S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Fascinating! Do you have any documented evidence by non-Catholic investigators that the miracles you cited were genuine and not hoaxes nor misunderstandings?
- Status
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, for one thing because their purported authority is the same as Calvin’s-scripture-and we should know by now that doesn’t serve the purpose. And half the things they do believe in we’re arrived at centuries ago by the CC. Also, their theology is still in error or ambiguous because, overall, they do not believe that what we do necessarily counts. The changes/ sanctification I spoke of-ultimately to be perfected in love-are mandatory in Catholic teaching for the gaining of eternal life-and our cooperation in this is mandatory as well.Thanks for telling me from who the Catholic Church get’s it’s authority. Still wondering how you know. I mean, i understand that Calvinists believe that freewill is an illusion, and i agree with you that they are in error, as much of Sacred Scripture does not support their views. But other Protestants–such as Evangelicals and Fundamentalist Baptists–do not agree with Calvinists, either. One can believe that one is free to accept or reject Christ and still not be a Catholic. How do you know that the authority of God belongs to Catholics and not to them?
But there are all kinds of other reasons that point to the authenticity of the Catholic Church as the Church. Have you read Catholic mystics? Mysticism-or anything on par with the spiritual experiences related by Catholic saints-has no parallel in Protestantism, or anywhere else IMO. And if you read these people attentively enough you’ll hear the integrity-you’ll agree with Edith Stein-an educated, brilliant woman- when she put down a work of St Teresa of Avila (who was telling of extraordinary experiences she’d been granted by God) and said simply, “This is the truth”. You’ll find the same heart for truth-the same integrity-in St Augustine and St Thomas and encyclicals and conciliar decrees and catechisms and ECFs-even where the knowledge or understanding is yet not quite perfect. But the Church -through the revelation of God-inspired all of them onwards towards a perfect knowledge of and love for God. And this continues on today.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, but that’s why i wonder whether words that are spirit and truth are figurative or literal. In John 3 Jesus spoke words that were spirit and truth when He **compared **the Holy Spirit to wind. But He did NOT mean the Holy Spirit IS wind.“The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.”
(John 3:8)
In John 4 Jesus spoke words of spirit and truth when He **compared **the Holy Spirit to living water. But this did NOT mean that there is holy water one can drink to receive the Holy Spirit.Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
(John 4:13-14)
In John 6 Jesus spoke words of spirit and truth, too. Protestants tell me that he was also making a comparison here, as He did in chapters 3 and 4. Just as He compared the Holy Spirit to living water, Jesus **compared **Himself to the bread of life, they tell me. And just as the Holy Spirit is not really water we can drink, so too Jesus is not really bread we can eat, they say. Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.”
(John 6:35-36)
So i wonder if they are right, Ut. If words of spirit and truth can be figures of speech in chapters 3 and 4 of John’s Gospel, they why can they not be figures of speech in chapter 6? That’s what i’m asking you so i will know how to answer them, or at least so you will understand why i’m at a loss to not know which truth is true and which truth is a lie.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Well, we’re getting off topic. If you recall, this discussion thread concerns whether Sacred Scripture is ambiguous and how one should discern the true meaning of Jesus’ words out of the possible alternatives. However, if you’d like to start a discussion thread about the Eucharist, i’d be happy to participate.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Well, Joe, the original Church was called The Way. In fact, the words Catholic Church don’t appear anywhere in the Bible. So, Joe, if the name of the church is so important to you, do you think the church that today calls itself The Way is the true Church?
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to The Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
(Acts 9:1-2)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
And i believe most Evangelicals and Fundamentalists would accept everything in the creed as true *accept *that which i’ve put in red font. So then, it seems Evangelicals and Fundamentalists believe the Catholic Church had been corrupted in it’s beliefs as early as the 4th century AD. Interesting.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
True, Chuck. I believe he also had some extremely Catholic beliefs regarding the Eucharist!
I don’t want to misrepresent Evangelicals or Fundamentalists, however. Both believe in the necessity of repentance, as they say saving faith is impossible without it. Both also believe in the necessity of good works, as they say the genuineness of one’s faith is demonstrated by such works. Both also see baptism as a necessary act of obedience to God (or good work) either on the part of the parents baptizing an infant, or on the part of a child, teen, or adult allowing oneself to be baptized. While such good works are necessary for living a genuine Christian life, they do not see such works as having a causal effect on their receiving eternal life and heaven.
P
paul_c
Guest
Which is of course, prior to the canonization of the Bible in 382AD. So how can the Evangelicals think the Bible is inerrant, if they believe the chruch that put it together was already currupted?
P
paul_c
Guest
And here is the discrepancy: How can good works be necessary for living a Christian life while having no effect on receiving eternal life. Its either necessary or its not, right? I personally believe that all good Christians know inherently that they need to do the will of God, whether they admit it has an impact on their salvation or not.
P
paul_c
Guest
Sure, there is lots of documented evidence from non-Catholic investigators that the miracles sites are genuine. The Church will not declare a miracle worthy of belief if it hasn’t undergone tremendous scrutiny because it will not risk its reputation on what could be declared a hoax. Like you, SOC, the Church is interested in the truth. And by the way, The Church does not require anyone to believe in these miracles, but it will tell you which one’s it deams worthy of belief.
Here is the wikipedia article on Fatima
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_F%C3%A1tima
. It contains references to contemporary, secular accounts of the Miracle of the Sun.
here is the wikipedia article on the Lourdes Medical Bureau, the secular medical board responsible for validating the Miracles at Lourdes, 68 of which they have recognized.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
Here’s a scientific discussion of the Stigmata of St. Padre Pio:
pdtsigns.com/pioscientific.html
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Yes, i agree, and yes, that’s what Evangelical Ed tells me.
I suppose Evangelical Ed would say this failure is evident as early as the Nicene Creed in the 4th century AD, for it erroneously states that the purpose of baptism is to forgive sins.
I’d assume he’d say this is one biblical text that proves the error:And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ… .
(1 Peter 3:21)
He’d argue that it’s the pledge of a good conscience toward God (repentance) and trusting in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (faith) that saves one from hell. It’s this repentance and faith in Christ–NOT the superstitious belief in some magical power of the holy water in which an infant is baptized–that gives one eternal life. That’s what Ed tells me–quoting Peter, no less! How should i respond?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
P7:You are not alone Soc. You have two millennia of Christianity with you.
Who soon developed awareness of this chicken and egg dilemma you so clearly explain and live at present, about trusting an authority to reach the truth versus reaching the truth to trust an authority.
Hence what are called marks or notes of the Church.
Among these, apostolicity was early developed and explained.
Let’s read this one.
*1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. …
.2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.
For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. * Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, Book III, ch. 3. About 180 AD
I think this passage deserves your meditation at this point.
Christianity went on reflecting on the notes of the Church. This was necessary, because in early times there appear to have been … many Eds, proposing diverging doctrines against the apostolic Church as well as against each other.
I do not know whether in your former branch of Evangelicalism the Creed of Nicea had been preserved or at least partially rejected.
What is stated there about the Church built by Jesus are four marks
In order to avoid obvious issues on oneness and catholicity about their newly settled religious bodies, most of which would accept the Creed, from the beginning protestant teachers had to develop the theory of a merely invisible catholic Church, as we already saw in your previous thread.
- One
- Holy
- Catholic
- Apostolic
Then, about apostolicity, the traditional objective dimension of legitimate succession was, once again out of necessity, fully rejected.
And protestantisms dismantled this way these ancient tools permitting to avoid our present chicken and egg dilemma.
We all ask what is Jesus’ Church, in order to know where the orthodox message can be learnt by us.
Protestant brothers often simply tell me that …… Jesus’ Church, is where the purest orthodox message can be learnt by us,
I hope something in these two posts can help, Soc.
In Christ
P7
I find it incredible that this is the creed of the Evangelical Lutheran Church:We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and was made man.For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.We believe in one holy catholic **[a] and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism **** ****** for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.Amen.
I suppose an Evangelical Ed, if he were an Evangelical Lutheran, would defend the creed this way: Regarding (a) he’d likely say the Lutheran Church is apostolic, unlike the Catholic Church, which no longer follows the true Gospel preached by the Apostles. Regarding (b) i suppose he’d say the creed speaks of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and not water baptism.
So i’d like to consider his response. Can you show me any quote from an early Church Father (the earlier or closest to the Nicene Creed the better) that indicates it is water baptism (not merely receiving the Holy Spirit) that saves one from hell?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Wisdom, PC. Wisdom (AKA Truth) is she for whom i wait. Some say i’m a fool for settling for no one less than her, but having briefly gazed upon her beauty, i can have no other! Perhaps i’ll become an old lonely bachelor, having been an idiot for waiting for her embrace that never came. Then again, perhaps my loyalty to her will be rewarded. Foolish? Could be. But what else can i be?
For wisdom is more precious than rubies,
and nothing you desire can compare with her.
(Proverbs 8:11)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
FH:
To be fair to Evangelicals, they also believe good works done by God’s power are mandatory–mandatory for sanctification, that is. Yet sanctification is a result of salvation, not a reason for it, they say. So the causal chain of events in their minds is this:
Salvation:
(a) God draws → (b) One repents and trusts Christ → (c) One receives eternal life
Sanctification:
(c) One receives eternal life → (d) One continues to repent and trust Christ
→ (e) One sins less and less and does good works more and more by obeying God
Notice that eternal life (c) comes before obeying God (e). Thus (a) and (b) are seen as the *only *causes of receiving eternal life. And (e) is seen as a consequence, not a cause, of (c).
Yes, i’d like to learn from them. If there is some wisdom they have given to you that you’d like to briefly share with me, please do!
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Fascinating! I suppose they believe only 66 of the 77 books are inerrant, for several books in my Catholic-sanctioned Bible are missing from my Protestant-sanctioned Bibles.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Please see my response in post 794.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
There is a reason most University and College professors will not accept Wikipedia as a reputable source: Anyone can edit the content of any page. Do you have any more trustworthy sources (perhaps some online scientific research) that documents the validity of any of these miracles?
J
joe370
Guest
Soc, you said:
Well, Joe, the original Church was called The Way.
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to The Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
(Acts 9:1-2)
Ok…
In fact, the words Catholic Church don’t appear anywhere in the Bible.
**Neither do any of the names attached to the myriad protestant churches, built by mere men from the 16th to the 21st century.
**
**Jesus didn’t give His church a name. He left that up to His apostles. He simply called His church - “My church!” One of the real surprises to me as a former Lutheran, was how early the term “Catholic” came to be used to refer to Jesus’ one church. How early? How about the year 107 AD.
**
**Ignatious was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, and the disciple of the beloved Disciple John. He was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 AD. He was the first person to commit to letter, the term “catholic” to describe Jesus’ whole Church. His letters connect us to Jesus’ early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles, which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. To understand the early Church or Catholicism today is to understand St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the successor of Peter, as bishop of Antioch and was the spiritual son of John the Apostle. He is the key to truly knowing the Christians of the first two centuries and what they believed. He is responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos, meaning “universal,” “complete” and “whole” to describe Jesus’ church. It is from the word katholikos that the word catholic is derived. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 AD (again, using the word “catholic” to describe Jesus’ one church) - he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe Jesus’ Church, the world over. Because of him many scholars (Protestant as well) - have concluded that the appellation “catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century. Pretty compelling wouldn’t you say, or do you still believe that Jesus built another church?
From the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by St. Ignatius of Antioch:
*“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *
**
So, Joe, if the name of the church is so important to you, do you think the church that today calls itself The Way is the true Church?
**Why would I? The churches that go by that name are churches built by men in the 20 or 21st century, as opposed to the C.C. built by Jesus.
Isn’t it important to you? Don’t you want to belong to the church built by Jesus circa 33 AD, as opposed to churches built by mere men?
**
Well, Joe, the original Church was called The Way.
Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to The Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem.
(Acts 9:1-2)
Ok…
In fact, the words Catholic Church don’t appear anywhere in the Bible.
**Neither do any of the names attached to the myriad protestant churches, built by mere men from the 16th to the 21st century.
**
**Jesus didn’t give His church a name. He left that up to His apostles. He simply called His church - “My church!” One of the real surprises to me as a former Lutheran, was how early the term “Catholic” came to be used to refer to Jesus’ one church. How early? How about the year 107 AD.
**
**Ignatious was the Bishop of Antioch, Syria, and the disciple of the beloved Disciple John. He was consecrated Bishop around the year 69 AD. He was the first person to commit to letter, the term “catholic” to describe Jesus’ whole Church. His letters connect us to Jesus’ early Church and the unbroken, clear teaching of the Apostles, which was given to them directly by Jesus Christ. To understand the early Church or Catholicism today is to understand St. Ignatius of Antioch. He was the successor of Peter, as bishop of Antioch and was the spiritual son of John the Apostle. He is the key to truly knowing the Christians of the first two centuries and what they believed. He is responsible for the first known use of the Greek word katholikos, meaning “universal,” “complete” and “whole” to describe Jesus’ church. It is from the word katholikos that the word catholic is derived. When Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans in about the year 107 AD (again, using the word “catholic” to describe Jesus’ one church) - he used it as if it were a word already in use to describe Jesus’ Church, the world over. Because of him many scholars (Protestant as well) - have concluded that the appellation “catholic Church” with its ecclesial connotation may have been in use as early as the last quarter of the first century. Pretty compelling wouldn’t you say, or do you still believe that Jesus built another church?
From the Letter to the Smyrnaeans by St. Ignatius of Antioch:
*“See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *
**
So, Joe, if the name of the church is so important to you, do you think the church that today calls itself The Way is the true Church?
**Why would I? The churches that go by that name are churches built by men in the 20 or 21st century, as opposed to the C.C. built by Jesus.
Isn’t it important to you? Don’t you want to belong to the church built by Jesus circa 33 AD, as opposed to churches built by mere men?
**
- Status