Split: Another Tradition Debate

[hoosierdaddy]

Is it just me, or are there some inconsistencies evident here?

I don’t know what you mean.

And I may be late to this thread, but am I reading this correctly? Catholics are to be bound by sola scriptura in arguing the invalidity of sola scriptura? Is this what I am reading here?

**Only when demanding that we back up everything with an explicit example from Scripture. They seem to forget that that is not the way SS is used. Something can be implicit in Scripture too. I’ve explained more about SS earlier. It is not just “you must find an explicit thing in Scripture”. Never was, never will be. **
Peace all.

 

[tassitus]

Funny, you just admitted I’m a Christian yet you put unscriptural demands upon me before I am permitted to partake of communion. I don’t see your demands in Scripture. Please show me where Scripture says I have to say “I believe and profess all that the Catholic church believes and teaches” before I am permitted to partake of communion.

Have you ever considered that these “unscriptural demands” might be for your protection, oh brother of ours?

See 1 Cor 11:27-32,27] 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. 28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29] For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30] That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31] But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged.32] But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world. Note the grave consequences of receiving unworthily “without discerning the body.” **Are you really prepared to receive the communion the Catholic Church can offer?

Something to think about…

 

[tassitus]

… please confer with me before you post what “I believe” when you aren’t sure…

My point was that in your very next post you write:…But you won’t…because you don’t consider us Christians…
without stopping to confer with us what we do or do not consider you.

Your advice was good, you just didn’t heed it yourself.

That’s all.

 

[tassitus]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*Only when demanding that we back up everything with an explicit example from Scripture. They seem to forget that that is not the way SS is used. *Something can be implicit in Scripture too. I’ve explained more about SS earlier. It is not just “you must find an explicit thing in Scripture”. Never was, never will be.
This is your view of sola scriptura? Wow, that has to be the most expansive definition I have ever encountered.

And you claim to have a problem with what the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church throughout history have found “implicit in Scripture”?

I guess I need to find your original posts, before the split, cause this is news to me…

 

[hoosierdaddy]

My point was that in your very next post you write:…But you won’t…because you don’t consider us Christians…
without stopping to confer with us what we do or do not consider you.

Your advice was good, you just didn’t heed it yourself.

That’s all.

Some Catholics don’t consider Protestants to be Christians. My mistake was to assume they all don’t.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Originally Posted by hoosierdaddy forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif*Only when demanding that we back up everything with an explicit example from Scripture. They seem to forget that that is not the way SS is used. *Something can be implicit in Scripture too. I’ve explained more about SS earlier. It is not just “you must find an explicit thing in Scripture”. Never was, never will be.
This is your view of sola scriptura? Wow, that has to be the most expansive definition I have ever encountered.

And you claim to have a problem with what the Apostolic Fathers and the Catholic Church throughout history have found “implicit in Scripture”?

I guess I need to find your original posts, before the split, cause this is news to me…

Maybe you just don’t understand what Sola Scriptura really is?

What I have a problem with is the Catholic Church saying they found someting implicit in Scripture that just isn’t there. There is nothing implicit in Scripture about the perpetual virginity of Mary, however Scripture explicitly states that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. This includes Mary as she was not God. It also excludes Jesus (someone tried that trick earlier) as He is God.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Note what this verse explicitly says.

I think you may misunderstand the “discerning the body and the blood”. Then again maybe I do. However, it’s not up to you or your pope to make the decision for me. I examine MYSELF and then I am able to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Scripture explicitly states such.

 

[scylla]

There is a huge difference though with Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Church’s view.

We wouldn’t look to Scripture for our beliefs first as our beliefs came before Scripture existed. That is why it seems so foreign possibly as it is a whole different approach.
Our faith existed before the Bible was put together, before it was just the Old Testament.

Now the all have falled short must include Jesus if He was fully Man which all Christians affirm. So it has exceptions and is an all which has exceptions.
He is not just God but fully God and fully Man to deny one is to deny the incarnation and destroy the Christian faith.

This would not be a trick but an affirmation of truth, to deny it would either be out of just wanting to deny what Catholics believe out of some sort of prejudice or some faith tradition that requires everyone to sin.

In Christ
Scylla

 

[Alexius]

Wow! Even the reformers Luther, Calvin and Zwingli believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Maybe they know why (since Luther formulated Sola Scriptura)…BTW, there is nothing wrong with tradition and there is nowhere in Scripture that claims it alone is authoritative or sufficient. I have to ask for Scripture to back up “Scripture alone,” because that is what you claim to rely completely on…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[tassitus]

[28] Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.

Note what this verse explicitly says.

I think you may misunderstand the “discerning the body and the blood”. Then again maybe I do. However, it’s not up to you or your pope to make the decision for me. I examine MYSELF and then I am able to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. Scripture explicitly states such.

I am heading out the door, but yes, and verses 29 and 30 are quite explicit, too. All are free to receive, worthily or not.

Peace.

 

[tassitus]

Maybe you just don’t understand what Sola Scriptura really is?

What I have a problem with is the Catholic Church saying they found someting implicit in Scripture that just isn’t there. There is nothing implicit in Scripture about the perpetual virginity of Mary, however **Scripture explicitly states that all have sinned **and fallen short of the glory of God. This includes Mary as she was not God. It also excludes Jesus (someone tried that trick earlier) as He is God.

…and the preborn, and newborn, and very small children, and some of those who are developmentally disabled, but other than these (I think), ALL have sinned, yup.

See y’all tomorrow.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

I am heading out the door, but yes, and verses 29 and 30 are quite explicit, too. All are free to receive, worthily or not.

Peace.

Good. Then you freely declare that Protestants are welcome to partake of communion in the Catholic church. We’ll get along just fine.

Peace. Oh before I forget, don’t insinuate that I’m going to hell again.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

…and the preborn, and newborn, and very small children, and some of those who are developmentally disabled, but other than these (I think), ALL have sinned, yup.

See y’all tomorrow.

If they hadn’t committed a sin they are still born with a sin nature. See ya tomorrow.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

There is a huge difference though with Sola Scriptura and the Catholic Church’s view.

We wouldn’t look to Scripture for our beliefs first as our beliefs came before Scripture existed. That is why it seems so foreign possibly as it is a whole different approach.
Our faith existed before the Bible was put together, before it was just the Old Testament.

I understand. I disagree but I understand.

Now the all have falled short must include Jesus if He was fully Man which all Christians affirm. So it has exceptions and is an all which has exceptions.
He is not just God but fully God and fully Man to deny one is to deny the incarnation and destroy the Christian faith.

**It doesn’t include Jesus. Jesus never sinned…unless you believe He did? Jesus is the exception; Mary is not. I don’t deny the incarnation. I fully believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man. However, Mary isn’t. **

This would not be a trick but an affirmation of truth, to deny it would either be out of just wanting to deny what Catholics believe out of some sort of prejudice or some faith tradition that requires everyone to sin.
**
It is a trick to try and put Jesus into the “all have sinned”. That is a trick and it’s insulting to Jesus. It borders on blasphemy. Everyone (except Jesus) has sinned. Mary has sinned to. Deal with it.**

In Christ
Scylla

 

[mercygate]

Funny, you just admitted I’m a Christian yet you put unscriptural demands upon me before I am permitted to partake of communion. I don’t see your demands in Scripture. Please show me where Scripture says I have to say “I believe and profess all that the Catholic church believes and teaches” before I am permitted to partake of communion.

Closed Communion is scriptural. Not only was the Last Supper a “closed” communion among the 12 but Paul tells us in I Cor. 11, “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.”

Baptists do not “discern the body” in the Blessed Sacrament but believe it to be a mere ordinance rather than a Sacrament. Catholics believe the words of Our Lord that “This is my Body.” For the Church to admit to Communion those who do not believe the very words of Christ himself, would be to imperil their souls.

Do Baptists admit people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior to the Lord’s Supper (that’s a real question, not a snipe)?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Good. Then you freely declare that Protestants are welcome to partake of communion in the Catholic church.

This is not the case. :nope:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

[1400](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1400.htm’) Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

 

[scylla]

**I understand. I disagree but I understand.

**
**It doesn’t include Jesus. Jesus never sinned…unless you believe He did? Jesus is the exception; Mary is not. I don’t deny the incarnation. I fully believe Jesus is fully God and fully Man. However, Mary isn’t. **

This would not be a trick but an affirmation of truth, to deny it would either be out of just wanting to deny what Catholics believe out of some sort of prejudice or some faith tradition that requires everyone to sin.
**
It is a trick to try and put Jesus into the “all have sinned”. That is a trick and it’s insulting to Jesus. It borders on blasphemy. Everyone (except Jesus) has sinned. Mary has sinned to. Deal with it. **

It is not a trick to affirm truth. Jesus was fully God and fully man as you have said.

It is a Catholic belief that Jesus was fully without sin. So please don’t mis-understand me I am not trying to make Jesus into a sinner.

Then to not contradict the meaning of the text we must accept that there are exceptions to the phrase “all have sinned” or deny the Holy Word of God as true.
We must also affirm that Jesus is fully man and fully God and fully without sin.

Of course Mary is a creature, no Catholic believes she is God or a deity. We just affirm truth that Jesus is God which requires that Mary be set aside for the purpose of bearing Him.

What made the Ark of the Covenant special?
The Gold, the Cherubim, the Acacia wood?
No, what was contained inside the Ark made it Holy and Special.

The same with Mary, to deny her sinlessness is to deny that Jesus is God, for Catholics.
That is how serious it is…

It is not about thinking Mary is God or any crazy idea like that, it is about affirming the deity of Jesus.
Now if you are wrong you are blaspheming the Holy Scripture so please be careful before claiming that Mary is a sinner just like everyone else. I would be very careful if I were you about stating something like that unless you are 100% sure(infallible).
Please for the sake of truth, just say that is your interpretation and how you understand it.(at least just in case)

In Christ our only savior,
Scylla

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Closed Communion is scriptural. Not only was the Last Supper a “closed” communion among the 12 but Paul tells us in I Cor. 11, “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.”

Baptists do not “discern the body” in the Blessed Sacrament but believe it to be a mere ordinance rather than a Sacrament. Catholics believe the words of Our Lord that “This is my Body.” For the Church to admit to Communion those who do not believe the very words of Christ himself, would be to imperil their souls.

Do Baptists admit people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior to the Lord’s Supper (that’s a real question, not a snipe)?

I see. No problem. But the reason the Catholic church won’t let me take communion there is not because they care about me. It is because they want to control me and because as I’ve said, they don’t believe I’m a Christian.

Don’t worry, I don’t take that as a snipe. It is a legitimate question. No, we encourage people to be in the faith before they take communion. But we don’t stop anyone.

I think one reason I am fighting this so much is because I never clamed that it WASN’T the body and blood of Christ. I am not decided on this because I believe it to be an important truth and I don’t want to decide the wrong way.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

This is not the case. :nope:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

[1400](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1400.htm’) Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible. However these ecclesial communities, “when they commemorate the Lord’s death and resurrection in the Holy Supper . . . profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and await his coming in glory.”

And why were Protestants forced to separate? How can your church have a problem with us for separating when YOU are the ones responsible for it!?! So now I can’t partake of communion because I and other Protestants have tried to honour God and revere His Word? That’s what it all comes down to.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

It is not a trick to affirm truth. Jesus was fully God and fully man as you have said.

It is a Catholic belief that Jesus was fully without sin. So please don’t mis-understand me I am not trying to make Jesus into a sinner.

Then to not contradict the meaning of the text we must accept that there are exceptions to the phrase “all have sinned” or deny the Holy Word of God as true.

There is. The exception is Jesus.

We must also affirm that Jesus is fully man and fully God and fully without sin.

Amen.

Of course Mary is a creature, no Catholic believes she is God or a deity. We just affirm truth that Jesus is God which requires that Mary be set aside for the purpose of bearing Him.

What made the Ark of the Covenant special?
The Gold, the Cherubim, the Acacia wood?
No, what was contained inside the Ark made it Holy and Special.

The Ark had no sin as it wasn’t a living being. Mary did so she needed a Saviour.

The same with Mary, to deny her sinlessness is to deny that Jesus is God, for Catholics.
That is how serious it is…

I’m sorry you see it that way. I see it as standing on truth. To affirm that Mary is sinless is to deny Jesus and His special place in the grand scheme of things, for Protestants. That is how serious it is…(and I mean this with all respect; I am just trying to get a point across).

It is not about thinking Mary is God or any crazy idea like that, it is about affirming the deity of Jesus.

The deity of Jesus requires the non-deity of anyone else. To say Mary was sinless is to ascribe deity to her.

Now if you are wrong you are blaspheming the Holy Scripture so please be careful before claiming that Mary is a sinner just like everyone else. I would be very careful if I were you about stating something like that unless you are 100% sure(infallible).

If I’m wrong, I’m blaspheming God. But I’m not. Seriously though, how could you suggest that I would be blaspheming Scripture when you don’t put Scripture in the same place that Protestants do?

Please for the sake of truth, just say that is your interpretation and how you understand it.(at least just in case)

For the sake of common courtesy, I will agree to disagree. I will not, however, be baited into saying it is “my” interpretation and how I understand it. This is the best I can do.

In Christ our only savior,
Scylla