, teaching, and writing scripture. Both things are true - God protects His teaching because He infallibly preserves it in the Church, even through men who sin. This He has done from the beginning of time. None of the OT writers were impeccable either.

 

[medwigel]

Jesus left a Church, not a 'book". He taught the Apostles all that they needed to know. If He wanted us to be run by the text, He would have done more writing! Or commanded His Apostles to do more writing!

What are you talking about? Christ did tell you His will and He did use the Apostles and other men to tell you what He desires, it’s the BIBLE.

 

[guanophore]

Baptism is not a replacement or substitute for circumcision. It sounds nice but it’s wrong.

I did not claim that it was. I said it is the entrance rite into the Kingdom. It is a circumcision made without hands (by the Holy Spirit).

Second, circumcision was part of a covenant laid out by God and baptism is part of a profession of faith.

So you don’t believe the New Covenant involves a profession of faith?

Third, baptism can only be done once a profession of faith has been made, and since an infant can’t make a profession of faith they can’t be baptized.

We are in agreement on this point. Parents and Godparents make the profession of faith on behalf of the child, just like Mary and Joseph did for Jesus.

Jesus did not choose to be circumcised. It was understood that all children born into Israel would be raised in the faith. This did not change with the New Covenant.

Acts 2:39 For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”

They were all Jews, coming to Jerusalem for the celebration of Pentecost. They all understood that they were to raise their children in the faith.

EVERY instance of baptism in the New Testament was done after a profession of faith had been made. You find no instances of babies being baptized in the Bible.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? And even if not, that is irrelevant, since the Apostles baptized infants, and we learned our faith from them, before the Bible was written.

God is telling you was the church is suppose to be; He is giving you His vision for the church.

I think what you are saying is that the Church founded by Christ is no longer what it was “supposed to be” and that human sins were stronger than God, so God could not keep His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

Unfortunately God’s vision does not take away our free will and therefore members of the church can go against the will of Holy Spirit and stray away from God’s purpose.

I think we will all be in agreement on this point. Such persons can and do separate themselves from the Church founded by Christ. But they cannot prevent the Church from being what Jesus designed His Body to be. He is her Head, and no amount of human sin can sully His Holy Bride.

And true enough there are multiple instances in history were the church and it’s leadership have strayed away from the call of being a pillar and ground of truth.

I am interested to hear about this. It sounds like you are saying that Jesus was to weak or disinterested to preserve the Truth where He placed it in the Church.

Adam and Eve knew no sin and even they couldn’t live up to perfection because they had free will.

Of course they could ! They chose not to do so.

 

[medwigel]

Actually, it is both ways, just as it was for the Apostles. They were not impeccable (they made mistakes and sinned) but they still were able to perform infallible acts such as healing, teaching, and writing scripture. Both things are true - God protects His teaching because He infallibly preserves it in the Church, even through men who sin. This He has done from the beginning of time. None of the OT writers were impeccable either.

If men sin then the finally authority of what is taught can’t come from man, it must come from and infallible source, and that is God.
Can God use man, yes. I said as much in an earlier post. David was an adulterer and murderer yet God still referred to him as a man after His own heart. Moses was a murderer and had an anger issues and God still inspired him to write the first 5 books of the Bible and lead his people and help establish a nation.

People tend to go astray when they rely on their knowledge and not the knowledge and will of God.

 

[medwigel]

So you don’t believe the New Covenant involves a profession of faith?

Um, yeah!
Romans 10:9-10

 

[medwigel]

I think what you are saying is that the Church founded by Christ is no longer what it was “supposed to be” and that human sins were stronger than God, so God could not keep His promise to lead the Church into “all Truth”.

That’s was sin does, it takes us away from the will of God, and sin still exists in the church.
Christ did His part in setting up the Church serving as the cornerstone but we have to live up to our part and sometimes we ALL miss the mark, including leaders in the church.

 

[medwigel]

We are in agreement on this point. Parents and Godparents make the profession of faith on behalf of the child, just like Mary and Joseph did for Jesus.

No, you must do this for yourself. No one can get you saved on their behalf, it must be an individual confession. Each one must decide for themselves.
You can’t use Mary and Joseph as an example because they were living under the Old Covenant were there was no confession unto salvation.

 

[medwigel]

Jesus did not choose to be circumcised. It was understood that all children born into Israel would be raised in the faith. This did not change with the New Covenant.

Everything changed with the New Covenant.
Jesus came and fulfilled the Old Covenant and established a New Covenant built of better promises.
In the Old Covenant they had to make continual sacrifices in the New Covenant Christ was the last and final sacrifice, once and for all.
in the Old Covenant we lived and tried to be right based on the law, in the New Covenant we are made righteous by our faith in Christ.
In the Old Covenant the promise was only to those born to the children of Israel, in the New Covenant the promises is for all, Jews and Gentiles, who believe and call on the name of the Lord.

 

[medwigel]

And true enough there are multiple instances in history were the church and it’s leadership have strayed away from the call of being a pillar and ground of truth.

So here are examples of Popes, the “ultimate representation of God and the church” who were involves in various sins, fornication, greed, murder and warmongering.

1. Pope John XII: he was “a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium.”
2. Pope Urban VI: he caught wind of a conspiracy to depose him and had six cardinals arrested, tortured and ultimately executed. Legend has it he complained to the torturers that the cardinals’ screams were not loud enough.

3.Pope Benedict IX: in one instance, he actually resigned and sold the papacy to another priest. Known for his supposedly licentious behavior, Benedict was described by a later 11th century pope as having a life “so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.”

4.Pope Leo X: His emptying of the Vatican’s coffers led to various measures to create more revenue, which included the sale of indulgences — in effect, guarantees of relief from damnation in the afterlife.

1. Pope Boniface VIII: Here is the archetypal power-hungry pope, who in 1302 issued a papal bull decreeing it “absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff.” This was perhaps the most aggressive indication yet from a pope that temporal matters — the conquests of lands, the collection of riches — mattered as much as those of the spirit. He waged wars, sacked cities and eventually lost his own game of thrones, defeated by an army of his enemies.

 

[guanophore]

What are you talking about? Christ did tell you His will and He did use the Apostles and other men to tell you what He desires, it’s the BIBLE.

Yes, there is much of what He and the Apostles taught that is in the Bible, though not all.

What I am talking about is that Jesus founded a Church to be the pillar and ground of the Truth. He did this before a word of the NT had ever been written.

What I am telling you is that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. That is why there is nothing in the NT that contradicts the Catholic faith. They both came from the same Source.

If men sin then the finally authority of what is taught can’t come from man, it must come from and infallible source, and that is God.

Of course! This is why the Church has the gift of infallibility - this prevents the Church from teaching error. If humans make an error, the Head of the Church prevents that error from contaminating the infallible teachings of Christ.

People tend to go astray when they rely on their knowledge and not the knowledge and will of God.

Yes, we are in agreement about this. This is why the Church was established as the pillar and ground of the Truth - this is what prevents the faithful from falling into error.

The great disruption of the heresy of Sola Scriptura is that each person relies on their own knowledge to interpret the Scripture. Scripture cannot be an “authority” because the exercise of authority requires a person. One must have will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. These are not qualities that belong to Sacred Writings, however Holy they may be. This is why Jesus left His Church in the care of persons, not writings.

Um, yeah!
Romans 10:9-10

I am glad we are in agreement that the New Covenant does involve a profession of faith. Have you ever studied the history of the Creeds?

From early times, converts professed the Creed before they were baptized. When their children were not of age, parents professed the creed on their behalf.

That’s was sin does, it takes us away from the will of God, and sin still exists in the church.

No, sin does not exist “in the Church” because the Church is the Body of Christ and is His Holy Consecrated Bride. Sin exists in persons who are attached to the Church. In most cases, however, the sin separates them from the Body, because they are no longer “in Christ” when they are living in sin.

You seem to believe that human sin is more powerful than the Holy Spirit, so that the HS is not able to preserve the Truth infallibly where it was placed in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Christ did His part in setting up the Church serving as the cornerstone but we have to live up to our part and sometimes we ALL miss the mark, including leaders in the church.

So what is He, and absent landlord? He is no longer really Head? The powerful Christ we see in the letters of Revelation got the flu or something and is no longer able to discipline the Church and lead her into “all Truth” as He promised? I guess your Jesus is just weak and ineffectual.

No, you must do this for yourself. No one can get you saved on their behalf, it must be an individual confession. Each one must decide for themselves.

We are all in agreement about this. Where we do not agree is that salvation is something that occurs once in time, for all time. The Apostles taught that we are united to Christ in Baptism, and that we work out our salvation throughout this lifetime. Each day, and every day, the believer must “decide for themselves” to walk with Christ, lest they fall from grace, and fail to be united with the inheritance that is kept imperishable for them in heaven.

You can’t use Mary and Joseph as an example because they were living under the Old Covenant were there was no confession unto salvation.

I am using Mary and Joseph as an example of how parents brought their children into their faith as infants.

Everything changed with the New Covenant.

The Apostles taught differently.

in the Old Covenant we lived and tried to be right based on the law, in the New Covenant we are made righteous by our faith in Christ.

Actually, there has never been a change in the way people are saved. People have always been saved by grace, through faith. Those that understood this principle were not struggling to “be right based on the law” because they knew the grace of God.

In the Old Covenant the promise was only to those born to the children of Israel, in the New Covenant the promises is for all, Jews and Gentiles, who believe and call on the name of the Lord.

You speak like a person who has not read much of the OT. Fortunately, Paul did spend his life in it, so he understood that the promise was for the whole world.

 

[medwigel]

What I am telling you is that the NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. That is why there is nothing in the NT that contradicts the Catholic faith. They both came from the same Source.

No, the Bible is written to Believers, not just to Catholics.
The Bible makes no mention of “Catholics”, but it does address people of faith/believers!
And if we go by your assertion of the NT being written later, then it would be late enough for the word Catholic to be included.