The Seven Catholic Sacraments

[KathleenGee]

Busy evening…time for bed…tomorrow I work up until Tuesday am…the Liturgy of the Eucharist is quite extensive…I studied Exodus…which lays down alot of the foundation of the Mass…and the text directed for that very reason.

 

[Erich]

You will find my Church I am attending at the moment on BEG under “Gemeinden” (Churches) → “Tirol” (my home county) → “Evangelikale Freikirche Imst” (with the homepage EFK-Imst).

Ah, now it makes sense why your church might use Luther’s Small Catechism, whereas a Baptist church in the USA most likely would not. The clue is on the “Ueber uns” (“About Us”) page of the EFK-Imst site: “Wir möchten als Evangelische Freikirche…” (“We want, as an evangelical free church, …”)

The German term *evangelisch *more accurately corresponds to the broad English term *Protestant *rather than to the narrower evangelical. Literally, *evangelisch *means “of the Gospel.” Most of the *evangelische kirche *in Germany and Austria are Lutheran; most of the rest are either Reformed or United (Lutheran + Reformed). (The German term freikirche (free church) just refers to the fact that the particular church in question is not state-supported.)

From the “Unsere Wurzeln” (“Our Roots”) page I see the connection to (Ana)baptists in the paragraph about the “dritter Zweig der Reformation” (“third branch of the Reformation”): “Jeder, der sich Christus zugewandt hatte, konnte in dieser Gemeinschaft sein Zuhause finden und bezeugte seine Lebenswende durch die Taufe” (“Anyone who has turned himself to Christ can find his home in this community and testify to his life’s turn through baptism”).

 

[JRKH]

Ah, now it makes sense why your church might use Luther’s Small Catechism, whereas a Baptist church in the USA most likely would not. The clue is on the “Ueber uns” (“About Us”) page of the EFK-Imst site: “Wir möchten als Evangelische Freikirche…” (“We want, as an evangelical free church, …”)

The German term *evangelisch *more accurately corresponds to the broad English term *Protestant *rather than to the narrower evangelical. Literally, *evangelisch *means “of the Gospel.” Most of the *evangelische kirche *in Germany and Austria are Lutheran; most of the rest are either Reformed or United (Lutheran + Reformed). (The German term freikirche (free church) just refers to the fact that the particular church in question is not state-supported.)

From the “Unsere Wurzeln” (“Our Roots”) page I see the connection to (Ana)baptists in the paragraph about the “dritter Zweig der Reformation” (“third branch of the Reformation”): “Jeder, der sich Christus zugewandt hatte, konnte in dieser Gemeinschaft sein Zuhause finden und bezeugte seine Lebenswende durch die Taufe” (“Anyone who has turned himself to Christ can find his home in this community and testify to his life’s turn through baptism”).

Erich,
Thank you for this explanation/clarification. It is indeed quite different from what the same terms mean when used in America.

Peace
James

 

[stormy99]

Esdra,
I am sorry to hear that you are rejecting the fullness of God’s truth and the most glorious sacrament of his Body and Blood for the partial truths of those outside of full communion. That said, I will offer this website on the Scriptural and ECF references for the sacraments.
If you glance down the left side of the page you will quickly see the sacraments. Click on the ones you are interested in.

Peace
James

**Thanks James for the website…marked it for further reading.

stormy**

 

[Esdra]

Erich,
Thank you for this explanation/clarification. It is indeed quite different from what the same terms mean when used in America.

Peace
James

Thanks Erich for explaining. I’ve always known that the Church I am attending is not really comparable to the US Baptist Church. - 'Though in some parts similar.
But I’ve never known how to put it.

So now you all know.
But actually I still don’t know what to write as religion here in CAF. Baptist is wrong, but Anabaptist (to be accurate) either. So I guess I’ll leave “Christian”.
You are right that we (the BEG [association of Evangelical Churches]) see us as descendents from the Anabaptist Church of the Hutterites (Although I think it’s better to lable ourselves as “Neo-Anabaptists” or so), who have their origin in the 17th century in the Tyrol (the county I live in; To be more accurate in South-Tyrol, which since the end of WW I belongs to Italy.)

Esdra

 

[jphilapy]

Yeah, but Paul writes in 2 Tim 3:16
“16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

And I would say with “all Scripture” he refers to what later (and I have to admit through the “original Catholic Church”) our Holy Bible.

in Christ,
Esdra

Esdra,

I read through this thread and I saw a couple of good replies to your above post. However I did not see you reply to them. So are you now agreed that the concept of sola scriptura is not taught in scripture?

The above verse you reference is very telling. For one at the time that Paul wrote that content, the nt scripture was not even in place. So Paul would be contradicting himself by telling believers to rely on scripture alone when he in fact was teaching many things that were not found in the OT scripture. If they were to rely on scripture alone, then it would be their obligation to ignore anything else that Paul or any apostle taught that they could not find in scripture. Think about the ramifications of that. You would need to ignore a lot of what the apostles said including if they were teaching sola scriptura which is not in the OT.

Jeff

 

[Esdra]

Esdra,

I read through this thread and I saw a couple of good replies to your above post. However I did not see you reply to them. So are you now agreed that the concept of sola scriptura is not taught in scripture?

Hi,

No, I actually I still believe that Sola scriptura is sufficent to be a “good Christian”.
And I guess this will never change.

The above verse you reference is very telling. For one at the time that Paul wrote that content, the nt scripture was not even in place. So Paul would be contradicting himself by telling believers to rely on scripture alone when he in fact was teaching many things that were not found in the OT scripture. If they were to rely on scripture alone, then it would be their obligation to ignore anything else that Paul or any apostle taught that they could not find in scripture. Think about the ramifications of that. You would need to ignore a lot of what the apostles said including if they were teaching sola scriptura which is not in the OT.

Jeff

Of course it wasn’t. What we call now NT was at that time “Sacred Tradition” (as some Catholics here like to put it).
So the scriptures the Bereans used and what Paul is referring to were indeed “only” the OT in the Greek translation (LXX).

To all: Please don’t hope that I will “go home to the CC”. So that you won’t be disappointed. At the point I am now, I won’t. - But nobody knows what will happen.

I am simply interested in religion and like to talk about it. The wider the better. You see, I also talk to LDS ministers or (at the moment more) with RLDS ministers (via Email), but I also don’t consider converting to Mormonism. Or I am emailing with SDAs, but I aso don’t consider becoming one of them.
And the reason why I registered here in CAF is simply to get to know “my home Church” I never fully embrazed (very bad catechised!)

Esdra

 

[jphilapy]

Hi,

No, I actually I still believe that Sola scriptura is sufficent to be a “good Christian”.
And I guess this will never change.

Of course it wasn’t. What we call now NT was at that time “Sacred Tradition” (as some Catholics here like to put it).
So the scriptures the Bereans used and what Paul is referring to were indeed “only” the OT in the Greek translation (LXX).

To all: Please don’t hope that I will “go home to the CC”. So that you won’t be disappointed. At the point I am now, I won’t. - But nobody knows what will happen.

I am simply interested in religion and like to talk about it. The wider the better. You see, I also talk to LDS ministers or (at the moment more) with RLDS ministers (via Email), but I also don’t consider converting to Mormonism. Or I am emailing with SDAs, but I aso don’t consider becoming one of them.
And the reason why I registered here in CAF is simply to get to know “my home Church” I never fully embrazed (very bad catechised!)

Esdra

Can you address any of my argument? I think I made some pretty clear points. Is it just your intent to ignore them so that you can go on your merry way?

 

[Esdra]

Can you address any of my argument? I think I made some pretty clear points. Is it just your intent to ignore them so that you can go on your merry way?

Which points did I not adress? Tell me!

I simply don’t believe that there is more than the Holy Bible. I mean, I can’t say: “I am convinced! Sola Scriptura is grab!” if I don’t believe that. See my point?
Or what are you referring to?

 

[Todd520]

Esedra, I see it a bit differently on several of them. In general explicit sacraments are created by man and thus come from Holy Tradition

**Baptism **-- Infant baptism replaced the Jewish act of circumcison, to initiate people into the Church.

**Eucharist **-- Holy Tradition

Reconciliation & Confirmation - Repentance and receiving the Holy Ghost are extensively discussed in the bible, usually with baptism

Marriage - Holy Tradition

Holy Orders - Holy Tradition

**Anointing of the Sick – James 5:14-15
**

 

[Esdra]

Esedra, I see it a bit differently on several of them. In general explicit sacraments are created by man and thus come from Holy Tradition

**Baptism **-- Infant baptism replaced the Jewish act of circumcison, to initiate people into the Church.

**Eucharist **-- Holy Tradition

Reconciliation & Confirmation - Repentance and receiving the Holy Ghost are extensively discussed in the bible, usually with baptism

Marriage - Holy Tradition

Holy Orders - Holy Tradition

Anointing of the Sick – James 5:14-15

Hi

thanks for participating in my thread!

Yeah, it’s clear that you see it as a Mormon differently as the Catholics.

Are there also sacraments in the LDS Church?

Esdra

 

[jphilapy]

Which points did I not adress? Tell me!

I simply don’t believe that there is more than the Holy Bible. I mean, I can’t say: “I am convinced! Sola Scriptura is grab!” if I don’t believe that. See my point?
Or what are you referring to?

You said: “as you know, I am on the process leaving the CC for a Baptist Church.
This means that it is very important for me that everything which I believe is based on the Bible (which means it says in the Bible.)”

I made several points to demonstrate that sola scriptura is not taught in the bible. To repeat:

1. So Paul would be contradicting himself by telling believers to rely on scripture alone when he in fact was teaching many things that were not found in the OT scripture.
2. If they were to rely on scripture alone, then it would be their obligation to ignore anything else that Paul or any apostle taught that they could not find in scripture.
3. Think about the ramifications of that. You would need to ignore a lot of what the apostles said including if they were teaching sola scriptura which is not in the OT.

The scriptures that Paul was referring to were the OT. And nowhere in the OT is sola scriptura taught.

Please address those points.

 

[Esdra]

My dear friend jphilapy!

And I have answered you these questions!
But again…

You said: “as you know, I am on the process leaving the CC for a Baptist Church.
This means that it is very important for me that everything which I believe is based on the Bible (which means it says in the Bible.)”

I made several points to demonstrate that sola scriptura is not taught in the bible. To repeat:

1. So Paul would be contradicting himself by telling believers to rely on scripture alone when he in fact was teaching many things that were not found in the OT scripture.

And I said he didn’t because at this time the NT was “Sacred”/oral Tradition. It’s been written down only much later!

1. If they were to rely on scripture alone, then it would be their obligation to ignore anything else that Paul or any apostle taught that they could not find in scripture.

No, not at all! They were searching the Scriptures for the messianic prophesies (like in Isaiah) which Paul certainly quoted to them!

1. Think about the ramifications of that. You would need to ignore a lot of what the apostles said including if they were teaching sola scriptura which is not in the OT.

No, you wouldn’t because he declared them the gospel (what we know now as NT) and in the beginning (until it was written down and canonised by the CC) the gospel was oral tradition.

The scriptures that Paul was referring to were the OT. And nowhere in the OT is sola scriptura taught.

That’s not the point. Or do you think the Jews had something like “Sacred Tradition”?

Please address those points.

I did.

Esdra

 

[jmcrae]

Yeah, but Paul writes in 2 Tim 3:16
“16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

Even if St. Paul is referring to all 46 books of the Old Testament, and not just the first five, and even if he is aware that his own writings are “Scripture” (we have no evidence that he was aware of this) any portions of the New Testament not yet written at that point (which would include all four Gospels, and everything from the Letter to the Hebrews onward, as well as any letters of his that he had not yet written) would not be included in this. As well, he certainly didn’t mean for St. Timothy to ignore the things that the Apostles were telling him, nor to set the Scriptures up as a higher authority than St. Paul himself.

And I would say with “all Scripture” he refers to what later (and I have to admit through the “original Catholic Church”) our Holy Bible.

How could he have been referring to things that did not yet exist?

 

[Todd520]

Hi

thanks for participating in my thread!

Yeah, it’s clear that you see it as a Mormon differently as the Catholics.

Are there also sacraments in the LDS Church?

Esdra

I was Catholic, but that doesn’t change my answers.

• The bible isn’t an explicit manual for running a Church, so Holy Tradition fills these gaps.

If you look specificaly at baptism in the bible, it now lives on in three sacraments in the RCC: baptism, confirmation & reconciliation

Yes, there are similar sacraments in LDS (not all the same)

 

[JRKH]

Which points did I not adress? Tell me!

I simply don’t believe that there is more than the Holy Bible. I mean, I can’t say: “I am convinced! Sola Scriptura is grab!” if I don’t believe that. See my point?
Or what are you referring to?

And so - Holding to “Sola Scriptura” we come back to the same old question…Which Holy Bible…Which “Scriptura” consitutes the proper and full canon that Paul is refering to in 2 Timothy?
The one used by protestant groups has 66 books. The one used by Catholics has 73. The one used by the EO is 78 or so? They all say “Holy bible” on the cover, and they all contain the verses most popularly used by the SS crowd.

It’s easy to hold up the Bible and declare “Sola Scriptura”, but as you and I have seen in our discussions it becomes much more complex when one begins to dig into it.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

That’s not the point. Or do you think the Jews had something like “Sacred Tradition”?

Of course they did - that was the whole point of the Temple.

If the Jews had believed that people come to God by reading the books of Moses, they wouldn’t have bothered with Temple worship, feast days, or any of their ceremonies, laws, and rituals.

 

[JRKH]

My dear friend jphilapy!

And I have answered you these questions!
But again…

And I said he didn’t because at this time the NT was “Sacred”/oral Tradition. It’s been written down only much later!

No, not at all! They were searching the Scriptures for the messianic prophesies (like in Isaiah) which Paul certainly quoted to them!

No, you wouldn’t because he declared them the gospel (what we know now as NT) and in the beginning (until it was written down and canonised by the CC) the gospel was oral tradition.

If you don’t mind my jumping in here. These arguments do not hold up. “Sacred/oral Tradition” does not equate to “Scripture”. Scripture by it’s definition is something written down.

That’s not the point. Or do you think the Jews had something like “Sacred Tradition”?

It is my understanding that they did have “sacred and oral Tradition”.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

And I said he didn’t because at this time the NT was “Sacred”/oral Tradition. It’s been written down only much later!

Do you believe that the entire Oral Tradition was written down?

And if not (since St. John tells us plainly that such a thing was physically impossible, in John 21:24-25) at what point was the authority of the Oral Tradition taken away, and who took it away?

 

[Esdra]

And so - Holding to “Sola Scriptura” we come back to the same old question…Which Holy Bible…Which “Scriptura” consitutes the proper and full canon that Paul is refering to in 2 Timothy?
The one used by protestant groups has 66 books. The one used by Catholics has 73. The one used by the EO is 78 or so? They all say “Holy bible” on the cover, and they all contain the verses most popularly used by the SS crowd.

It’s easy to hold up the Bible and declare “Sola Scriptura”, but as you and I have seen in our discussions it becomes much more complex when one begins to dig into it.

Peace
James

To all in this case!

Okay, maybe I should have put it differently: Paul (and Luke in Acts about the Bereans) referred to the Septuagint concerning the prohesies of the Christ and what he told them was Sacred Tradition and this then was written down and we call it now the New Testament (after this mass of post Christian literature was canonised by the CC!)

Actually, for me the Holy Bible is sufficent. I don’t need more. All one needs to live a “good Christian life” is to be found in the Bible. Even when you consider the deuteros as apocrypha (as most Evangelicals do!)

For me what you call ST (although you refer to it in a much broader sense!) is equivalent with the New Testament.
As I don’t believe in the CC as a preservator of the ST…

What is written down of the ST or oral tradition in the NT is sufficent in my opinion.
Or are the bible-onlyist “bad Christians” by rejecting the ST of the Catholic Church?

But this doesn’t mean that you are not allowed to be interested and read the ST where it is written down. (Like in the CCC for example or as a book about Saints; or in the deuteros.) - As I do, partly.

Yeah, well then they did have Tradition, the Jews. (By the way: wasn’t Jesus quite against the Tradition of the Jews, calling their preservators hypocrites quite often in the NT?) -
Actually I guess I didn’t get what the poster wanted to say:

jphilapy:

The scriptures that Paul was referring to were the OT. And nowhere in the OT is sola scriptura taught.

Esdra