What essential parts of Christianity are not found in Scripture?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BouleTheou
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
boule (Patrick) << The great men of God whom he used to hammer out the Christian doctrine of God would not recognize a mass at your local parish, Phil. >>

Don’t know why you think they’re so great men of God, since the Mass is right here:

ST. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM (c. 350 A.D.)

"Then, upon the completion of the spiritual sacrifice, the bloodless worship, over that PROPITIATORY victim we call upon God for the common peace of the Churches, for the welfare of the world, for kings, for soldiers and allies, for the sick, for the afflicted; and in summary, we all pray and OFFER THIS SACRIFICE FOR ALL WHO ARE IN NEED.

"Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, Apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep; for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this HOLY AND MOST SOLEMN SACRIFICE IS LAID OUT.

For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the prayer?’…[we] grant a remission of their penalties…we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep though they be sinners. We do not plait a crown, but OFFER UP CHRIST WHO HAS BEEN SACRIFICED FOR OUR SINS; AND WE THEREBY PROPITIATE THE BENEVOLENT GOD FOR THEM AS WELL AS FOR OURSELVES. (23 [Mystagogic 5], 8, 9, 10)

AND

ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA (c. 335 - 394 A.D.)

"He offered Himself for us, Victim and Sacrifice, and Priest as well, and ‘Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.’ When did He do this? When He made His own Body food and His own Blood drink for His disciples; for this much is clear enough to anyone, that a sheep cannot be eaten by a man unless its being eaten be preceded by its being slaughtered. This giving of His own Body to His disciples for eating clearly indicates that the sacrifice of the Lamb has now been completed. (Sermon One on the Resurrection of Christ)

AND

ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (c. 344 - 407 A.D.)

"When you see the Lord IMMOLATED and lying upon the ALTAR, and the priest bent over that SACRIFICE praying, and all the people empurpled by that PRECIOUS BLOOD, can you think that you are still among men and on earth? Or are you not lifted up to heaven? (Priesthood 3:4:177)

"Reverence, therefore, reverence this table, of which we are all communicants! Christ, slain for us, the SACRIFICIAL VICTIM WHO IS PLACED THEREON! (Homilies on Romans 8:8)

"Christ is present. The One [Christ] who prepared that [Holy Thursday] table is the very One who now prepares this [altar] table. For it is not a man who makes the SACRIFICIAL GIFTS BECOME the Body and Blood of Christ, but He that was crucified for us, Christ Himself. The priest stands there carrying out the action, but the power and the grace is of God, “THIS IS MY BODY,” he says. This statement TRANSFORMS the gifts. (Homilies on Treachery of Judas 1:6)

All Eastern Fathers. Oh there’s a lot more where that came from. It’s called Jurgens, look into it. 😃

You bring up too many topics at once, that all need careful demolishing. :rolleyes:

Phil P
 
Phil -

I spoke of the Cappadocian’s doctrine of God. That is what they are known for the most in church history. So, once again, the Catholic apologist must do the only thing they can do: ignore every issue and question that is posed to them which they cannot answer, and try to create a side show by using equivocation… sad to watch, Phil. That’s called: desperation. :o

My favorite use of Jurgen’s quote book was when Gerry Matatics self-destructed in his debate on the papacy with White… and actually stood up with Jurgens in his hands and started reading from the index! “These are the early fathers who agree with ME…”

BouleTheou
 
Phil -

Since you brought up those fathers with the mass, how about some of the quotes from even earlier great men of the faith:

Irenaeus
Irenaeus believed that the eucharist is a spiritual sacrifice in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, not a sacrifice in the sense that Roman Catholicism teaches:

“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to the declaration of Malachi the prophet. For, ‘from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;’ as John also declares in the Apocalypse: ‘The incense is the prayers of the saints.’ Then again, Paul exhorts us ‘to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.’ And again, ‘Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips.’ Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God ‘in spirit and in truth.’ And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom.” (Fragments, 37).

Where’s the propitiatory sacrifice here?

cont’d…
 
Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr explains that the eucharist is a sacrifice only in the sense of Hebrews 13:15, only in the sense of offering prayers and thanksgiving:

“Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.’ Yet even now, in your love of contention, you assert that God does not accept the sacrifices of those who dwelt then in Jerusalem, and were called Israelites; but says that He is pleased with the prayers of the individuals of that nation then dispersed, and calls their prayers sacrifices. Now, that prayers and giving of thanks, when offered by worthy men, are the only perfect and well-pleasing sacrifices to God, I also admit. For such alone Christians have undertaken to offer, and in the remembrance effected by their solid and liquid food, whereby the suffering of the Son of God which He endured is brought to mind, whose name the high priests of your nation and your teachers have caused to be profaned and blasphemed over all the earth. But these filthy garments, which have been put by you on all who have become Christians by the name of Jesus, God shows shall be taken away from us, when He shall raise all men from the dead, and appoint some to be incorruptible, immortal, and free from sorrow in the everlasting and imperishable kingdom; but shall send others away to the everlasting punishment of fire. But as to you and your teachers deceiving yourselves when you interpret what the Scripture says as referring to those of your nation then in dispersion, and maintain that their prayers and sacrifices offered in every place are pure and well-pleasing, learn that you are speaking falsely, and trying by all means to cheat yourselves: for, first of all, not even now does your nation extend from the rising to the setting of the sun, but there are nations among which none of your race ever dwelt. For there is not one single race of men, whether barbarians, or Greeks, or whatever they may be called, nomads, or vagrants, or herdsmen living in tents, among whom prayers and giving of thanks are not offered through the name of the crucified Jesus. And then, as the Scriptures show, at the time when Malachi wrote this, your dispersion over all the earth, which now exists, had not taken place.” (Dialogue with Trypho, 117)

And where is the propitiatory sacrifice here?

You also bring up many topics which need careful demolishing. 😉

BouleTheou
 
Eusebius “Here it is plainly the mystic Chrism and the holy Sacrifices of Christ’s Table that are meant, by which we are taught to offer to Almighty God through our great High Priest all through our life the celebration of our sacrifices, bloodless, reasonable, and well-pleasing to Him…And this very thing the great prophet Isaiah wonderfully foreknew by the Holy Spirit, and foretold. And he therefore says thus: ‘O Lord, my God, I will glorify thee, I will hymn thy name, for thou hast done marvellous things.’ And he goes on to explain what these things so truly ‘wonderful’ are: ‘And the Lord of Sabaoth shall make a feast for all the nations. They shall drink joy, they shall drink wine, they shall be anointed with myrrh (on this mountain). Impart thou all these things to the nations. For this is God’s counsel upon all the nations.’ These were Isaiah’s ‘wonders,’ the promise of the anointing with ointment of a good smell, and with myrrh made not to Israel but to all nations. Whence not unnaturally through the chrism of myrrh they gained the name of Christians. But he also prophesies the ‘wine of joy’ to the nations, darkly alluding to the sacrament of the new covenant of Christ, which is now openly celebrated among the nations. And these unembodied and spiritual sacrifices the oracle of the prophet also proclaims, in a certain place: ‘Offer to God the sacrifice of praise, and give the Highest thy vows: And call upon me in the day of thy affliction, and I will deliver thee, and thou shall glorify me.’ And again: ‘The lifting up of my hands is an evening sacrifice.’ And once more: ‘The sacrifice of God is a contrite spirit.’ And so all these predictions of immemorial prophecy are being fulfilled at this present time through the teaching of our Saviour among all nations. Truth bears witness with the prophetic voice with which God, rejecting the Mosaic sacrifices, foretells that the future lies with us: ‘Wherefore from the rising of the sun unto the setting my name shall be glorified among the nations. And in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.’ We sacrifice, therefore, to Almighty God a sacrifice of praise. We sacrifice the divine and holy and sacred offering. We sacrifice anew according to the new covenant the pure sacrifice. But the sacrifice to God is called ‘a contrite heart.’ ‘A humble and a contrite heart thou wilt not despise.’ Yes, and we offer the incense of the prophet, in every place bringing to Him the sweet-smelling fruit of the sincere Word of God, offering it in our prayers to Him. This yet another prophet teaches, who says: ‘Let my prayer be as incense in thy sight.’ So, then, we sacrifice and offer incense: On the one hand when we celebrate the Memorial of His great Sacrifice according to the Mysteries He delivered to us, and bring to God the Eucharist for our salvation with holy hymns and prayers; while on the other we consecrate ourselves to Him alone and to the Word His High Priest, devoted to Him in body and soul. Therefore we are careful to keep our bodies pure and undefiled from all evil, and we bring our hearts purified from every passion and stain of sin, and worship Him with sincere thoughts, real intention, and true beliefs. For these are more acceptable to Him, so we are taught, than a multitude of sacrifices offered with blood and smoke and fat.” (Demonstratio Evangelica, 1:10)

Eusebius describes the eucharistic sacrifice as “a memorial” that we offer “instead of a sacrifice”. He describes the sacrifice of the eucharist as “unembodied and spiritual”. Just after quoting Malachi 1:11, he says that the sacrifice of praise is the sacrifice to which Malachi is referring.

And, yes, Phil, where is the propitiatory sacrifice here?

Keep them coming… 🙂

BouleTheou
 
boule (Patrick) << I can’t believe you’d dismiss such a giant disagreement among Catholics as “doctrinally and practically” irrelevant. >>

Easily dismissed. A disagreement between Catholic theologians or apologists on how to understand the precise relationship between Scripture and Tradition is not relevant to Catholic dogma. All Catholic theologians and apologists, assuming they are orthodox, would hold to papal infallibility, transubstantiation, purgatory, and the Marian beliefs, regardless how one thinks those beliefs are related to “Scripture and Tradition.”

That’s why I said the whole material sufficiency (all doctrines are found at least implicity in Scripture) and partim-partim (some doctrines are partly found in tradition) is irrelevant. Easily dismissed. But I’ll go along with Yves Congar for now:

“Now, the Fathers and the medieval theologians, whom we have cited: (1) Admit the material sufficiency of Scripture…(2) Ever since they began discussing these matters, consistently affirmed that Scripture by itself cannot adequately present its true meaning; it is only understood correctly in the Church and in its tradition. If there is one position which the Fathers consistently maintained, it is the position that links inseparably Scripture, the Church and Tradition. Far from considering these three realities to be in opposition, they saw them as united and inseparable.” (Tradition and Traditions, Congar, p. 116,117)

Scripture by itself cannot adequately present its true interpretation, that is what the authority of the Church and Tradition is for. And that includes the 4th-century full expression of the Trinity (to bring this back on topic).

Phil P
 
How about an even earlier father, the apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 10:16-21:

16The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons.

1 Corinthians 11:23-32:

23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;2] this is My body which is broken3] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood4] of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner5] eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s6] body. 30For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

And where is the propitiatory sacrifice here?

later,

BouleTheou
 
St.Irenaus said :

“If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?” (*Against Heresies *4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

“He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?” (ibid., 5:2).

St.Justin Martyr said :

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (*First Apology *66 [A.D. 151]).
 
Where is the bodily assumption of the virgen Mary embedded in Scripture?

First is the whole concept of assumption.

:bible1: Gen 5:24 Enoch is taken into heaven without dying

:bible1: 2Kg 2:11 Elijah is assumed into heaven in fiery chariot.

So I don’t believe you are disputing the theology of assumption, correct?

As to Mary herself

:bible1: Rev 11:19 - 12:1 the ark in heaven = woman clothed with sun

I won’t quote church fathers, but the church fathers did compare Mary to the ark in very early church history.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria
 
St.Irenaus said :

“He took from among creation that which is bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is my body.’ The cup likewise, which is from among the creation to which we belong, he confessed to be his blood. He taught the new sacrifice of the new covenant, of which Malachi, one of the twelve [minor] prophets, had signified beforehand: ‘You do not do my will, says the Lord Almighty, and I will not accept a sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is my name among the Gentiles, says the Lord Almighty’ [Mal. 1:10–11]. By these words he makes it plain that the former people will cease to make offerings to God; but that in every place sacrifice will be offered to him, and indeed, a pure one, for his name is glorified among the Gentiles” (Against Heresies 4:17:5 [A.D. 189]).
 
St.Justin Martyr said :

"God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [minor prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord, and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same, my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering, for my name is great among the Gentiles . . . [Mal. 1:10–11]. He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us [Christians] who in every place offer sacrifices to him, that is, the bread of the Eucharist and also the cup of the Eucharist" (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 41 [A.D. 155]).
 
Phil -
Easily dismissed.
Click to expand...
That’s funny - seriously 😃 . Again, Madrid is regarding the switching of a Traditionalist to a neo-Catholic as a conversion. A CONVERSION, Phil.

I wonder if Robert Sungenis (that guy none of the mainstream apologists want anyone to know they used to hang out with) and Gerry Matatics (the guy Karl Keating probably wishes he had never met) would agree that such a fundamental difference on the very nature and content of revelation itself from the Roman Catholic perspective can be so “easily dismissed.” I somehow doubt.

BouleTheou
 
boule (Patrick) << My favorite use of Jurgen’s quote book was when Gerry Matatics self-destructed in his debate on the papacy with White… and actually stood up with Jurgens in his hands and started reading from the index! “These are the early fathers who agree with ME…” >>

Well too bad Gerry did not present the arguments and data from John Chapman. If he did, he would have needed about a 7 hour opening statement in that debate 😃

St. Augustine and the Papacy
St. Athanasius and the Papacy
St. Jerome and the Papacy

I recommend instead the Oct 2000 debate on papal infallibility between James White and Robert Sungenis. From Clearwater, Florida, I was there in person. Although Sungenis is not too credible these days, he did an excellent job in this debate.

BTW, stop being so fixated on this or that Catholic apologist. We are not the Catholic Church. 😃

Phil P
 
Watching the sparring going on here is maddening.

Boule,

Why is it beyond possibility that the whole amount of Christian knowledge is NOT contained in the Bible? Is it at least POSSIBLE? If not, we must agree to disagree.

Consider: If a surgeon writes a book on surgery, does that mean that every iota of his/her knowledge is now on paper? How many books does it take? Perhaps the surgeon can get the essentials on paper after several. But would that make it possible for me to go and perform surgery? What about complications? Whoops! Forgot to write that down. The surgeon had that knowledge but didn’t write that bit down.

Is this a scenario beyond the imagination?

If it is possible, then you know that Catholics have both Scripture and Tradition. If Scripture is sufficient, what are you trying to do? We all therefore have the essentials so you have nothing new to teach. From this logic, perhaps you can instruct a non-Christian.

I know you are well-read. Let me ask you. Do you not think about the books afterwards to “digest” and understand them? I often need to consider any new concepts to assimilate them to what I know. Does that mean that I understand what the author intended? Maybe, maybe not. My understanding is unique. My own. The facts are the same, but my knowledge is different.

Some things are just ambiguous. Without other information, that surgeon writing a book may assume you are following his/her train of thought and state something ambiguous. Who is the best arbiter of what is right if the author isn’t standing there? You? Or the American Academy of Surgeons? (or whatever) I think the latter. Those who have been taught surgery will probably be able to tell you from their knowledge that had been handed down.

(You may appeal to the help of the Holy Spirit. Well and good. That HAS indeed been promised. However. if you insist that the Catholic interpretation is wrong I suggest you grant Catholics the same freedom you would grant any Christian denomination, that of the ability to claim the Holy Spirit is leading us.)

Is this handed-down knowledge some mysterious “tradition”? If you like. Oftentimes, books are written because an earlier book was unclear or questions have arisen that require someone delve deeper. Or a conflicting viewpoint as to the best way is suggested and others will dispute that. All of them agree on the first books (or their understanding of those books).

Do the contents of the new books constitute “new” knowledge? You for one may ask, “What essential parts of surgery are not contained in the original books?” and decide that everything is essentially there and no other information exists or is relevant.

I am not sure you have a position that can be proven.

Thanks for listening.
 
j -
Why is it beyond possibility that the whole amount of Christian knowledge is NOT contained in the Bible?
Click to expand...
It is not beyond possibility. The problem is, no one can show us anything that is essential to the Christian faith that was transmitted outside of Scripture in an oral form.
Is it at least POSSIBLE?
Click to expand...
Sure - do you know of Christian knowledge NOT contained in the Bible? If so, please share it with us. I’ve been asking Catholic apologists to show it to me for upwards of 2 and a half years and so far - zip.

BouleTheou
 
Phil -
stop being so fixated on this or that Catholic apologist. We are not the Catholic Church
Click to expand...
I’m not fixating on them or you - Just on your irreconcilable differences which demonstrate your infallible interpreter does not bring about the “unity” she claims to. Ours does though - those who practice Sola Scriptura are far more united than those practicing the various forms of Sola Ecclesia.

BouleTheou
 
Sure - do you know of Christian knowledge NOT contained in the Bible?
Click to expand...
BouleTheou,

Oh, sure! Explicitly, what about the Christian moral teaching regarding abortion, stem cell research, cloning…etc.? Do you find it explicitly in the Bible? Show us where?

Pio
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
Phil -

I’m not fixating on them or you - Just on your irreconcilable differences which demonstrate your infallible interpreter does not bring about the “unity” she claims to. Ours does though - those who practice Sola Scriptura are far more united than those practicing the various forms of Sola Ecclesia.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Why do you have so many denominations if you are united?
 
40.png
BouleTheou:
Phil -

I’m not fixating on them or you - Just on your irreconcilable differences which demonstrate your infallible interpreter does not bring about the “unity” she claims to. Ours does though - those who practice Sola Scriptura are far more united than those practicing the various forms of Sola Ecclesia.

BouleTheou
Click to expand...
Now you’re brinking on the ludicrous.

Non solam, sed etiam. Non solam, sed etiam. What is it that makes you persist in ignoring that?
 
Hello All,

I cease engaging when I find the conversations or paritcipants unreasonable.

Protestants must answer to Jesus that they took it upon themselves to decide that they will follow the Scriptures (which they don’t fully follow anyway) and disregard the apostolic, authoritative, and mystical Body of Christ that He Himself formed. The Scripture itself speaks very clearly about apostolic authority, Tradition, and that there are to be no divisions. If some Protestants ignore the clear mandates of Scripture and then claim that they only follow Scripture then that is their decision. Perhaps some Protestants are not aware of these Scriptural mandates. Each human must seek to educate his/her conscience and sincerely and humbly follow the truth.

I invite all Protestants to the apolostic Body of Christ and help us to grow in holiness together. We welcome you! Go to your local parish and speak with the priest. I am sure he will welcome you home!

Greg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top