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

[sodak]

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.

You beat me to it. Ja4 seems to think that if there isn’t a textbook definition in Scripture, then it can’t be true. That’s what Church is for! To teach and guide us, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course. Scripture doesn’t tell me how much I have to pay in taxes this year either, but then again, I don’t expect it to.

Interesting how people pick and choose what to believe if they do or don’t read it in Scripture. For examples, Ja4 doesn’t believe the Marian dogmas to be true, but has no trouble accepting the Trinity.

You either believe Jesus when he promised Peter that the Church will not fail, or you don’t believe Jesus. Take your pick. We Catholics choose Jesus.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You lost the point. Christ BUILDS His Church.

You seem to define Christ building His church as adding doctrines to it or having those doctrine “evolve”. I, however, see this building as adding people based on their faith in Christ (like Peter’s profession of faith).

 

[sodak]

You seem to define Christ building His church as adding doctrines to it or having those doctrine “evolve”. I, however, see this building as adding people based on their faith in Christ (like Peter’s profession of faith).

They are NOT added, we simply understand them better as time goes on. Just like 2 people that know each other better after their 50th Anniversary then when they were first married.

 

[po18guy]

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.

We can never agree as long as you wear Protestant glasses. And Protestantism definitely does not trace back to Christ. It traces back to only one man. Thank about that! You place your soul at risk for the personal preferences of one man. Mohammed, Luther, Smith - they each designed their own religions, and each lead the faithful away from the full truth. Protestantism is a schismatic movement that has abandoned many of the core teachings of the original Church. Why would you settle for partial truth? Catholics find that simply unacceptable.

Therein lies your confusion. You might be assuming, among other things, that the Catholic Church just made stuff up. Nope. That was Luther’s job. Read into the early church, by the writings of the early fathers. Take six months to do this. You will see the identical content between old and new, with only the form being different. The content of the Church’s celebration, and its teachings, remain the same. 2,000 years has brought a change only in form. Example: Do you really think that all women today should wear head coverings and remain silent? DON’T ANSWER THIS!!!

 

[po18guy]

You beat me to it. Ja4 seems to think that if there isn’t a textbook definition in Scripture, then it can’t be true. That’s what Church is for! To teach and guide us, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course. Scripture doesn’t tell me how much I have to pay in taxes this year either, but then again, I don’t expect it to.

Interesting how people pick and choose what to believe if they do or don’t read it in Scripture. For examples, Ja4 doesn’t believe the Marian dogmas to be true, but has no trouble accepting the Trinity.

You either believe Jesus when he promised Peter that the Church will not fail, or you don’t believe Jesus. Take your pick. We Catholics choose Jesus.

Simply put, if JA4 actually believes the bible (and he does), it is insane to disbelieve the very same authority which canonized it in the first place. Did I say insane?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You beat me to it. Ja4 seems to think that if there isn’t a textbook definition in Scripture, then it can’t be true. That’s what Church is for! To teach and guide us, with the help of the Holy Spirit of course.

The church is not there to lead in any such direction. The true church should uphold the Apostolic faith. Any church can make bold claims. The only way to know what is truth is to measure it against something.

Interesting how people pick and choose what to believe if they do or don’t read it in Scripture.

And some choose to believe b/c their church taught it. How do you know the Apostles did if you don’t find it in Scripture?

For examples, Ja4 doesn’t believe the Marian dogmas to be true, but has no trouble accepting the Trinity.

The Trinity is in the Bible. The term is not, but the trinity is certainly in the Bible. The church did not invent it.

You either believe Jesus when he promised Peter that the Church will not fail, or you don’t believe Jesus. Take your pick. We Catholics choose Jesus.

Catholics choose CAtholicism. Some people choose to find the unfailing church based upon the original teachings and not the teachings of the church in question. Scripture doctrine is Apostolic. Catholic doctrine cannot be proven to be Apostolic if it doesn’t measure up to Scripture.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

They are NOT added, we simply understand them better as time goes on. Just like 2 people that know each other better after their 50th Anniversary then when they were first married.

How can one know that they are better understood and not totally misunderstood and erroneous unless it can be measured against the original teachings?

 

[BerenCamlost]

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

You are becoming an atheist?

 

[JLongoria]

I wonder why the Apostles and those they appointed didn’t just throw a fresh copy of the New Testament at those they were trying to convert.

Marian devotion was alive and well in the early Church, and we have St. Irenaeus, and his teacher St. Polycarp, friend of St. John the Apostle during his very own lifetime (didn’t Jesus hand His mother over to St. John to care for her?), to thank for preserving that very vivid fact.

God’s plan of salvation very much involved Mary as the Theotokos, that had to be defended in the council of Ephesus. That is why we honor her, and that is why we believe that her purpose in the Church is to bring us to her Son.

 

[JLongoria]

How can one know that they are better understood and not totally misunderstood and erroneous unless it can be measured against the original teachings?

Because every form of doctrinal development can be tested against what was taught before.

We can, in fact, trace every single thing the Catholic Church promulgates to the time of the Apostles, and by extension, to Christ Jesus. Some will gladly overlook the beliefs of early Christians (especially the beliefs that were held in almost total unity) in order to support their views, but it’s all for naught.

St. Justin Martyr described very well the Order of the Mass as it is still practiced today; St. Irenaeus preserved the teachings of St. Polycarp, that gave way to the authentically Christian role - of whom only Catholics and the early Protestant Reformers who followed Luther and Calvin still hold as the truth, and indeed rightly so - of Mary in our salvation.

Many other early Christians wrote very explicitly about these things. Even St. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 11:27 about what is now called transubstantiation. He didn’t speak figuratively of the Eucharist - he said we’d have “to answer” for, or be “judged” for profaning the very body and blood of the Lord!

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

We can never agree as long as you wear Protestant glasses.

lol - I’m not wearing protestant glasses, I’ve simply removed my Catholic ones

And Protestantism definitely does not trace back to Christ. It is a schismatic movement that has abandoned the teachings of the original Church.

The teachings of the original church are recorded for us in Scripture, many of which were probably being abandoned by the masses very very early on.

Therein lies your confusion. You might be assuming, among other things, that the Catholic Church just made stuff up. That was Luther’s job. Read into the early church, by the writings of the early fathers. Take six months to do this. You will see the identical content between old and new, with only the form being different.

I have spent many years reading history. History isn’t necessarily truth though. There are many ancient heresies that continue on to this present day.

The content of he Church’s celebration, and its teachings, remain the same. 2,000 years has brought a change of form only. Example: Do you really think that all women should wear head coverings and remain silent? DON’T ANSWER!!!

Ok, I won’t. I will just say that I believe the church should hold fast to the apostolic ordinances and traditions. What is to prevent the CC from discarding other apostolic teachings and practices? There are many excuses for no longer encouraging the headcovering. In my mind there is no excuse for discontinuing a biblical practice - especially one so well expounded upon for our understanding its importance (see 1Cor11) - and if it can do that so easily after 1900+ years of universal practice, it can discard anything else it likes. Indeed, IMO, it has, in practice, abandoned far too much. I do not see it holding fast to the apostolic traditions but rather, riding the ever-moving winds of the world.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

You are becoming an atheist?

No, I’ve simply stopped choosing to believe in a church b/c it’s teachings tell me to. Seems like circular reasoning to me. I wanted to follow that “old time religion”. I see its form in the writings of the Apostles. Knowing how very unpopular the truth often is I do not use post-apostolic historical thought to determine the claims of any church.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I wonder why the Apostles and those they appointed didn’t just throw a fresh copy of the New Testament at those they were trying to convert.

Christ built the church, He gave us the Apostles, and the Apostles’ teachings remain with us to this day. I see no gap there.

Marian devotion was alive and well in the early Church, and we have St. Irenaeus, and his teacher St. Polycarp, friend of St. John the Apostle during his very own lifetime (didn’t Jesus hand His mother over to St. John to care for her?), to thank for preserving that very vivid fact.

Obviously Marian devotion exsisted even in Christ’s time - that can be seen in the Bible -but I pay particular attention to Jesus’ response to that devotion. And the fact that it exsisted or was popular in no way indicates it is God’s will.

God’s plan of salvation very much involved Mary as the Theotokos, that had to be defended in the council of Ephesus. That is why we honor her, and that is why we believe that her purpose in the Church is to bring us to her Son.

No doubt it was in God’s plan to involve Mary, and she most certainly was blessed to be choosen to be the mother of Jesus. She was choosen by God - it was not HER plan to be the mother of Jesus. God has used many people in His plan and we do not exhault them. We look to them as examples of faith.

 

[justasking4]

mercygate;4197521]
Originally Posted by justasking4
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

mercygate
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.

You must assume that Christ is building the church in this way. Secondly, what do you mean by “resiliency of the Holy Spirit”?

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.

How can a discipline not be grounded in doctrine? Secondly the qualifications for church leadership is spelled out clearly in Scripture and it never mandates celibacy as a requirement for leadership.

1. 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.

This took centuries before this ever happened.

1. 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.”

Again this was not only unknown in the NT but for centuries.

1. 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.

They do more than just that. Mary has been elevated way beyond what the Scriptures and the early church ever believed about her.

 

[sodak]

The church is not there to lead in any such direction. The true church should uphold the Apostolic faith. Any church can make bold claims. The only way to know what is truth is to measure it against something.

Correct. The Church holds the deposit of faith.

And some choose to believe b/c their church taught it.

Correct. We believe in Christ and his promise to the Church.

How do you know the Apostles did if you don’t find it in Scripture?

Tradition. Did you sleep through CCD?

The Trinity is in the Bible. The term is not, but the trinity is certainly in the Bible.

Prove it to me.

The church did not invent it.

Finally you say something correct. The Church did not invent any doctrine. It was revealed to the Church by God.

Catholics choose CAtholicism. Some people choose to find the unfailing church based upon the original teachings and not the teachings of the church in question.

The teachings came from the Church. You pick and choose which teachings that you like, then reject the teacher. Unbelieveable.

Scripture doctrine is Apostolic. Catholic doctrine cannot be proven to be Apostolic if it doesn’t measure up to Scripture.

Scripture came from Catholic doctrine, not the other way around. All Catholic doctrine is PERFECTLY compatible with Scripture.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Tradition.

How do you know the tradition came from the Apostles? B/c the church said it did?

Prove it to me.

I’ve no desire to hijack the thread and there really is no need b/c I happen to believe the same things the CC teaches about it. I find nothing contradictory in the doctrine when compared with Scripture and do see it (though not the actually term “trinity”) throughout many Scriptures. But b/c the CC has some truth does not mean it doesn’t also have some error.

The teachings came from the Church. You pick and choose which teachings that you like, then reject the teacher.

Scripture came from Catholic doctrine, not the other way around. All Catholic doctrine is PERFECTLY compatible with Scripture.

Scripture came from God, through men of the church. The CC at that time recognized it to be from God not b/c it meshed finely with its doctrines of transubstantiation, purgatory, Mary… I’m not trying to insinuate anything by saying this, but even Satan recognizes Scripture. And we can argue all day long with how compatible or incompatible Catholic doctrine is. It’s one opinion against another. I do not see it. I do see many clever arguments and philoshophy but it doesn’t justify the contradiction I see with the original records of the Apostles.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

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

Finally done… I can’t believe how easy that was. Unfortunately I had to re-register per the advice of Michael Francis.

Hope this doesn’t confuse anyone.

HEAR YE! JoyToBeCatholic IS NOW WatchfulPilgrim!

 

[guanophore]

Finally done… I can’t believe how easy that was. Unfortunately I had to re-register per the advice of Michael Francis.

Hope this doesn’t confuse anyone.

A much more honest entrance.

 

[JLongoria]

Christ built the church, He gave us the Apostles, and the Apostles’ teachings remain with us to this day. I see no gap there.

Oh, well, I’m glad that we’re in agreement then ;]. However, you are also denying the correctness of those the Apostles chose as successors.

Who might these people be? People like St. Timothy were bishops, and were given authority to teach, and were to appoint other men with this same authority.

Now, if a bishop were teaching something that were heterodox (that is, in disagreement with what had been handed to them), then they were not teaching by the Holy Spirit. And what had been handed to people like St. Irenaeus and St. Polycarp, both bishops in the lineage of St. John the Apostle?

Honoring the mother of God. What’s so strange is this was very nearly universally held by the Church, by all bishops who were given authority.

Even bishops like Nestorius, whose teachings about Mary as the Christotokos were rejected at the Council of Ephesus in 431, admitted the wrongness of his teachings, and submitted himself to the teachings of the universal church, after truly coming to understand the doctrine. Now that is faith; that is sentire cum ecclesia.

…the fact that it exsisted or was popular in no way indicates it is God’s will.

Not deductively, no. Yet it does seem to very much reflect those “many witnesses” Paul talked about in his letter to Timothy. Oh, and in that biblical passage, it seems to matter that it was heard before many people.

You’re questioning something because you don’t trust it, when Christ had promised to send the Spirit to lead the Church in to all truth. 2,000 years later, here we are, still standing in the doctrine that was handed to us faithfully by those the Apostles gave authority to teach.

Their successors were universally taught the sacrifice and order of the Mass, the teachings of Christ’s divinity and humanity in the Hypostatic union, the Trinity, and other such vital dogma of the Church.

Then, when heterodox teaching arose, the Church rose up - by the power of the Holy Spirit - and defended these teachings. People like St. Polycarp were martyred for these teachings, knowing that they were the truth because the Apostles had handed it to them.

No doubt it was in God’s plan to involve Mary, and she most certainly was blessed to be choosen to be the mother of Jesus. She was choosen by God - it was not HER plan to be the mother of Jesus.

No, it was not her plan to be the mother of Jesus. But it was her choice. God did not force the Holy Spirit upon Mary in her conceiving of Christ; she gave herself over to God’s will, and that is why we honor her.

Where Eve bound us to death through her disobedience, Mary has bound us to life in Christ through her obedience of faith. For that we honor her, and for that do we believe that she brings us to her son like she did at the wedding feast in Cana, even till this very day.

God has used many people in His plan and we do not exhault them. We look to them as examples of faith.

Lol, no no no. You don’t exalt them; the rest of Chirstendom did for 1600 years, and this same exaltation exists in Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

you are also denying the correctness of those the Apostles chose as successors.

How does one measure the correctness of the successors? Based upon the fact that they were successors? There were beliefs held by the ECF that even the CC does not deny were unorthodox. The successors were imperfect. They were not without error. The best way I know of the measure their correctness is to measure them against the most ancient records of the Apostles as recorded in Scripture.

You’re questioning something because you don’t trust it, when Christ had promised to send the Spirit to lead the Church in to all truth. 2,000 years later, here we are, still standing in the doctrine that was handed to us faithfully by those the Apostles gave authority to teach.

I don’t trust it b/c it can’t doesn’t stand against that doctrine given to us by the authoritative Apostles, as recorded in Scripture. Again, what measure will you use to determine it’s correctness? You seem to be basing your faith in the doctrine on the fact that it came soon after the Apostles by those who succeeded them. Succession does not equal correctness. One has only to look to some of the many examples throughout the Bible to see how quickly man falls away from the truth. It is an assumption to hold to successorship as being the God-ordained method of preserving the truth. No doubt there have always been some that have maintained the truth throughout history, but the only way to test who those people were is to measure their beliefs against the original, and the writings of the ECF, although valuable and ancient, are not the most original.

No, it was not her plan to be the mother of Jesus. But it was her choice. God did not force the Holy Spirit upon Mary in her conceiving of Christ; she gave herself over to God’s will, and that is why we honor her.

Moses submitted to God too, as did Jonah and others, and although we hold them in high esteem and look to them as examples of obedience and faith, we do not give them the same place Catholics do Mary.