SPLIT: What did Christ teach that wasn't written,and if it wasn't written how can you be sure He taught it?

[Gamera]

… You say you don’t pray to her,but I can give you quotes from popes during speaches they have made,that clearly say differently.

We do pray to Mary. But we don’t worship Mary. Two different things.

 

[Gamera]

And that brings me to the Pope,I don’t believe Peter was the first Pope or even for that matter,a Pope at all,and if you all can’t trace this(popes)all the way back to Peter,what do you have?

History identifies every Pope from the Apostle Peter through to Benedict 16th today. You may believe or disbelieve in the authority or legitimacy of the papacy, but in terms of mere secular history there’s no question of who was called pope throughout the ages. Would you like their names and years of service?

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

getting back to the original question,

What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it?

1. I would expect it to be consistent or in line with scripture.
2. A church father often will refer to whom the tradition is from.
3. I would expect a church father to say that Jesus said.

 

[mercygate]

As usual with many of those who attack Catholic teaching, N2tL has chosen a faulty source that even the church doesn’t adhere to. Why would we? Citation of source: Not a Catholic one at all, but at least honest about its source.Conjecture of a faulty “scholar” with an axe to grind. Rhetorical propaganda at its worst…More empty polemical rhetoric… This is completely untrue. Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About PurgatorySt. Thomas More refuted that reformation heresy in his “Supplication of Souls”.

However, one need only objectively see my own research in the link above to discern that the anti-Catholic propaganda is in error since there is shown both scriptural substantiation and documentation from verifiable Jewish sources that they share a similar belief.

The allegation that there is not scriptural support for Purgatory is merely more propaganda based upon Sola Scriptura, the fundamental errant heresy of the Reformation that has caused the cascading myriad of so very many other errors and heresies, even to this day.

n2thelight has a case.

It is not Purgatory or indulgences, however, that are the problem – certainly they have been shown to be consonant with Scripture. It is the ABUSE of indulgences – the SALE of indulgences – that was the problem. The SALE of indulgences or sacraments is specifically reprobated by the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Let me break it down for ya,once I accept Christ as my Lord and Savoir,and believe opon him as stated in John 3:16 I do not (technically)have to do anything else in life until i die but repent of my sins as I go along,and I will get to Heaven(His promise)

I think this preposterous conclusion is one of the most dangerous fruits of the reformation. It is this line of thinking that allows people to think that they can “sin boldly” and that it does not have any eternal or temporal consequences.

" And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, **what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” **19 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” Luke 18:18-20

'He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him." John 14:21

" You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matt 5:48

However I will receive as my reward,that which I have worked for,thats why works are the only thing you can take to Heaven

Matthew 16:27 (Whole Chapter)
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Works have nothing to do with salvation,works will determine the amount of my reward in Heaven,when Christ returns.If I did nothing,than I will get nothing,however! because of John 3:16 I will be there.

I think most of this miscommunication is based upon a semantics problem. Catholics consider going into heaven part of salvation.

In all of His parables, Jesus teaches that those who do nothing get nothing, as you say. However, He includes eternal life with himself in that. To those who do not love, He says " 21 "Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’
Matt 7:21-23

And besides all that,that I feel that it is impossible for a true Christain to not do works

Catholics agree, so, how does one tell the difference between a 'true christian" and one of those described above in Matt. 7?

It is impossible for anyone to have faith in our Father and His Word, and know His overall plan, and not be doing works in your life. The one produces the other. You simply cannot pray for the wisdom from God, and the blessings from God, and not do something about it through your works. It is an impossibility.

It is very Catholic of you to say this! However it sure sounds like you are “adding”.

 

[guanophore]

Catholics believe the blood of Christ accomplishes perfectly what it was meant to do: to save us from eternal damnation. Yet never does it imply that our sins are completely forgiven in this life; why then would we have to be judged again on that Day, when we’ve already been judged at the time of our death?

I don’t agree with this. I think it is clear that, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and forgives our sins. I think there are still consequences for our sins, however.

 

[guanophore]

The following is from the book, Vicars of Christ, by a former Jesuit professor at Gregorian University in Rome, Peter DeRosa:

    "It was in the area of indulgences that (Pope) Sixtus showed a touch of genius. He was the first pontiff to decide that they could be applied to the dead. Even he was overwhelmed by their popularity. Here was an infinite source of revenue that even his greediest predecessors had not dreamed of. It was breathtaking in its implications: the pope, creature of flesh and blood, had power over the regions of the dead. Souls in torment for their misdemeanours could be released by his word, provided their pious relatives dipped into.their pockets. And which of them wouldn't if they had a spark of Christian decency? Widows and widowers, bereaved parents spent their all trying to get their loved ones out of Purgatory, painted in ever more lurid colours. 
    Praying for the dead was one thing, paying for them another. Simple folk were led to believe that the pope, or those who came to their village and sold the pope's pardon, guaranteed their dead would go to heaven on the wings of indulgences. The potential for abuse was considerable. The sale of relics from the tenth century had been bad enough. . . Martyr's bones, like oil, were not a renewable commodity, but indulgences were limitless and could be priced to suit every pocket. Nothing was required of the donor or recipient, not love or compassion or prayer or repentance - only money. No practice was ever more irreligious than this. The pope grew rich in the measure that the poor were duped."
    Purgatory had no justification, whether in Scripture or in logic. Its real basis was papal avarice. An Englishman, Simon Fish, in A Supplicacyion for the Beggars, written in the year 1529, was to point that out irrefutably: 

'There is not one word spoken of it in all holy Scripture, and also if the Pope with his pardons may for money deliver one soul hence, he may deliver him as well without money.  If he may deliver one, he may deliver a thousand: if he may deliver a thousand, he may deliver them all; and so destroy purgatory.  And then he is a cruel tyrant, without all charity, if he keep them there in prison and in pain, till men will give him money.' "

from redirecting to current file-name & location

I am glad that you have brought this anti-Catholic bigotry, calumny, and baseless detraction here to CAF. I hope that you are willing to learn why the statements made here are false, and that you will repent of spreading lies against your brethren .

 

[Gamera]

I am glad that you have brought this anti-Catholic bigotry, calumny, and baseless detraction here to CAF. I hope that you are willing to learn why the statements made here are false, and that you will repent of spreading lies against your brethren .

It’s revealing that the name of the website he links is “Catholic Arrogance.” Everyone would immediately spot the prejudice if a website were entitled “Jewish Arrogance” or “Black Arrogance” or “White Arrogance.” Yet somehow people go blind when a website is entitled “Catholic Arrogance.” I really believe that the poster doesn’t even see the bigotry which is plain as day to us. But kudos to him for at least sticking around here long enough to hear our side of the story.

 

[cfrancis]

The following is from the book, Vicars of Christ, by a former Jesuit professor at Gregorian University in Rome, Peter DeRosa:
"An Englishman, Simon Fish, in A Supplicacyion for the Beggars, written in the year 1529, was to point that out irrefutably:

**'There is not one word spoken of it in all holy Scripture, **and also if the Pope with his pardons may for money deliver one soul hence, he may deliver him as well without money.  If he may deliver one, he may deliver a thousand: if he may deliver a thousand, he may deliver them all; and so destroy purgatory.  And then he is a cruel tyrant, without all charity, if he keep them there in prison and in pain, till men will give him money.' "

from redirecting to current file-name & location

Note the logical foundation upon which Fish - and N2thelight - rests their argument:

'There is not one word spoken of it in all holy Scripture

Many of us in this thread have called upon N2thelight to support his belief in the inspiration and authorship of, say, the Gospel of Matthew, based upon Scripture; that is, there should be “one word spoken of it in all holy Scripture” if N2thelight believes that gospel is inspired and belongs in the NT.

If N2thelight believes the Gospel of Matthew is inspired and belongs in the NT without Scriptural support then the logical foundation of his argument begins to crumble precipitously.

 

[guanophore]

I understand what you are saying,but my problem is,why is it not scriptual,I mean something as important as purgatory must be in scripture,yet its not.

You are proceeding from the false assumption that “everything important must be in Scripture”. This is one of the fruits of the Reformation. In an effort to separate themselves from the corruption rampant in the European clergy, they separated themselves from the Apostolic Tradition, and lost the paradosis.

Something as important as which books belong in the Bible ought to be in the Bible, don’t you think? Where is the Table of Contents? How did the Catholic Church choose, among the 400+ books and letters at the time, which ones were the right ones? How is it, when they used the same method they used for all the doctrines, they “happened” to get it right on Scripture, but the Holy Spirit failed to lead them into all Truth on the others.

Something as important as the Trinity ought to be in scripture, don’t you think? Why isn’t this word found there? How is it that the Jehovah’s witnesses can successfully “prove” from Scripture that Jesus is not God, and that the HS is not a person?

Something as important as Christ being fully God and fully man ought to be found there too, should it not? why did the fathers have to come up with the term “hypostasis” to combat gnosticism? Shouldn’t this be in the Bible?

Why do we break the commandment of God by worshipping on Sunday? God never changed the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday! If Christians don’t keep the Sabbath, shouldn’t a good reason be clear in the Bible?

etc. etc. What you are doing is picking and choosing which Apostolic teachings you will accept, because you have been indoctrinated by anti-Catholic bigotry and misinformation. Is that encouraged in the Bible? “'Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.” Deut 5:20

Did Jesus nullify the Commandments?

You all do things that is clearly against the wishes of God

I am curious, who made you the authority to judge this, and when were you appointed to the job? Do you consider yourself the modern Elijah?

For example Catholic's refer to Mary as the Queen of Heaven

but in every place this term is used in the Bible it is as an abomination Let me use this one verse for an example

Jeremiah 7:18 (Whole Chapter)
The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.

Why did’nt this verse read other Queens of Heaven?

Why does not the presence of false prophets not nullify a real prophet? Why do others claiming to be the Messiah invalidate our real Messiah? There is a flaw in your reasoning. The presence of falsehood does not erase the truth.

Your tradition says that Mary was without sin,but my Bible clearly says otherwise,you say she was ever virgin again my Bible says otherwise.

Actually, that would be your interpretation of your Bible. The New Testament that you are using to whack us on the head is a Catholic book. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. Since it comes from the same Source that the Traditions do, there is nothing contradictory in either one. They complement one another. It is your interpretation that conflicts, and it is because you have become separated from the Sacred Traditions that produced the texts.

You say you don't pray to her,but I can give you quotes from popes during speaches they have made,that clearly say differently.

This is a simple semantic misunderstanding that will easily clear up for you if you are genuinely willing to learn the truth. If you examine any court documents, you will see the word “pray” used in this same ancient fashion. It means to ask, and people still today, in official legal documents “pray the court” to take certain actions. It means “to ask”, and has nothing to do with worship.

And that brings me to the Pope

It is interesting that the subject of asking the intercession of Mary would bring you to the Pope. It is her intercession that brings us the Pope, and all the best Popes have an excellent relationship with her.

** I don’t believe **Peter was the first Pope or even for that matter,a Pope at all,and if you all can’t trace this(popes)all the way back to Peter,what do you have?

Your lack of belief in the Apostolic Succession does not nullify it’s truth, any more that Judas’ lack of faith nullifies anything Jesus taught. Everyone has the freedom to be faithless.

 

[guanophore]

Pagans refer to their false Gods with the term “god.” Their gods were abominations. Does that mean our God is an abomination? No!

Our Queen of Heaven has nothing whatsoever to do with paganism. In Hebrew culture, the King’s mother held the position called Queen Mother. The Queen Mother had no power of her own – hers was a position of respect, not authority.

God is King. Mary is the Mother of God. Therefore Mary is our Queen Mother. The title has nothing whatsoever to do with pagan ‘queens of heaven’ any more than pagan ‘gods’ have to do with the real God.

I disagree with this to an extent. In ancient Israel, we do see that the queen mother had power and authority, as an extension of her Son’s position. If this were not the case, Bathsheba would not have received the treatment she did, and they would not have found it necessary to depose Queen Mothers who were apostate.

 

[NotWorthy]

Peter DeRosa also wrote a book entitled “How Jesus Became Christ.”

westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/Jesus_to_God/jesus_to_god.html

So you’re quoting from a guy who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Is that your authority? Did YOU read Peter DeRosa’s book which you quoted? Or did you cut and paste from another site?

I think our good n2thelight is showing us where he goes to learn about the Catholic Church in his post:

The following is from the book, Vicars of Christ, by a former Jesuit professor at Gregorian University in Rome, Peter DeRosa:

blah…blah…blah…yada…yada…yada…

from redirecting to current file-name & location

I ask because it would be questionable for you to knowingly resort to quoting an author who denies Jesus is the Christ as an authority on religious subjects. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

We’ve shown you above that the Bible supports prayer for the dead (2 Macc 12:43-46; 2 Tim 1:15). The only “man-made tradition” here is the refusal to pray for the dead.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Question

What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it

Christ always asked this question,have ye not read

Matthew 12:3
But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;

Matthew 12:5
Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Matthew 22:31
But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Mark 12:10
And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:

Mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luke 6:3
And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;

And that which He taught, is written

Anything else is a tradition of man

Excellent presentation, my brethren. However. The Catholic Church have three principles concerning Divine Revelation of God, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Magisterial Teaching. Fr. Corapi in his lecture pointed out that, where there is Sacred Scripture, there is also Sacred Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching. Where there is Sacred Tradition, there also would be Sacred Scripture and Magisterial Teaching.

Magisterial Teaching is the teaching office of the whole Church, that is the bishop in communion with the Pope. They are the sole interpreter of both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. You can’t interpret the Bible in vacuum. You have to read Scripture in the light of the same Spirit which inspired the Sacred Scripture in the first place.

I can quote you from Sacred Scripture itself that the tradition is to be affirmed.

2 Thess 2:15: “Stand firm and hold fast to the Traditions you were taught, whether by an ORAL STATEMENT or by a letter from us.”

Phil 4:9: “Keep on doing what you have learned and received and HEARD and SEEN IN ME. Then the God of peace will be with you.”

1 Corinth 11:2: “I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the Traditions, just as I handed them on to you.”

2 Thess 3:6: “We instruct you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to shun any brother who conducts himself in a disorderly way and not according to the TRADITION they received from us.”

1 Peter 1:25: “…but the Word of the Lord REMAINS FOREVER. This is the Word that has been PROCLAIMED TO YOU (i.e., orally).”

Jesus did condemned the tradition of men. This type of tradition he condemned negates God and the Pharisees and the Sadducees have become legalistic in their traditions that God is taken out of it. They preach it but they do not practice it. That is the tradition that Jesus condemned. Jesus did not condemn tradition as a whole.

I also like to keep in mind that Jesus preached orally. He didn’t write any scrolls. Jesus only wrote once when he prevented the Pharisees and the Sadducees from stoning an woman. What he wrote, we won’t know.

You should also take into account that not all that Jesus taught was written. The Gospel of John Chapter 21 verse 30-31.

Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that believing you may have life in his name..

Sacred Scripture is also a product of the Oral Tradition of the Church since the Church compiled the books which were to become part of the canon of Scripture.

 

[JLongoria]

I don’t agree with this. I think it is clear that, if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just, and forgives our sins. I think there are still consequences for our sins, however.

Yeah, I horribly miss-worded that now that I read it, haha . This week has certainly been a rough one, so I apologize for that.

So, to fix that verbal fumble on my part:

Catholics believe the blood of Christ accomplishes perfectly what it was meant to do: to save us from eternal damnation. Yet never does it imply that there are no consequences of having sinned in the first place, though forgiveness is certain; why then would we have to be judged again on that Day, when we’ve already been judged at the time of our death?

I still think that the point stands though: there is obviously an amount of time for some people between death and the general judgment that has to be accounted for. After the general judgment, all the faithful are directly in the presence of Christ; the final purification of the human race will be completed, so there is no longer any period of purgation.

Another issue to point out is that the Bible never really mentions how long purification by the blood of Christ should take place, so for a person who believes in self-attesting Scripture, it seems a bit hard to just say, “well, it has to be instantaneous!” without labeling oneself as akin to one of us crazy Catholics, who has all sorts of extra-Biblical (though not anti-Biblical) doctrines.

Again, as Catholics we depend on paradosis - which has always held the process of purgatory since the earliest times - to help us be certain on matters such as this. The fact is, without Sacred Tradition, one cannot be certain on much at all (I’m obviously referring to moral and ethical dilemmas that the Bible is altogether silent on, and even matters of the faith such as the Trinity).

 

[vern_humphrey]

We do pray to Mary. But we don’t worship Mary. Two different things.

Go to a service in any Protestant church, and the odds are good you will hear the minister ask the congregation to pray for someone who is sick or in difficulty.

In other words, the minister prays to the congregation (that’s what “pray” means, to ask.)

And what does he pray for? That they intecede with God on behalf of someone.

 

[Church_Militant]

n2thelight has a case.

It is not Purgatory or indulgences, however, that are the problem – certainly they have been shown to be consonant with Scripture. It is the ABUSE of indulgences – the SALE of indulgences – that was the problem. The SALE of indulgences or sacraments is specifically reprobated by the Church.

A case that was dealt with by the Council of Trent. Modern allegations are both moot and baseless.

Unlike the errors of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and the cascade of additional errors that descend from them, which to date have not been dealt with by the n-C faith communities.

 

[mercygate]

A case that was dealt with by the Council of Trent. Modern allegations are both moot and baseless.

Unlike the errors of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and the cascade of additional errors that descend from them, which to date have not been dealt with by the n-C faith communities.

Are you referring to this?

“And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, it ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,–whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,–be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.” (Trent – 25th Session)

 

[Church_Militant]

Pretty much.

 

[SD_Catholic]

Not to take it any further off topic, but I must have been living in a shell because I’ve never seen Heb 10:26-27 used against OSAS… Why… I say Why have I not been instructed to use this against OSAS … it’s great thanks:thumbsup:

SD

 

[Ignatius]

Question

What did Christ teach that was’nt written,and if it was’nt written how can you be sure He taught it

The Church came well before any of the writings of the New Testament. The fullness of what Jesus taught was passed down through the generations by The Church. Eventually some was written down and became the New Testament. We can be sure of the Truths both written and unwritten in the same way, because it was passed down by The Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

What does the Bible say about this?
Does the Bible say that the Bible is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
NO! The most that Holy Scripture ever claims for itself is that it is profitable for reproof, for correction and for instruction.

Does the Bible say that The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth?
You bet.

The Church and Scripture are inseparable. St. Paul of Tarsus says in his letter to the Ephesians that it is through The Church that the manifold wisdom of God is made known.
The Church was founded by Jesus Christ and was sustained by Sacred Tradition for many many years before a word of the New Testament was ever written. If you check into it, you will find that The Church came well before any of the writings of the New Testament.

You claim to be a bible christian and the Bible says that The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. So why don’t you follow the Bible? Why do you dispute what is written in The Word of God?

If you would like to learn more about the Truths of Jesus Christ and His Church, contact your local parish today. Or you can visit http://www.catholicscomehome.org/epic/epic120.phtml or http://www.chnetwork.org/

Your Servant in Christ.