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

[NotWorthy]

I really am glad you are back Notworthy, and that you didn’t suffer overlong from Hurricane Ike. Being from the New Orleans area, I know the hardship of evacuation.

Thanks for your prayers! But we don’t evacuate (unless Cat 3 or higher!). Thank goodness the weather has been pleasant this past week. After Rita, it was 95+ degrees and nothing but hot and sticky after hours.

 

[Thing]

But you don’t deny that it was done in the Old Testament?

Let me ask you, how is a person to know which sins to forgive and which to retain? I don’t see Jesus giving the Apostles the authority of ESP.

It might be almost passable if He had just told them to ‘forgive sins’; then any Apostle could conceivably waive a hand vaguely over a crowd and generally forgive them all of whatever, without knowing or hearing about the sins.
But, …
how on earth did they RETAIN sins if the sins were not confessed to them!

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

( see signature first, please)

how on earth did they RETAIN sins if the sins were not confessed to them!

I just wanted to point out that in the passages cited above (Acts) Ananias does not confess his sin to Peter.

…With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?..

Po18guy said

This was sin being held bound - thus, power over sin.

Certainly, but this is not confession either. God gave unique authority and power to the Apostles.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

(see signature please)

I also wanted to comment a bit on some earlier discussion regarding transubstantiation, purgatory, etc…

Is it enough to say that transubstantiation was simply a term for what had already been believed? The fact is that there was no agreed-upon definition of what exactly takes place, and before the official pronouncement, people held differing views about it(consubstantiation, etc…).

I think the real issue here is that, like with transubstantiation, before an official pronouncement is made on something, we can fairly assume that there were several beliefs about those doctrines and dogmas. In that sense, these beliefs were not official teachings of the CC until the pronouncements made, and skeptics may assume that some of the other beliefs held (prior to the pronouncements) were the orthodox teachings. And the root of all this is, of course, authority. IF the CC has a divinely protected authority to make these official declarations then by all means all should follow it. But as you know, many believe the Bible (which predates all these official declarations) is complete in Christian doctrine and dogma and hence there is no need for a church to make more declarations except to uphold the ancient and complete teachings of the Apostles as recorded in the Bible…

I know, I know. More of the same from me

 

[Thing]

( see signature first, please)

I just wanted to point out that in the passages cited above (Acts) Ananias does not confess his sin to Peter.

…With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?..

How did St. Peter know that Ananias had sinned?
What if St. Peter never knew that Ananias had sinned against the Holy Spirit?
Does St. Peter RETAIN this sin?
Could St. Peter carry out Our Lords Command ‘to forgive or RETAIN sins’ if he did not know if a sin had been committed?
Would St. Peter be in trouble if he neglected to carry out this ‘forgive or RETAIN’ part of Gods commission to him?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

How did St. Peter know that Ananias had sinned?

By what power did Ananias fall dead after Peter’s rebuke?

The Apostles’ were given unique power and this is a demonstration of it. I don’t think it is a good example of confession.

 

[Church_Militant]

JTBC,

Answer me this.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
“21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

Confession

A. Confess your sins to men
~ Leviticus 5:5-6 (“All scripture…”: 2 Tim 3:16)
(Law is a shadow: Hebrews 10:1)
~ 1 John 1:9
~ James 5:16

B. Can men forgive sins?
~ Only God has the power to forgive sins but He exercises this power through men.
~ Mark 2:7
~ Matthew 9:1-8
When the crowds saw it, they were afraid , and the glorified God, who had given such authority to men.

• Matthew 9:8

 

[po18guy]

(see signature please)

For the sake of accuracy, I have suggested a modified user name. If it does not sit well with you, please consider opening your heart and mind to the Church which gave you the bible.

Is it enough to say that transubstantiation was simply a term for what had already been believed?

Yes. It came from Christ and was taught by the church. The term, like “trinity” was understood, even if there was no word to describe it.

The fact is that there was no agreed-upon definition of what exactly takes place, and before the official pronouncement, people held differing views about it(consubstantiation, etc…).

First, it is not a fact. There was an agreed upon definition! Other beliefs were heresy. Period. Christ instituted transubstantiation. The Church has always believed it. The Church taught that the bread and wine became the Body and Blood, just as Jesus said it did. Soon after, and especially 1,500 years later, man was lead by a certain spirit to disbelieve it and changed the definition, which should alarm you.

I think the real issue here is that, like with transubstantiation, before an official pronouncement is made on something, we can fairly assume that there were several beliefs about those doctrines and dogmas.

Again, these other ideas were heresy, which was dealt with and died out, until an opportune time 1,500 years later.

In that sense, these beliefs were not official teachings of the CC until the pronouncements made

Sorry, brother, but this is 100% wrong. The Church has taught the truth since the beginning. It was forced to define these teachings in response to heresy. The existence of heretics does nothing to change the truth, which the Church has always taught.

and skeptics may assume that some of the other beliefs held (prior to the pronouncements) were the orthodox teachings.

But, they would be wrong. Skeptics always assume too much. Skeptics have little faith. Skeptics, by definition, doubt. Faith and skepticism are polar opposites.

And the root of all this is, of course, authority. IF the CC has a divinely protected authority to make these official declarations then by all means all should follow it.

What do you mean, “IF”? Christ Himself said this. Why do you doubt?

But as you know, many believe the Bible (which predates all these official declarations) is complete in Christian doctrine and dogma and hence there is no need for a church to make more declarations except to uphold the ancient and complete teachings of the Apostles as recorded in the Bible…

The fatal flaw here is that the bible, which was produced solely under the authority of the Church, tells you explicitly that it is incomplete. See Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, and Acts 4:20, among others. The Church, founded by Christ, predates everything Christian. If the Church did not have the authority, then the bible is worthless.

Protestants, now lacking the Sacred Tradition, which Christ taught and handed on to the Apostles, and which Paul admonished us to keep, have been lead astray by the doctrines of man. Sola scriptura is a man-made, false doctrine.

I know, I know. More of the same from me

We are trying to lead you to the truth. Try beseeching the Holy Spirit to lead you. You suffer from Protestant confusion, which resulted as all of Christ’s tradition was slowly thrown away. Once the demon leads, confusion reigns. This sounds harsh, but eternal hell is indeed harsh!

 

[po18guy]

By what power did Ananias fall dead after Peter’s rebuke?

This was sin being held bound, as Christ gave it to the Apostles. The power of God struck them down. What else could it be?

The Apostles’ were given unique power and this is a demonstration of it. I don’t think it is a good example of confession.

It is precisely the power to bind and loose that Christ gave them. That you do not believe this power was handed on to the Apostles’ successors does not affect it one bit.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;4196784]JTBC,

Answer me this.

John 20:21-23 is so important.
“21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. 23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.”

My thinking is that if our Lord had not intended to make the Sacrament of Reconciliation a means of grace unto salvation, then why in the world would He have made this statement and given both this power and command to the presbyters of His church?

James 5:16 & 1st John 1:9 also offer us more insight into this doctrine.

James 5: 14] Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord;
15] and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.
16] Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

1st John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity.

All these passages expressly speak of confession of sins and so I have to ask, then just how will those outside the Catholic Church explain the obvious link between these passages.
None of these passages speak of someone giving penance or declaring after they confess they are given some kind of absolution.

Here is a further outline for study on this sacrament courtesy of John Martignoni and his Bible Christian Society

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

We are all told to forgive one another and to confess our sins to one another. This fits nicely with the “priesthood of believers”.

The Apostles obviously were given unique power. If i willfully withhold a sin from a priest today I will not fall dead. The point is we can’t use the Apostles as an example of anyone today b/c they had unique gifts.

In your 3 examples I do not see a necessary connection amongst them aside from the fact that each mentions confession. In the first case the Apostles themselves are given the Holy Spirit and command to go out and forgive and bind sin. In James we are told what to do if one is sick. Notice it also says to confess sins to one another and pray for one another. Nothing in any of these passages of James says someone is confessing sins to the clergy. And in your last example, again, it simply says that if we confess our sins God will forgive us. It does not say we should confess our sins to the clergy. James 5 does tell us to confess to one another. Of course, this doesn’t exclude clergy, but I don’t see any Scriptures here depicting confession as the CC practices it.

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;4195429
Originally Posted by justasking4
True its in my Bible. In regards to confession to a priest we still don’t see it done in the NT.

NotWorthy
]But you don’t deny that it was done in the Old Testament?

I can’t think of one example of an individual confessing sin directly to a priest and that priest forgiving him.

Let me ask you, how is a person to know which sins to forgive and which to retain?

What context are you referring to here?

I don’t see Jesus giving the Apostles the authority of ESP.

Those that reject the gospel message that Christ died for their sins and rose again would not be forgiven.

 

[onenow1]

None of these passages speak of someone giving penance or declaring after they confess they are given some kind of absolution.

Quote =OneNow1 thats where this passage comes in ja4 the one you refuse to believe.

Matthew 16:19> I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever YOU Bind on Earth shall be Bound in Heaven, and Whatever YOU Loose on Earth shall be Loosed in Heaven." ]

Quote= OneNow1, Ja4 I was going to read a book by Rev. Finis Jennings Dake probably a fundamentalist, he turned me right off when explaining how to interpert the bible. This is what I got out of it. Immediately he denagraded the early church father’s because they weren’t enlightned enough. This is what he said,the reformation freed us from the early traditions of man.

My impression of his first thoughts are poppycock ! Who but the early Church fathers of antiquity would have a better understanding of what the apostles taught, especially those who knew some of them or at least were closer to apostolic times.

Peace, OneNow1

PS. This is why there needs to be a church with authority.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

For the sake of accuracy, I have suggested a modified user name.

Yeah, I really ought to do that at this point. I didn’t want to last time it was suggested b/c I was involved in a really lengthy thread and would have caused confusion.

Yes. It came from Christ and was taught by the church.

There are historical sources which reveal that the belief was held (at least by some) in the post-Apostolic church. This does not prove that it came from Christ nor that it was taught by the Apostolic church.

First, it is not a fact. There was an agreed upon definition! Other beliefs were heresy. Period.

According to the CC, and not until the CC gave it a definition could it be considered heresy. Again, what we have are historical sources which reveal what some people believed in the church in that age. It cannot be proven that transubstantiation is the orthodox teaching and other teachings heresy based upon the declarations of the CC unless you first prove that the CC at that time was not itself in error.

Skeptics always assume too much. Skeptics have little faith. Skeptics, by definition, doubt. Faith and skepticism are polar opposites.

I think in this case (as in other doctrines) the skepticism is the result of what appears to be an inconsistency between the official declarations of the CC and the original teachings of the Apostles that we have record of. The trouble lies in that Catholics see certain Scripture supporting their beliefs and non-Catholics see them as supporting theirs. Catholics simply choose to believe that the CC has the preserved, true interpretation. Again, it’s an issue of authority and also of faith. Catholics choose to put their faith in the CC being preserved from error. Non-C’s choose to put their faith in a church which follows the orignal teachings of the Apostles and Christ. Satan could not overcome such a church. Christians use those original records (Scripture) to find the church. Of course, there are many versions likely as a result of man’s unwillingness to abandon sin. Most choose a church which best fits their sinful version of the truth.

What do you mean, “IF”? Christ Himself said this. Why do you doubt?

I don’t doubt that Christ gave the church authority and that it maintains truth. I only doubt that the CC is that church.

The fatal flaw here is that the bible, which was produced solely under the authority of the Church, tells you explicitly that it is incomplete. See Luke 3:18, John 20:30, John 21:25, and Acts 4:20, among others. The Church, founded by Christ, predates everything Christian. If the Church did not have the authority, then the bible is worthless.

This would take a lengthy response and would carry us o.t. In a nutshell, the church wrote the Bible. The CC recognizes it as such. However, the CC does not resemble that church.

Protestants, now lacking the Sacred Tradition, which Christ taught and handed on to the Apostles, and which Paul admonished us to keep, have been lead astray by the doctrines of man. Sola scriptura is a man-made, false doctrine.

Maybe we’d have to go into definitions of s.s., but generally speaking, I do not believe there are valid, extra-biblical sacred traditions. Sacred Tradidion has already been recorded by the Apostles in Scripture. And the only way we’d have of knowing whether or not they were man-made false doctrines would be to compare them to the original source (as recorded in Scripture).

We are trying to lead you to the truth. Try beseeching the Holy Spirit to lead you. You suffer from Protestant confusion, which resulted as all of Christ’s tradition was slowly thrown away. Once the demon leads, confusion reigns. This sounds harsh, but eternal hell is indeed harsh!

No offense taken. I’m merely human and it’s possible I am confused, but in all these years of sincere searching I’ve not yet seen “the light” of Catholicism. Only very short-lived reconsiderations.

 

[mercygate]

Yeah, I really ought to do that at this point. I didn’t want to last time it was suggested b/c I was involved in a really lengthy thread and would have caused confusion. There are historical sources which reveal that the belief was held (at least by some) in the post-Apostolic church. This does not prove that it came from Christ nor that it was taught by the Apostolic church. According to the CC, and not until the CC gave it a definition could it be considered heresy. Again, what we have are historical sources which reveal what some people believed in the church in that age. It cannot be proven that transubstantiation is the orthodox teaching and other teachings heresy based upon the declarations of the CC unless you first prove that the CC at that time was not itself in error. I think in this case (as in other doctrines) the skepticism is the result of what appears to be an inconsistency between the official declarations of the CC and the original teachings of the Apostles that we have record of. The trouble lies in that Catholics see certain Scripture supporting their beliefs and non-Catholics see them as supporting theirs. Catholics simply choose to believe that the CC has the preserved, true interpretation. Again, it’s an issue of authority and also of faith. Catholics choose to put their faith in the CC being preserved from error. Non-C’s choose to put their faith in a church which follows the orignal teachings of the Apostles and Christ. Satan could not overcome such a church. Christians use those original records (Scripture) to find the church. Of course, there are many versions likely as a result of man’s unwillingness to abandon sin. Most choose a church which best fits their sinful version of the truth. I don’t doubt that Christ gave the church authority and that it maintains truth. I only doubt that the CC is that church. This would take a lengthy response and would carry us o.t. In a nutshell, the church wrote the Bible. The CC recognizes it as such. However, the CC does not resemble that church. Maybe we’d have to go into definitions of s.s., but generally speaking, I do not believe there are valid, extra-biblical sacred traditions. Sacred Tradidion has already been recorded by the Apostles in Scripture. And the only way we’d have of knowing whether or not they were man-made false doctrines would be to compare them to the original source (as recorded in Scripture).No offense taken. I’m merely human and it’s possible I am confused, but in all these years of sincere searching I’ve not yet seen “the light” of Catholicism. Only very short-lived reconsiderations.

There is no break between the Church of Pentecost, the Church of the Apostolic Age, the Church of the sub-Apostolic Age, and the Church throughout the ages. It is all one Church. When does the Apostolic Church lose the authority Jesus gave her?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

There is no break between the Church of Pentecost, the Church of the Apostolic Age, the Church of the sub-Apostolic Age, and the Church throughout the ages. It is all one Church. When does the Apostolic Church lose the authority Jesus gave her?

It doesn’t. However, what does one use to measure a church’s claims of authority? Said church’s teachings? Or the most original teachings?

 

[mercygate]

It doesn’t. However, what does one use to measure a church’s claims of authority? Said church’s teachings? Or the most original teachings?

The Church’s teachings ARE the original teachings, as history confirms. If the discipline of the sacraments develops as a result of practical considerations or if actual doctrine is refined as a result of heretical attack, that only builds upon the foundation. Jesus said he would BUILD his Church. That is how we understand things like the clarification of doctrine as in the definition of the hypostatic union.

Confession and absolution are there from the beginning. There is scriptural warrant for it. If you understand the history you can see it in scripture. If you reject the history you can still see it in scripture but it is much harder. That is why we read Scripture in the matrix in which it is embedded – the heart of the Church – and not as a stand-alone artifact.

 

[justasking4]

The Church’s teachings ARE the original teachings, as history confirms. If the discipline of the sacraments develops as a result of practical considerations or if actual doctrine is refined as a result of heretical attack, that only builds upon the foundation. Jesus said he would BUILD his Church. That is how we understand things like the clarification of doctrine as in the definition of the hypostatic union.

Confession and absolution are there from the beginning. There is scriptural warrant for it. If you understand the history you can see it in scripture. If you reject the history you can still see it in scripture but it is much harder. That is why we read Scripture in the matrix in which it is embedded – the heart of the Church – and not as a stand-alone artifact.

Church teachings not there from the beginning are:

1. Marian dogmas
2. one supreme ruler over the entire church i.e. a pope recoginized by all churches
3. papal infalliblity
4. celibate leadership

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

The Church’s teachings ARE the original teachings, as history confirms.

No doubt Catholic thought is historical, but not necessarily true or original. I know of only one way to decipher that…

 

[mercygate]

Church teachings not there from the beginning are:

1. Marian dogmas
2. one supreme ruler over the entire church i.e. a pope recoginized by all churches
3. papal infalliblity
4. celibate leadership

You lost the point. Christ BUILDS His Church. His Church needs the resiliency of the Holy Spirit in order to accomplish the Commission for which she exists amid the heavy seas of time and social change.

1. Celibate leadership is scriptural in the imitation of Jesus Christ and in respect of His counsel as well as in the example and counsel of Paul; moreover, it is a discipline, not a doctrine.
2. Petrine primacy is a scriptural teaching – the fact that “all” Churches fail to recognize the Apostolic see as the locus of that leadership does not in any way detract from the Roman position.
3. Papal infallibility is merely a sub-set of the indefectibility of the Church, which lies in Jesus’ promise to the Eleven to send “another paraclete who will guide you into all the truth” and that He [Jesus] will be “with you all days.”
4. Marian dogmas affirm the Person of Jesus Christ in his divine and human natures. All of the Marian dogmas affirm the incarnational aspect of Jesus’ Church.