D
- Status
D
david_ruiz
Guest
joe:
dead without work, the exact opposite of what the bible teaches. Show me where this is taught in the early church?
Another broad stroke . Much of protestantism has held on to some extra-biblical traditions.They did not reject all Catholic traditions. You know that don’t you ? The ideal would be to be scriptural .Think about it . What is wrong with basing your life on Jesus’s recorded words ? Go ahead , pick up your bible and read the "red letters "of Jesus. What is wrong with clinging close to that ? …The bible teaches both , saved by faith and faith without works is dead , but if you notice , faith is the context of “saving” faith . It is not “saving” works, unless you mean belief ("this is the work of God-believe on Him whom He has sent)…I could paint a broad stroke too and be unfair ,and say Catholic salvation is works -baptism ,communion ,confessional, confirmation, last rites ,mass and dying with no mortal sin so then you hopefully may at least go to purgatory for final cleansing. That does not paint the picture of saved by grace as the CC teaches…So, sola scriptura and faith alone do not tell it all either.
S
simspt
Guest
I agree with most of your assessment except IMO at the end of the day the belief in inspiration (however you define it) by Protestants and Catholics and infallibility by Catholics relies on faith by both groups. The strength of the evidence leads one only so far and all Christians have to deal with that reality. I think when one critically scrutinizes the evidence inspiration and infallibility become more issues of faith vs. historical evidence. Using Aristotelian logic will never be able to prove either of these doctrines.
P
PLeeD
Guest
Not sure I claim to be an “advocate”, but it’s clear what we will be judged on:
Matt 22:36
*“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
*
Nothing there about transubstantiation, immaculate conception, etc. Personal views on those tangential issues won’t keep anyone out of heaven.
S
simspt
Guest
Jesus wanst a stucture guy he already had the priesthood, feasts, temple and laws in place during his ministry. The word Sacrament didnt even exist to my knowledge at that time. Later when the Christians started being singled out by the Jews who disagreed with them about their views of Jesus the Christians were left having to develop there own structure most likely. When you say you see no evidence in the first century of the Catholic Church can you please elaborate. How do you understand the first century and what took place?? Im not sure what your implying when you say if any tradition developed a few generations after Jesus Catholicism doesnt follow it?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Thank-you.As far as tradition not being followed as listed by Jerome was the baptism practices -thrice immersion ,drinking of milk and honey etc,perhaps not kneeling during mass or the sign of the cross on the forehead are two other trite traditions not being followed.The point was what CC does things differently , in these small areas, than in Jerome’s day apparently(and Jerome’s day differed than baptisms found in the bible_no mention of milk and honey ,and thrice immersion and not bathing for a week etc in scripture). That is all I meant.Perhaps more though .I would think the simple immersion of proper aged saints of evangelical churches is more "apostolic’ than a Catholic baptism today (with sprinkling of infants and “godparents” and the means by which original sin is removed and regeneration of spirit)…As far as my statement of no first century evidence of a Roman Catholic church ,well, Sacred Scripture was being written right to the end of the century. Much of what is Catholic today is not there . It is also very scanty in any extra-biblical first century writings.Yes, there was a church (catholic -small “c” as in universal) ,and I understand you believe it is yours , as do protestants. The structure was set , way after the gentile church took off, apart from Judaism, as you accurately point out.It is listed in Scripture .The foundation of the apostles and prophets, with teachers and elders and deacons/bishops etc and loosely fit city churches, with the Holy Spirit being the “guy” to orchestrate and unite . I humbly suggest that the Protestant history of this first century and the idea to emulate this early church is more accurate of the truth than Catholic renderings. I am sorry to say , as with Jewish traditions , Jesus would often say ,"It was not always so ". Jesus brought us back to the beginning.Jesus wanst a stucture guy he already had the priesthood, feasts, temple and laws in place during his ministry. The word Sacrament didnt even exist to my knowledge at that time. Later when the Christians started being singled out by the Jews who disagreed with them about their views of Jesus the Christians were left having to develop there own structure most likely. When you say you see no evidence in the first century of the Catholic Church can you please elaborate. How do you understand the first century and what took place?? Im not sure what your implying when you say if any tradition developed a few generations after Jesus Catholicism doesnt follow it?
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Pax
Even St Augustine would disagree with your analysis that the church interprets for us .Augustine said the spirit of God teaches us and that scripture is accessible and understandable by ALL men.He mentions no intermediary (only duplicators-teachers and preachers and of course the authoratative written Word) .This can all be found in His “Confessions”.I understand your dogma of the church role , but I find it very old testament , and not “new”.
Howdy .I suppose to a student of English would say your words speak of circular reasoning also. Jesus did say be careful how you judge , for you do the same thing. It is only the Catholic interpretation of scripture that says Jesus founded the Catholic church.That is circular reasoning,in my humble estimation .However, we are both right ,for Christ did indeed establish His Church ,a light in this dark world,a pillar of truth ,and he also gave us His Word , both literally and in Scripture, to be authoratative. Whose word’s would you rather have be more authoratative ? Further more , I feel you contradict Paul to Timothy’s letter that says ALL scripture is given by God for doctrine.I believe the CC says not all scripture qualifies because you need her (the church) and tradition for that to be possible .I do not believe Paul inferred anywhere that condition for God’s Word to be of effect.
Then what did Jesus mean when he said," I speak veiled ,in parables ,lest they (skeptics) believe." ? I do not ask for a non-believer to feel the interior witness to the validity of scripture .How can he , he is not born again .He may feel the outward conviction of the Holy Spirit of the bibles righteousness, for God is calling all to His Word (Jesus). The skeptic is using his logic and reason to not believe. Anyways , Calvin ? It is quite clear that personal revelation is the way to go as St. Peter experienced.The Jewish "church’ nor it’s “priests” and traditions , nor even scripture itself could enlighten -they failed- until , “The father in heaven has revealed this to you”.
Even to the casual cultural christian this is ,sorry to say ,nonsensical. Everybody knows the church has the foundation of the apostles, by what they said, and did, and then wrote .“Faith cometh by hearing , an hearing by the Word of God” -oral or written .The church did not produce the written Word ,no more than she produced the spoken Word. Did the church produce Peter’s first great sermon ? No, God gave the Words to speak and later write.The church was the recipient and spreader of those same simple Words of the Gospel. Hence , she is a pillar of truth, not an inventor or creator or producer ,nor even an interpreter of truth. She puts forth (duplicates) what God has already said and written and interpreted for Himself. Alleluia!
Even St Augustine would disagree with your analysis that the church interprets for us .Augustine said the spirit of God teaches us and that scripture is accessible and understandable by ALL men.He mentions no intermediary (only duplicators-teachers and preachers and of course the authoratative written Word) .This can all be found in His “Confessions”.I understand your dogma of the church role , but I find it very old testament , and not “new”.
Code:
Nor many of the other Catholic premises ,if I may say so. uncharitably.Except for one obvious omission , that the bible itself ,some of the writers themselves -like Paul and Peter say it is INSPIRED. The church (universal) reaffirmed this- Can you imagine Timothy saying , “Sorry Paul , I know you say these are God’s Word’s , but I am not sure .I better run it by our beloved bishop Peter and the church in Antioch to see if we should deem it so”… There is a big difference between reaffirming and holding onto what God has declared , from determining what God has said .In the end ,you can not get around circular reasoning .Alas, we are not like minded ,and as Paul (not Calvin) said , God must reveal this to us (Philippians), how we are not like minded with Paul.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. David Ruiz
Dear David,
Cordial greetings. Thankyou kindly for your response above and apologies for the delay in replying but I have, alas, been otherwise engaged.
We have positive proof that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and that proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the religion established by Christ. The Christian religion is that religion which:
a) Was founded by Christ personally
b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ’s command to go into all the world and teach all nations;
d) Demands that all its members adhere to the same doctrine;
e) Exercises Divine authority over its subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church then he should be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim:
a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other churches disappear as one travels back in history, the majority were unheard of before the time of the Reformation. Our Lord said to St. Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will bulid my Church”. Which Protestant church can claim to be founded by Christ? As Blessed Newman aptly remarked, the further one goes back in history the more he ceases to be a Protestant.
b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
c) That each of its members admits exactly the same essential doctrines.
d) To be Catholic or universal.
e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.
Moreover, if the Church is just some invisible entity made up of “born-again believers”, then no man could say where the true church is to be found in the world, neither could anyone hear its voice or obey its precepts. No, it is incontrovertible that our Lord established a visible Society in this world and He compared it to a city set upon a hill which cannot be hidden. Clearly, unless His promise utterly failed, one of the visible and organized Churches existing in the world today must be His; the Catholic Church alone can show the characteristics which He declared should be those of His true Church.
As regards 2 Timothy 3: 16, this oft cited “proof-text” for biblical inspiration is of no avail since it is itself found within the pages of the bible and therefore is not admissable, unless one is happy to argue in a circle. In any event, the text merely states that the Scriptures are “profitable” for certain purposes; it does not say that they alone will suffice or that they are the sole rule of faith. Moreover, it may say that “Every Scripture is inspired” but it does not say “only Scripture is inspired” and it is not even implied that God never commissions anyone else to speak authoritatively in His name.
The bible itself affords no satisfactory proof of its inspiration, or even a list of its contents. We require some living authority to authenticate Sacred Scripture. The collection of books itself simply cannot do this. It was the living authority of the Church in the early centuries which gathered together the documents now known as the New Testament and declared them to be inspired. But for the Church’s acceptance and recognition of them, their inspiration would have remained unacknowledged and there would be no such book as that which is now known as the N.T. As St. Augustine quite correctly said, “I would not believe in the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so” Catholics and Orthodox have several books in the O.T. which Protestants exclude from thier canon. Only a living authority can obviously declare whose list of books is correct.
The fact is that Sacred Scripture did emerge from the Church and is the book of the Church and as such it is the Church’s task to interpret it authoritatively for the faithful. The multiplicity of Protestants denominations and their corollary, a multiplicity of biblical interpretations are an evidence of the consequences of abandoning the one true Church established by Christ. One needs to contrast the fragmented condition of Protestantism with the unbroken unity of the Catholic Church, for then it can be seen that individual private judgement leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whilst the infallible Church ,founded by Christ, leads men to a common conviction in doctrine and morals as they share in the life of the one true fold. As our Lord said there would be One Shepherd and One flock, not many flocks.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
Dear David,
Cordial greetings. Thankyou kindly for your response above and apologies for the delay in replying but I have, alas, been otherwise engaged.
We have positive proof that the Catholic Church is the one true Church and that proof lies in the fact that the Catholic Church alone corresponds exactly to the religion established by Christ. The Christian religion is that religion which:
a) Was founded by Christ personally
b) Has existed continuously since the time of Christ;
c) Is Catholic or universal, in accordance with Christ’s command to go into all the world and teach all nations;
d) Demands that all its members adhere to the same doctrine;
e) Exercises Divine authority over its subjects, since Christ said that if a man would not hear the Church then he should be as the heathen.
Now the Catholic Church alone can claim:
a) To have been founded by Christ personally. All other churches disappear as one travels back in history, the majority were unheard of before the time of the Reformation. Our Lord said to St. Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will bulid my Church”. Which Protestant church can claim to be founded by Christ? As Blessed Newman aptly remarked, the further one goes back in history the more he ceases to be a Protestant.
b) To have existed in all the centuries since Christ.
c) That each of its members admits exactly the same essential doctrines.
d) To be Catholic or universal.
e) To speak with a voice of true authority in the name of God.
Moreover, if the Church is just some invisible entity made up of “born-again believers”, then no man could say where the true church is to be found in the world, neither could anyone hear its voice or obey its precepts. No, it is incontrovertible that our Lord established a visible Society in this world and He compared it to a city set upon a hill which cannot be hidden. Clearly, unless His promise utterly failed, one of the visible and organized Churches existing in the world today must be His; the Catholic Church alone can show the characteristics which He declared should be those of His true Church.
As regards 2 Timothy 3: 16, this oft cited “proof-text” for biblical inspiration is of no avail since it is itself found within the pages of the bible and therefore is not admissable, unless one is happy to argue in a circle. In any event, the text merely states that the Scriptures are “profitable” for certain purposes; it does not say that they alone will suffice or that they are the sole rule of faith. Moreover, it may say that “Every Scripture is inspired” but it does not say “only Scripture is inspired” and it is not even implied that God never commissions anyone else to speak authoritatively in His name.
The bible itself affords no satisfactory proof of its inspiration, or even a list of its contents. We require some living authority to authenticate Sacred Scripture. The collection of books itself simply cannot do this. It was the living authority of the Church in the early centuries which gathered together the documents now known as the New Testament and declared them to be inspired. But for the Church’s acceptance and recognition of them, their inspiration would have remained unacknowledged and there would be no such book as that which is now known as the N.T. As St. Augustine quite correctly said, “I would not believe in the Gospel had not the authority of the Catholic Church moved me to do so” Catholics and Orthodox have several books in the O.T. which Protestants exclude from thier canon. Only a living authority can obviously declare whose list of books is correct.
The fact is that Sacred Scripture did emerge from the Church and is the book of the Church and as such it is the Church’s task to interpret it authoritatively for the faithful. The multiplicity of Protestants denominations and their corollary, a multiplicity of biblical interpretations are an evidence of the consequences of abandoning the one true Church established by Christ. One needs to contrast the fragmented condition of Protestantism with the unbroken unity of the Catholic Church, for then it can be seen that individual private judgement leads one along a subjective path to an ultimate quagmire of competing opinions, whilst the infallible Church ,founded by Christ, leads men to a common conviction in doctrine and morals as they share in the life of the one true fold. As our Lord said there would be One Shepherd and One flock, not many flocks.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
D
david_ruiz
Guest
Sorry ,been on a thread of papal infallibility.Can not argue with a man whose favorite movie is Ben-Hur.Originally saw as a kid at movies ,and had book with a lot of colorful even gory pictures (11 academy awards is still a record I think ).When I got saved 15 years later our church showed it ,then it really hit me spiritually. “He,…he took the sword right out of my hands” .I also liked how they never showed Jesus face as in other movies where he looks about as Jewish as an Eskimo.Yet it shows the effect He had in others peoples faces (Ernest Borgnine especially). How about the scene where Jesus is on a hill,with a multitude of people before Him ,and Judah Ben-Hur is walking the outskirts of the crowd,and it looks like Jesus is looking at him from any direction as he walks,yet he is still looking at everyone else.On and on I could go .Hey ,this is a nice rest from all the blogging ,and all the hard stuff I may have to share with you when time permits.Right now handing out candy and tracts ,then I gotta go play hockey .So.I’ll get back to you.Thanks
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear David,
Cordial greetings dear friend.
Thankyou for sharing your thoughts on the Ben Hur film - truly a motion picture phenomenom. It is one of the finest ‘sword and sandal’ epics of all time and how good it is to see a Palestinian Jew do battle against the might of the cruel Roman Empire. Many people believe that the chariot race is the film’s high spot (maybe from the spectacular action viewpoint), but surely, for the Christian, at any rate, the scene to which you refer is one of the most memorable, namely where our Lord appears to be looking at him from any direction. This is deeply affecting and inspiring, as indeed are many other scenes in the film, which is why I like it so very much.
I look forward to your response.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
PS A warm welcome to CAF
I
ILOVEGOD1970
Guest
Hi!!! There is a simple solution to all this talk and thinking! It is something some Protestants believe and I, a true Catholic, believe 100%
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST READ THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (1611) OF THE BIBLE!!!
Although I follow all Catholic teachings - the HOLY SPIRIT led me to the KJV - and it is the BOMB!!! I love it and it is accurately translated through the GOOD LORD HIMSELF!!!
I compared the verses in the KJV compared to other Bibles and the other Bibles were watered down. GOD forgive me if I am wrong - but this is what I feel!!!:bible1::bible1:
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST READ THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (1611) OF THE BIBLE!!!
Although I follow all Catholic teachings - the HOLY SPIRIT led me to the KJV - and it is the BOMB!!! I love it and it is accurately translated through the GOOD LORD HIMSELF!!!
I compared the verses in the KJV compared to other Bibles and the other Bibles were watered down. GOD forgive me if I am wrong - but this is what I feel!!!:bible1::bible1:
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear ILOVEGOD1970,Hi!!! There is a simple solution to all this talk and thinking! It is something some Protestants believe and I, a true Catholic, believe 100%
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST READ THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (1611) OF THE BIBLE!!!
Although I follow all Catholic teachings - the HOLY SPIRIT led me to the KJV - and it is the BOMB!!! I love it and it is accurately translated through the GOOD LORD HIMSELF!!!
I compared the verses in the KJV compared to other Bibles and the other Bibles were watered down. GOD forgive me if I am wrong - but this is what I feel!!!:bible1::bible1:
Cordial greetings.
It is good to hear you extoll the excellence of the Authorised Version (1611) of Sacred Scripture. As a former member of the Church of England (Anglican), I used this ‘noblest monument of English prose’ all the time in my private reading and ‘quiet times’ and I do not believe that we have yet bettered the majesty and splendour of its devout language. Its simplicity, dignity, power and happy turns of expression will always be remembered and cherished, even though I have now crossed the Tiber and become a Catholic and use the Church approved RSV (Catholic Edition) translation. This translation has been acclaimed for many years as the clearest, most accurate and the most elegant translation into modern English and so I bought the Ignatius Edition last year, which I am still struggling to get used to; sometimes its sentences just do not flow with an ease and grace and make, IMHO, awkward reading. As regards all the other modern translations, they tend to use immoderate paraphrasing or use unorthodox inclusive language so are best given a wide berth. To be perfectly honest, I do miss the force of the Authorised Version with its dignified diction.
We should bear in mind, however, that the A.V. is itself a translation based on earlier translations. It is not based, contrary to the common claim, on some perfect set of manuscripts. There are no perfect set of manuscripts and the ones used for the A.V. were compiled by the Catholic Erasmus.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
J
Janet1983
Guest
Be my guest. I have a 1611 KJV handy when I need one, but I somewhat prefer more modern editions for daily reading and Greek for study. It’s not like I wouldn’t understand the 1611 KJV. I was prepared for that in school in a way (Shakespeare for a full year). My final report card says “Grammar School”. Maybe I’m taking this too literal. It’s just too late at night to be 100% serious anymore.Hi!!! There is a simple solution to all this talk and thinking! It is something some Protestants believe and I, a true Catholic, believe 100%
EVERYONE SHOULD JUST READ THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (1611) OF THE BIBLE!!!
Although I follow all Catholic teachings - the HOLY SPIRIT led me to the KJV - and it is the BOMB!!! I love it and it is accurately translated through the GOOD LORD HIMSELF!!!
I compared the verses in the KJV compared to other Bibles and the other Bibles were watered down. GOD forgive me if I am wrong - but this is what I feel!!!:bible1::bible1:
- Status