T
Titanites
Guest
Christ didn’t establish his church to teach fallibly.
- Status
I
Ignatius
Guest
The New Testament was not yet available at the time when the Apostles dies. The Church was guided by Sacred Tradition and the Successors of the Apostles for another 400 years before the New Testament was Canon was Declared.
C
CARose
Guest
And before that, the text had been written, but so had many other texts, so which was “God Breathed” or as we call it “Inspired” was as yet undetermined. So you go to the teacher to understand scripture, the Church being and providing the teacher. Just as the Egyptian Eunich needed a teacher to understand scripture.
CARose
V
VociMike
Guest
In the sense that the Scriptures point us to both Christ and His Church, yes, they are All-Sufficient. Ignore either of those pointers and you’ll have problems.
S
sonseeker
Guest
What do you use the Scripture for?
E
Erich
Guest
Robert Shadwick:
The only sacred scriptures Timothy would have known from infancy are what is today commonly referred to as the Old Testament. If you want to use 2 Tim.3:16-17 to prove that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, then 2 Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary).
Paul also penned these words (probably the very same day): “But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, and that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim.3:14-15).
The only sacred scriptures Timothy would have known from infancy are what is today commonly referred to as the Old Testament. If you want to use 2 Tim.3:16-17 to prove that Scripture is the sole rule of faith, then 2 Tim.3:14-15 proves too much (i.e. it proves that the New Testament isn’t necessary).
M
mercygate
Guest
Hm. Not sure what the question is. The Mass is totally impregnated with and derived from Scripture. Three distinct lessons are read at every Sunday Mass (OT, Epistle, Gospel) and the homily is always an explication of the Gospel. All doctrinal decisions are tested against Scripture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
(Bold type is mine.)
In private, many of us pray the Scriptures in an ancient way known as Lectio Divina or Sacred Reading. We calmly read a passage – perhaps several times, even repeating a phrase several times to “feel” its impact; then we meditate on it – turn it over in our mind, perhaps we relate it to other scriptural passages, asking questions of it, learning from it; then a prayer will be formulated from it, and as we repose on this experience of the sacred Word, we may be drawn into a kind of silent contemplation and integration of that passage into our heart.
Does that answer your question, or did you have something else in mind?
R
Robert_Shadwick
Guest
Again , my thanks to everyone that has participated. Please accept my apologys for moving into more than one topic. It kind of just happened. I beleive that I have learned more from the Roman Catholic perspective. If I may I would like to finsh today with these thoughts concerning Apostalic succession and Peters role in the church , since it seems to be a part of everyones posts.
“I have somewhere said of St. Peter that the church is built upon him as the rock…But I know that I have since frequently said, that the word of the Lord,“Thou art Petros, and on this petra I will build my church,” must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the Living God”. (Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church 3:36)
Dealing with , and rejecting, the notion that Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic language, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains:
"Indeed, the Gr Mt throughout bears the impress of being not a tr at all, but as having been originally written in Gr, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other NT writing, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Gr book of this period is translated from Heb or Aram. That our Mt was written originally in Gr appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the OT, sometimes following the LXX, sometimes going back to the Heb…The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Heb or Aram Mt in the primitive church are more elusive…
I do not mean to minimize or belittle Peter. He was a great and faithful sevant of God. But he was a man (Acts 10:25-26) and the Bible teaches us to keep our eyes on Christ (Heb.12:2).
Well , again I apologize if this study has opened into many topics. I think that is just the nature of discussing the authority of the Scriptures as opposed to the Authority of the Vatican. I hope I have not been offensive. Thanks again for your good attitude and for the resources you have made available for my study. I will be busy reading from them. Feel free to visit our site as well.
theBible.net
Peace be with you,
Robert
Code:
I will be as brief as I possibly can. First concerning Peter , Augustine, who lived in the fifth century, is considered to have been the greatest theologian in the latin church. Early on, he misinterpreted Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter was the rock upon which Christ built the church. Later, he corrected himself. Noting his correction, Augustine said:Dealing with , and rejecting, the notion that Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic language, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia explains:
"Indeed, the Gr Mt throughout bears the impress of being not a tr at all, but as having been originally written in Gr, and as being less Hebraistic in the form of thought than some other NT writing, e.g. the Apocalypse. It is generally not difficult to discover when a Gr book of this period is translated from Heb or Aram. That our Mt was written originally in Gr appears, among other things, from the way in which it makes use of the OT, sometimes following the LXX, sometimes going back to the Heb…The external evidences to which appeal is made in favor of the use of an original Heb or Aram Mt in the primitive church are more elusive…
I do not mean to minimize or belittle Peter. He was a great and faithful sevant of God. But he was a man (Acts 10:25-26) and the Bible teaches us to keep our eyes on Christ (Heb.12:2).
Code:
Concerning Apostlic succesion I found this to be an interesting quote. From the Cath. Ency., VII, 334 ;
"The divine institution of the threefold hierarchy cannot, of course, be derived from our text; in fact it cannot in anyway be proved directly from the New Testament; It is a Catholic dogma by virtue of the dogmatic tradition, i.e. in a later period of ecclesiastical history the general belief in the divine institution of the episcopate, presbyteriate, and diaconate can be verified and thence be followed on though the later centuries. But the dogmatic truth cannot be traced back to Christ Himself by analysis of strict historical testimony".theBible.net
Peace be with you,
Robert
E
El_Catolico
Guest
Looks like you must have misquoted something in such a way as to make it seem like Augustine rejected the Papacy.
You quote this from Philip Schaaf’s History of the Church. I do not have that, so I cant look it up (will someone else look this up in its context and correct this person?).
Why dont you give us a quote from, like, one of Augustine’s actual works? If you dont have a Church Fathers collection, then you can find Augustines works on www.ccel.org or www.newadvent.org. Please, do show us where this comes from.
Augustine wrote:
“If the lineal succession of bishops is to be considered with how much more benefit to the Church do we reckon from Peter himself,to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock I will build my church,and the gates of hell shall not conquer it!’ For to Peter succeeded Linus,Clement…Damsus,Sircius,Anastasius. In this order of sucession no Donatist bishop is too be found.”
Augustine,To Generosus,Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400).
EVEN IF Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in Greek (which I doubt he did), what does that prove? Nothing. Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek. You are trying to elude the argument.
You havent answered to the other points we have raised about your argument that peter isnt the rock because of petros/petra.
You are misrepresenting Catholicism. Either you know what we believe and are just taking swipes at us (in which case there is no reason to respond to such a person) or you are ignorant of what Catholics really believes. We of course believe that Peter and the Popes are men (you are implying that we worship the Pope).
You also implied that we do not have our eyes on Christ. Such a statement is ignorant at best.
(continued on next post)
E
El_Catolico
Guest
(continued from last post)
Anyways, in the early church, the threefold heirarchy is seen to be clearly established. Keep in mind, there are many scholars who would deny that Jesus ever existed, even though we know that this is folly and horribly dishonest reasoning. St Ignatius of Antioch made blatant and obvious references to it as it already existed. It is as clear as day. Why dont you accept it? Answer: because you have been trained to detest and to attempt to disprove everything about Catholicism that you can, so that you cannot possibly be reasonable.
"I would not believe the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.
Robert, if that quote you gave comes from St. Augustine, you should be able to cite which of his works it comes from. If it is a misquotation (which I suspect it is), then that just goes to show that you are not a lover of truth and are willing to decieve others to accomplish your own ends. However, as a brother in Christ, I would not condemn you and I would hope that you may follow the truth, wherever it leads you.
Pax Christi
I dont think you quite understand what this is trying to get across. We cannot strictly prove it (we cannot strictly prove the inspiration of the bible or the existance of God either), but we can understand that the historical texts suggest that it is the vast probability.
Anyways, in the early church, the threefold heirarchy is seen to be clearly established. Keep in mind, there are many scholars who would deny that Jesus ever existed, even though we know that this is folly and horribly dishonest reasoning. St Ignatius of Antioch made blatant and obvious references to it as it already existed. It is as clear as day. Why dont you accept it? Answer: because you have been trained to detest and to attempt to disprove everything about Catholicism that you can, so that you cannot possibly be reasonable.
There is no dichotomy between Vatican authority and scriptural authority. St Augustine wrote:
"I would not believe the Gospel itself, if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.
Robert, if that quote you gave comes from St. Augustine, you should be able to cite which of his works it comes from. If it is a misquotation (which I suspect it is), then that just goes to show that you are not a lover of truth and are willing to decieve others to accomplish your own ends. However, as a brother in Christ, I would not condemn you and I would hope that you may follow the truth, wherever it leads you.
Pax Christi
I
Ignatius
Guest
Robert Shadwick:
First, the utmost extent that the inspired Sacred Word of God says of itself is that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, etc. It does not say that it is all sufficient or that no other information is necessary. As Paul himself points out, scripture is subject to misinterpretation. That is why Jesus Christ founded His Church, which is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, as the standard for correct interpretation.
Secondly, you should know that it is the Catholic Church which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed which were the books that belong in the New Testament, declared by the Authority given it by Jesus Christ that these books are God breathed and inerrant, and delivered them unblemished and immaculate down through the millennia.
The false man made doctrine of Scripture Only (Sola Scriptura) did not even exist until the 16th century. A full 16 centuries after Jesus founded His Church. So, you see, the Protestants got the New Testament from the Catholic Church and immediately proceeded to misinterpret them.
If you truly desire to enlighten yourself with regard to the Holy Scriptures, you might start with answering the following questions.
Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?
Where (geographic location) was this done?
When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).
Please reply to this post and let me know what you find so that we can further discuss it.
May the Holy Spirit grant you the wisdom and vision in this research and guide you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
May the love of God the Father, the love of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
Yours in Christ.
Welcome Robert.
First, the utmost extent that the inspired Sacred Word of God says of itself is that scripture is “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”, etc. It does not say that it is all sufficient or that no other information is necessary. As Paul himself points out, scripture is subject to misinterpretation. That is why Jesus Christ founded His Church, which is the “Pillar and Foundation of Truth”, as the standard for correct interpretation.
Secondly, you should know that it is the Catholic Church which, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, proclaimed which were the books that belong in the New Testament, declared by the Authority given it by Jesus Christ that these books are God breathed and inerrant, and delivered them unblemished and immaculate down through the millennia.
The false man made doctrine of Scripture Only (Sola Scriptura) did not even exist until the 16th century. A full 16 centuries after Jesus founded His Church. So, you see, the Protestants got the New Testament from the Catholic Church and immediately proceeded to misinterpret them.
If you truly desire to enlighten yourself with regard to the Holy Scriptures, you might start with answering the following questions.
Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?
Where (geographic location) was this done?
When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).
Please reply to this post and let me know what you find so that we can further discuss it.
May the Holy Spirit grant you the wisdom and vision in this research and guide you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
May the love of God the Father, the love of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
Yours in Christ.
N
Nun_ofthe_Above
Guest
Hi Robert, 
Welcome to the forum. I hope you will participate in many and varied ‘discussions’, concerning Catholicism etc.
I am joining the Catholic Church , so i guess my opinion can be take with a grain of salt; however, I would ask you to consider the Early Church Fathers, and their opinions, as they were closer to it than any of us. I personally, try to stay in the first couple of centuries, when referencing the Fathers, and I highly regard the opinion of many, including Irenaeus of Lyon, to whom I will direct you in this instance. Irenaeus beleived that anything that was taught within the Church had to find its grounding in scriptures, however, he also directs us to Apostolic Succession, Traditions etc. If you have not read it, you may find this section interesting.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
The Bible may give us the rules of faith, but alot of details are missing. We are given the barest snippets, and the rest gets filled in through Traditions handed down in Church writings, etc
Without the traditions handed down to Irenaeus, from Polycarp, who in turn had learned these things from the Apostle John, I would not have known that Paul had written his letter to the Corinthian Church, 1 Corinthians, at the time of Clement; from Rome, etc, because my Bibles don’t state these paticulars.
Sorry for my ramble, and I hope you enjoy your time on this forum. I also hope you come to understand (and dare I say it; believe), what the Catholic Church teaches, in time.
Peace be with you.
Welcome to the forum. I hope you will participate in many and varied ‘discussions’, concerning Catholicism etc.
I am joining the Catholic Church , so i guess my opinion can be take with a grain of salt; however, I would ask you to consider the Early Church Fathers, and their opinions, as they were closer to it than any of us. I personally, try to stay in the first couple of centuries, when referencing the Fathers, and I highly regard the opinion of many, including Irenaeus of Lyon, to whom I will direct you in this instance. Irenaeus beleived that anything that was taught within the Church had to find its grounding in scriptures, however, he also directs us to Apostolic Succession, Traditions etc. If you have not read it, you may find this section interesting.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
The Bible may give us the rules of faith, but alot of details are missing. We are given the barest snippets, and the rest gets filled in through Traditions handed down in Church writings, etc
Without the traditions handed down to Irenaeus, from Polycarp, who in turn had learned these things from the Apostle John, I would not have known that Paul had written his letter to the Corinthian Church, 1 Corinthians, at the time of Clement; from Rome, etc, because my Bibles don’t state these paticulars.
Sorry for my ramble, and I hope you enjoy your time on this forum. I also hope you come to understand (and dare I say it; believe), what the Catholic Church teaches, in time.
Peace be with you.
J
justaccord
Guest
Shari,Hi Robert,
Welcome to the forum. I hope you will participate in many and varied ‘discussions’, concerning Catholicism etc.
I am joining the Catholic Church , so i guess my opinion can be take with a grain of salt; however, I would ask you to consider the Early Church Fathers, and their opinions, as they were closer to it than any of us. I personally, try to stay in the first couple of centuries, when referencing the Fathers, and I highly regard the opinion of many, including Irenaeus of Lyon, to whom I will direct you in this instance. Irenaeus beleived that anything that was taught within the Church had to find its grounding in scriptures, however, he also directs us to Apostolic Succession, Traditions etc. If you have not read it, you may find this section interesting.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm
The Bible may give us the rules of faith, but alot of details are missing. We are given the barest snippets, and the rest gets filled in through Traditions handed down in Church writings, etc
Without the traditions handed down to Irenaeus, from Polycarp, who in turn had learned these things from the Apostle John, I would not have known that Paul had written his letter to the Corinthian Church, 1 Corinthians, at the time of Clement; from Rome, etc, because my Bibles don’t state these paticulars.
Sorry for my ramble, and I hope you enjoy your time on this forum. I also hope you come to understand (and dare I say it; believe), what the Catholic Church teaches, in time.
Peace be with you.
Is the purpose of the magisterium to “fill in the details”. What about when official doctrine/dogma affirmatively CONTRADICTS the Word of God – e.g. Mary as redeemer and mediator when the Word says that Jesus Christ is the ONLY one?
M
mercygate
Guest
Think about it, justaccord. When we pray for one another, do we not mediate? We go to God on behalf of another’s need. That IS mediation. But why do we do that? Because Jesus is THE mediator in whom we have all our life. When we pray, we pray in him. Mary is the same. It is in Christ that her prayer rises to the throne of the Father.
You will find that no doctrine of the Catholic Church contradicts the Word of God. It may appear to you that it does, but it never contradicts the Word of God.
D
deb1
Guest
Because the subject is wandering off of scripture why don’t you start a thread on the magisterium or Mary-in fact, I think that there is all ready a Mary thread going right now.
J
justaccord
Guest
The Bible:
1Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man* Christ Jesus,
The catholic catechism:
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”
Is this or is this not a contradiction? If we have to suspend the rules of grammar and the common meaning of words in order to have this conversation, someone is being less than candid.
Mary is officially declared Mediatrix. But Scripture says NO ONE is a Mediator (that is the capitalized title, not mediator with a small “m” as in your example).
If there were no contradiction between the magisterium and the Word of God, you would not need a dogma that establishes that the magisterium trumps the Word of God.
Why not just admit what we all know – the tradition of men is not consistent with the Word of God – not in abrogation of teh 2nd commandment to allow idol worship, not in Marian doctrine, not in placing the church between an individual and Christ, thus frustrating the tearing of the temple curtain and mocking the work of Christ on the cross, not in the need to re-sacrifice Christ, not in making salvation conditional on works instead of faith alone – there are a host of ways. Why not just own up to the dogma on the magisterium and go from there?
M
Milliardo
Guest
I think, justaccord, that you confuse between Mary as Mediatrix of All Graces and Co-mediatrix. The former only indicates that Mary is the mediator for having Christ here on Earth, as Christ is indeed All Graces. So, no contradiction there. The other shows us that Mary works with Christ as mediator. Again, no contradiction there when you realize that as we pray for one another, we also become mediators with Christ.
T
TNT
Guest
ROBERT-sufficient:
HERE’S YUR CHANCE TO SHINE!
There are about 47 occurances of stone in the English Bible. Now, tell us from the GREEK Bible, which of those verses use PETROS for stone?
If there are any or many I submit to your scholarship. If not, consider your interpretation as erroneous or at least purely an anti-Catholic bit of ignorant polemics, and never use it with intelligent people again.
Thanks.
Now, I propose to you that you have no idea how many or what books belong in the NT without Church authority in the patristic age. ie OUTSIDE the Scriptures.
However, even if your proposal would hold up, one’s interpretation turns out to be FALLIBLE and therefore can be completely erroneous, thus negating what the bible is teaching. An infallible, sufficient piece or writing has NO guarantee of infallible interpretation.
For example, the early Church baptised infants. ****90% of the reformed prot churches in 1600ad baptised infants. now only 60% of prot sects do.
Finally, you have no proof, in the bible, of who even wrote each book or that it reflects absolutely the original manuscripts which haven’t been available from the earliest times.
Only the ORIGINAL manuscripts were inspired.
**
]**Dear Robert,
HERE’S YUR CHANCE TO SHINE!
There are about 47 occurances of stone in the English Bible. Now, tell us from the GREEK Bible, which of those verses use PETROS for stone?
If there are any or many I submit to your scholarship. If not, consider your interpretation as erroneous or at least purely an anti-Catholic bit of ignorant polemics, and never use it with intelligent people again.
Thanks.
Now, I propose to you that you have no idea how many or what books belong in the NT without Church authority in the patristic age. ie OUTSIDE the Scriptures.
However, even if your proposal would hold up, one’s interpretation turns out to be FALLIBLE and therefore can be completely erroneous, thus negating what the bible is teaching. An infallible, sufficient piece or writing has NO guarantee of infallible interpretation.
For example, the early Church baptised infants. ****90% of the reformed prot churches in 1600ad baptised infants. now only 60% of prot sects do.
Finally, you have no proof, in the bible, of who even wrote each book or that it reflects absolutely the original manuscripts which haven’t been available from the earliest times.
Only the ORIGINAL manuscripts were inspired.
**
I
Ignatius
Guest
Actually, why don’t you just admit what we all know - that you are following the false doctrines of men that didn’t even come about until the 16th century. The false man made doctrines of Scripture Only (Sola Scriptura) and Sola Fide did not even exist until the 16th century. A full 16 centuries after Jesus founded His Church. You see, the Protestants got the New Testament from the Catholic Church and immediately proceeded to misinterpret them.
If you truly desire to enlighten yourself with regard to the Holy Scriptures, you might start with answering the following questions.
Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include?
Where (geographic location) was this done?
When (approximate dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon).
Please reply to this post and let me know what you find so that we can further discuss it.
May the Holy Spirit grant you the wisdom and vision in this research and guide you to the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.
May the love of God the Father, the love of His Son Our Lord Jesus Christ, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.
Yours in Christ.
J
justaccord
Guest
Mary cannot “work with Christ as mediator” without clearly violating God’s own Word. Christ is utterly sufficient as Mediator all by Himself – He is the Son of God. Mary is not divine (agreed?) and it is blasphemy to elevate her to a postion Jesus alone earned with His death on the cross.
1Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
One means one not two. Co- is not consistent with one. It is not a shared position. So says God’s Word.
- Status