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

  • Thread starter Thread starter n2thelight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Most people’s signatures reveal something important to them about their personal beliefs or devotions. Your query sounds quite indignant!

Did you consider looking up St. Gabriel Possenti before you posted these questions?

I had the same ones when I saw it! Never met him before.
Yes indignant. Why a pistol, why a weapon at this particular point in time? I am glad St Gabriel did a Good Thing, and I suppose when a Saint does a Good Thing one is not supposed to comment.

But yes, it does say something about the poster to me, and perhaps to others.

In Christ
 
2679 Mary is the perfect Orans (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus’ mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.

This is complete foolishness,nowhere in scripture Im I told to pray to anyone but God
Then how come Protestant ministers pray to their congregations?

How come anyone prays for anyone else?
 
There is much information about his nature, his relationship with the Catholic Church, and his inherent unwillingness to leave the CC which is not reflected in the postings here.

In Christ
I understand your desire to “sort out the truth” through all the garbage spread around by both sides.

IMO Luther was a man with a legitimate gripe and tried to change the Church from within. But then he was propped up by Germany wealthy class who desired Church properties and he became a pariah for them. Luther’s ego was what enabled them to snare him. With that, he went down the road he did not desire and broke off from the Church.

But what he did to the Catholic Mass is what brings tears to my eyes. He removed the Altar, the re-presentation of the Sacrifice, the Sacrament of Confession, and numerous other channels of Grace, locking them away from people who desired to be with God.

My thoughts on what Jesus said about the Pharisees who prevent people from getting to heaven make me dread what happened to Martin Luther.
 
Yes indignant. Why a pistol, why a weapon at this particular point in time? I am glad St Gabriel did a Good Thing, and I suppose when a Saint does a Good Thing one is not supposed to comment.

But yes, it does say something about the poster to me, and perhaps to others.

In Christ
Hmmmm, so do you question when St. Gabriel is pictured with a sword?
 
It is a holy medal of St. Gabriel Possenti, an OFFICIALLY recognized saint of the Catholic Church, who used a gun to save his village from twenty terrorists. I have a blessed version hanging from the mirror in my car.

What place does it have on this forum? Catholic Forum … Catholic Saint. Don’t see the disconnect anywhere.
While I respect your right to your preferences, it is interesting to note two sets of facts:

The St. Gabriel Possenti Society promotes the public recognition of St. Gabriel Possenti, including his Vatican designation as Patron Saint of Handgunners. St. Gabriel Possenti was a Catholic seminarian whose marksmanship and proficiency with handguns single-handedly saved the village of Isola, Italy from a band of 20 terrorists in 1860. The Possenti Society offers a variety of materials related to St. Gabriel Possenti and a biblical understanding of self-defense.Official Site

A campaign is under way in the United States to have Saint Gabriel declared patron of hand-gunners. This is in reference to an apocryphal story which has the saint rescuing the town of Isola from marauding bandits, using the skills from hunting he had learnt as a boy. Whilst this story is mentioned in one biography of the saint,[15] the author admits that some of the accounts in his book were invented to “enliven” the story. No account of the alleged event is present in another independently researched biography of the saint, in particular early sources of the saint’s life making such an incident seem unlikely. Moreover at the time of the alleged incident (1860) Gabriel was in the later stages of tuberculosis making such a strenuous exercise impossible for one in such a condition.Wikipedia

Those who promote handguns are outside my set of preferences, particularly when this is done within a paradigm of ‘a biblical understanding of self-defense’.

In Christ
 
Well, actually, intercessory prayer is an integral and important part of the Mass…[as in] 'I ask the Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, all the angels and saints, and you here present, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

We are also required, as Catholics, to believe in the communio sanctorum, the communion of saints; that’s why we are able to say the Apostle’s creed in full meaning.

At the same time, let’s not forget that we can’t go directly to the Father. We have intercession through Christ Jesus.

Catechism of the Catholic Church,

2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners. He is “able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” The Holy Spirit “himself intercedes for us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.”

So, intercessory prayer is a requirement, to some extent.
It is not possible for something to be required ‘to some extent’. I think that the CCC proves the point that intercession, while desireable, and a necessity for many, is *not *a requirement.

As I have suggested elsewhere, there seems to be no problem with recognising intercession, and applying it as it is applied in the liturgy of the Church.

It does not seem to be incumbent on the individual Christian however, to ask for intercession: that is my reading of CCC.

Many of the liturgical prayers, surely, are addressed to God the Father, Heavenly Father, Lord God etc, just as many hymns are addressed directly to God. Are you sure that it is not possible to pray directly to God without intercession by Christ?

In Christ
 
Well, you may change your mind if and when you make it to Purgatory. At this time, the power of intercessory prayer will be the greatest gift the Church Militant can offer you!

But using a different tact, think of it this way. All the saints are part of the Body of Christ, right? Well, when you pray to them, you are praying through them to Christ, who is head of the Body.
Oh dear, my predilections are being forced onto the table. Quite frankly, the issue of purgatory is beyond my understanding at the moment, and will probably continue to be so for some time to come. So at the moment, whether or not I land in purgatory over the issue of intercession is irrelevant. For me, right now, there are more important things with regard to the dailiness of living as a Christian than the issue of purgatory yes or no.

Yes, all the saints are believed to be part of the Body of Christ. Saints are more important for some Catholics than others - I am thinking here particularly of St Jude and St Christopher. The community of saints is certainly an immanent presence which endows each Catholic Christian with a sense of both guidance and comfort.

I do not pray to individual saints, just as I do not explicitly pray to the Virgin. I do not ask for intercession because it removes me very far from my focus on God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. For me, the Trinity is more than sufficient.

But that’s me, and as a new Catholic, I may have it all wrong. There may be 'proof ’ that I must do this or that with regard to intercession, praying to the saints and to the Virgin. I honour those who do; I just don’t do it myself. Is that OK?

In Christ
 
I understand your desire to “sort out the truth” through all the garbage spread around by both sides.

IMO Luther was a man with a legitimate gripe and tried to change the Church from within. But then he was propped up by Germany wealthy class who desired Church properties and he became a pariah for them. Luther’s ego was what enabled them to snare him. With that, he went down the road he did not desire and broke off from the Church.

But what he did to the Catholic Mass is what brings tears to my eyes. He removed the Altar, the re-presentation of the Sacrifice, the Sacrament of Confession, and numerous other channels of Grace, locking them away from people who desired to be with God.

My thoughts on what Jesus said about the Pharisees who prevent people from getting to heaven make me dread what happened to Martin Luther.
I understand your sorrow, but the fact is that those who desired to follow Luther and others in the Protestant communion did so, and those who did not, did not. I am not sure anyone was locked away.

And don’t worry about poor old Martin: I am sure he is with the Saints in heaven. He too suffered; he became overwrought about his own salvation as well as that of others. Nevertheless, his were not sins much as he has been depicted by some as Satan himself. This I intuit to be true. At the moment, I think I stand pretty close to the Vatican on Luther.

But we would all do well to collect objective facts, although given our religious biases, I know that that would be nigh on impossible.
In Christ
 
Hmmmm, so do you question when St. Gabriel is pictured with a sword?
There are several perfectly lovely pictures of the Saint on the internet without either sword or pistol/handgun. And see fuller explication in another of my postings.

In Christ
 
Those who promote handguns are outside my set of preferences, particularly when this is done within a paradigm of ‘a biblical understanding of self-defense’.

In Christ
So I’m curious, what do you think when you see the Angel Gabriel pictured with a sword?

Remember, the Church does not condemn violence when it is the only answer to preventing further violence, especially in the protection of innocents.
 
Oh dear, my predilections are being forced onto the table. Quite frankly, the issue of purgatory is beyond my understanding at the moment, and will probably continue to be so for some time to come. So at the moment, whether or not I land in purgatory over the issue of intercession is irrelevant. For me, right now, there are more important things with regard to the dailiness of living as a Christian than the issue of purgatory yes or no.
No. I didn’t mean that your lack of intercessory prayer will land you in Purgatory or extend your time in Purgatory. What I meant was, while in Purgatory, you are going to fully appreciate the value of intercessory prayer because millions and millions of Catholics will be praying for your soul!!! That’s the wonderful gift of intercessory prayer!
 
I’ve had a number of responses to earlier postings, but I cannot answer them in faith when I am confronted by statements like the following (quotations):

Re Luther
  • The deuterocanonical books were just too “Catholic” for inclusion in Protestant heretical theology
  • Too bad Luther wasn’t the infallible council, and bears no reflection on what are the true teachings of the Catholic Church.
  • He started from his own position of, “those yahoos in Rome are ludicrous!”
  • I’m not saying we should blindly follow everything that a priest, a bishop, or a cardinal says; that would make us like those who followed Luther
  • Martin Luther, instead of trusting the authority of the Church, went on a false assumption and came up with the wrong conclusion.
  • [Because of Luther] millions of Christians have looked over a beautiful piece of God’s Word!!!
Re Bible and Certainty
  • When an infallible Church council promulgates something, you believe them. No ifs, ands, or buts; it is guided by the Holy Spirit,
  • After we stopped laughing, we have explained to the OP that the Catholic Bible **IS **the original, correct and complete Christian Bible.
  • We did get it right [ie the Bible] – after all, **we wrote it. **
  • The only reason we receive the OT is because of Jesus
  • It can be said that “the church” does “own” the Bible in that the New Testament – written by the Church, for the Church – reveals the Old Testament as it had not been revealed before.
  • I entirely disagree that it is “in the public domain” in the sense that it makes sense to anybody who is not in the Body.
  • you may change your mind if and when you make it to Purgatory.
Some of us think in colours of gray, rather than in black and white. We try to understand others’ points of view, and are often reluctant to claim uber-truth at the expense of The Other. While we recognise the existence of identifiable proofs, that does not mean that they should never be examined, reviewed and revitalised. Some of us also think that learning by exploration (which is why we are all on this thread) is preferable to learning by rote, and that makes us question unverifiable or goofy statements.

If and when I make it to purgatory, if there is a purgatory, I shall perhaps have time to become more black and white. Right now however, I shall remain a gray quester, and thank you all for your comments.

In Christ
 
But that’s me, and as a new Catholic, I may have it all wrong. There may be 'proof ’ that I must do this or that with regard to intercession, praying to the saints and to the Virgin. I honour those who do; I just don’t do it myself. Is that OK?
In Christ
If you are uncomfortable praying to saints, then don’t do it!!! Period!

It’s little more than empty rituals and repetitive prayers if you are doing it without your heart! And we all know what Christ thinks of that.

Instead, strive to learn more about this gift, but don’t do it until you are ready to do it.
 
If you are uncomfortable praying to saints, then don’t do it!!! Period!

It’s little more than empty rituals and repetitive prayers if you are doing it without your heart! And we all know what Christ thinks of that.

Instead, strive to learn more about this gift, but don’t do it until you are ready to do it.
I thank you for your understanding, comfort and guidance. There is still so much to learn, so much to get ready for - and I can only do my best. Perhaps I am too determined to retain my independence in Christ, in what is essentially a strictly communal faith.

But this is becoming too personalised. Back to the thread.

In Christ - and blessings
 
It is not possible for something to be required ‘to some extent’. I think that the CCC proves the point that intercession, while desireable, and a necessity for many, is *not *a requirement.

As I have suggested elsewhere, there seems to be no problem with recognising intercession, and applying it as it is applied in the liturgy of the Church.

It does not seem to be incumbent on the individual Christian however, to ask for intercession: that is my reading of CCC.

Many of the liturgical prayers, surely, are addressed to God the Father, Heavenly Father, Lord God etc, just as many hymns are addressed directly to God. Are you sure that it is not possible to pray directly to God without intercession by Christ?

In Christ
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

John 14:6

Now, I think it’s acceptable to say, “All Mighty Father, hear my prayers…” In fact, the liturgy and celebration of the Mass is full of such instances.

But at the same time, we are required to beleive in Christ. We have to believe that Christ is God’s Son, is eternally begotten from Him, and is one in being with Him; with that, prayers to God should be understood as through the intercession of Christ, as the catechism points out.
 
Back to the Thread.

I have not read all the postings, but many of them. I may have missed discussion of a most basic question here. It is probably a question that is unanswerable here.

Pelikan’s book Whose Bible Is It highlights the historical-critical view of the Bible - that events purported to be true must be proven to be true. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged Genesis’ accounts of the creation of the world, and the story of Adam and Even and the Garden of Eden.

Other supposedly historical events in the Bible have not been historically or scientifically demonstrated by parallel evidence: the darkness during the crucifixion would surely have been mentioned by observers of the crucifixion - outside those reporting in the Bible; the census during Christ’s birth has not been traced historically; nor has the Pharoah of the Exodus. The list seems sorrowfully endless.

Members of the Jesus Seminar (pace) and other current biblical scholars (Catholic, Protestant and agnostic) have written diligently and for the most part with wisdom about the historicity of the Bible, with particular attention to what has been written about Jesus the Christ. It is common cause, I believe, that much of what has been written in both OT and NT are, in a historical/archeological/scientific/theological sense, tainted by subjective memory or forgetfulness, elaboration by believers, or simply by the inevitable errors of oral transmission of knowledge.

When we ask what did Christ teach that was not written, as this thread does, my own understanding is that the Bible is neither infallible or immutable, but that its authenticity is sanctified by the traditions of the Church, and certainly by those evidential truths that do exist.

And that therefore, we must, as practicing Catholic Christians, be able to look far outside the Bible, outside the Sacred Scriptures themselves, for a greater and more perfect understanding of Christ’s teachings. That does not detract in any way from the faith, for me.

The Bible tells its story, but it is not infallible, and it does not say it all. (See also encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu as well as John Paul II/Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

Where to look is the problem, and that is probably the problem for the original poster. It is certainly the problem for me.

In Christ
 
Back to the Thread.

I have not read all the postings, but many of them. I may have missed discussion of a most basic question here. It is probably a question that is unanswerable here.

Pelikan’s book Whose Bible Is It highlights the historical-critical view of the Bible - that events purported to be true must be proven to be true. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution challenged Genesis’ accounts of the creation of the world, and the story of Adam and Even and the Garden of Eden.

Other supposedly historical events in the Bible have not been historically or scientifically demonstrated by parallel evidence: the darkness during the crucifixion would surely have been mentioned by observers of the crucifixion - outside those reporting in the Bible; the census during Christ’s birth has not been traced historically; nor has the Pharoah of the Exodus. The list seems sorrowfully endless.

Members of the Jesus Seminar (pace) and other current biblical scholars (Catholic, Protestant and agnostic) have written diligently and for the most part with wisdom about the historicity of the Bible, with particular attention to what has been written about Jesus the Christ. It is common cause, I believe, that much of what has been written in both OT and NT are, in a historical/archeological/scientific/theological sense, tainted by subjective memory or forgetfulness, elaboration by believers, or simply by the inevitable errors of oral transmission of knowledge.

When we ask what did Christ teach that was not written, as this thread does, my own understanding is that the Bible is neither infallible or immutable, but that its authenticity is sanctified by the traditions of the Church, and certainly by those evidential truths that do exist.

And that therefore, we must, as practicing Catholic Christians, be able to look far outside the Bible, outside the Sacred Scriptures themselves, for a greater and more perfect understanding of Christ’s teachings. That does not detract in any way from the faith, for me.

The Bible tells its story, but it is not infallible, and it does not say it all. (See also encyclicals Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu as well as John Paul II/Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.

Where to look is the problem, and that is probably the problem for the original poster. It is certainly the problem for me.

In Christ
Holy cow.

First, the Bible is infallible. End of story; if you don’t believe it, you’re not a Catholic, and are in dire heresy. The Catholic Church teaches that the books contained in the bible are not the whole story, yet she has always considered them infallible in that what is contained in them is the Truth.

Second, the “Jesus Seminar” is hardly a reputable group (in my opinion, a bunch of ridiculous yahoos), and it relies on the premise that the Apostles were the biggest liars in the history of the world, and that - even though they loved their rabbi and his teachings very much - they could not for the life of them remember anything he said, or transmit it to other believers.

If you ignore the fact that there were those who were martyred for Christ’s sake (yes, historical accounts of this exist), and understand that they either knew Christ, or listened to what the Apostles themselves had taught concerning Him, then you’re faced with either saying


  1. *]they were all completely insane
    *]or, they actually believed that Christ was the Son of God

    The Jesus Seminar relies on too many contengencies, and if you would rather believe what they have to say than the absolutely infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church, then be my guest.

    But please, don’t call yourself a Catholic then until you can profess that you believe what the Church has to say.
 
  1. Your Scripture is incomplete. Macabees tells us that it is helpful to pray for the dead, and assist them in Purgatory.
  2. Pray = communicate. Praying to someone is having a conversation with them. It doesn’t necessarily mean worship. Non Catholics generally assume the word pray means worship. It doesn’t.
  3. Who says it has to be in Scripture? God’s Church operates with His authority.
So how do you know when they are out of purgatory?

Since noone that has passed on can hear you,whats the use,also can you all pray silently in other words can they read your mind,also how can they hear millions of prayers at the same time?

His authority is His Word which is scripture,and scripture says not to pray to the dead
 
So how do you know when they are out of purgatory?

Since noone that has passed on can hear you,whats the use,also can you all pray silently in other words can they read your mind,also how can they hear millions of prayers at the same time?

His authority is His Word which is scripture,and scripture says not to pray to the dead
You keep saying these same things over and over which I don’t think even YOU believe! Those who have passed from this life and are still ALIVE in Christ are very much alive. How sad that you are trying to prove otherwise. You are cutting off your own Christian legs with such sad statements. The true dead are in hell. Period. We are not to attempt to contact those in hell.

How can you share the Good News of Christianity if you proclaim that the saints who have gone before us are DEAD!! Please, please stop applying your earthly understanding to Heaven. I cannot begin to tell you how many people I have had to help undo this sorry understanding of death that you are spreading.

When our loved ones die it is only US who can no longer hear THEM! They are united with God. They hear us when, and only when, God allows them to hear us. It is only through and because of God that they hear us at all.

I repeat, please, please stop spreading this horrible very anti-biblical idea that the saints who have gone before us are dead. Your ghoulish idea is what makes people fear death. Death can be, and is, a very wonderful celebration. They are alive because:

Jesus Christ IS risen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top