What Is Your Authority?

[justasking4]

I haven’t read this whole thread but I read the parts where P101 was posting and I’m surprized that this was never posted as a reply to shut him down (or maybe I missed it). The Bible does indeed say that it does not contatin everything for salvation:

P101 is shut down…

How so? The Bible is not an exhaustive record of all that God has for us. It does not make that claim. What it does claim is to show us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life and grow to maturity in Christ.

 

[NotWorthy]

Where did Jesus give His apostles etc the power to torture or kill if people did not believe?
What passage in the NT would you show me that leaders of the church were given this authority?

You’ll have to show me where the Pope ordered the inquisitioners to weed out those who are posing as Catholic teachers and priests and kill those that refuse to desist (or something along this line).

If inquisitioners took it upon themselves to abuse the edicts of the Pope, that does not refute the divine authority of the Pope, no more than Kind David’s indiscretion with Bathsheba refuted the divine authority given to him (and to his seed).

 

[justasking4]

NotWorthy;3081668]You’ll have to show me where the Pope ordered the inquisitioners to weed out those who are posing as Catholic teachers and priests and kill those that refuse to desist (or something along this line).

There is an indepth article in the Catholic Ency online that will show how these tribinuals were used.

If inquisitioners took it upon themselves to abuse the edicts of the Pope, that does not refute the divine authority of the Pope, no more than Kind David’s indiscretion with Bathsheba refuted the divine authority given to him (and to his seed).

The question is: did Christ give leaders of the church the authority to conduct these inquisitions?
Do we have any basis in the NT to think this was what He intended for the church?

 

[NotWorthy]

There is an indepth article in the Catholic Ency online that will show how these tribinuals were used.

The question is: did Christ give leaders of the church the authority to conduct these inquisitions?
Do we have any basis in the NT to think this was what He intended for the church?

Do we have any basis in the NT to think that the Church had the authority to do this? Yes.

We have no idea what Christ intended, though, no do we?

 

[KHI29]

How so? The Bible is not an exhaustive record of all that God has for us. It does not make that claim. What it does claim is to show us how to be saved and how to live the Christian life and grow to maturity in Christ.

Maybe you didn’t understand what I’m saying. The only one that says the Bible is an exhaustive record of all that God has for us is non-Catholics. All the Bible is is a guide that cannot alone be a sufficient guide and rule of faith because it cannot at any time be within the reach of every inquirer; because it’s not always clear and intelligible, even in matters of highest importance; and because it does not contain all the truths of the Christian religion. The Christian religion demands a living interpreter. In the words of Vatican II:

The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously, and explaining it faithfully by divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed

 

[mark_a]

Catholics make the claim that the Bible is “not sufficient” only to bolster their doctrines on “Tradition;” but in doing so; they have never proven in all of their “apologetics” how that the Bible allegedly falls short in giving the essential information needed for “salvation.” To intimate in any way that if a person only had the Bible; they could not be saved, would not be something that is possible to defend on any “Christian” basis.

The Catholic Church and the rest had a tradition that contraception is evil. The Catholic Church stands alone here today.

Oh, wait a minute, that’s the “be fruitful and multiply” part of the bible.

Many times in Scripture; truths are implied or illustrated,
without being said verbatim; or “proven” expicitly. So in this first post, I would like to challenge the Catholic “script” here; and ask Catholics to prove that the Bible is not sufficient.

See the above and tell me why the bible is not sufficient for non-Catholics concerning contraception. Where is contraception even implied in the bible to be ok?

What in this Holy Book of God would be classed as “insufficient” or “incomplete?” (for salvation). If all you can do is to appeal to Catholic authority; then you have not even come close to answering my first questions here. If The Holy Bible is so “incomplete” or “insufficient” then please let us know exactly where these faults are so that we finally know the whole truth on this matter.

You guys are straining the gnat and swallowing the (abortificient) camel.

 

[po18guy]

Do we have any basis in the NT to think that the Church had the authority to do this? Yes.

We have no idea what Christ intended, though, no do we?

JA4, why on earth is this important to the salvation of one’s soul? How do historic examples of bad behavior neutralize the teaching of revealed truth? Why must we use today’s eyes to condemn acts from centuries ago, and then pound it to death? Those who committed any sins are held accountable to God, as are we. The intention in the hearts of those participating was to prevent the shattering of Christ’s mystical Body into 30,000+ pieces.

Why even be Christian then, JA4? The one Christ chose was a self-admitted sinner and abandoned Him before denying Him three times. Christ constantly chided the twelve for their lack of faith and, after three years of teaching, had to tell them explicitly what He meant. Only one had the courage to attend His execution. Another sold Him out before running off and committing suicide. And the last to be chosen had to be blinded and knocked off his horse before he had the chance to arrest early believers and lead them back to death or torture. JA4, if you want to find bad examples of Christian behavior, start at the beginning.

May Christ’s PEACE be with you.

 

[clpage86]

Would everyone please refrain from using sarcasm or condescending remarks? Those are not charitable.

Our goal as Catholics should not be to “shut down” our Protestant bretheren or to prove them wrong, but it should be to show them the right–with love!

 

[juliamajor]

Being sinful is not a determinate of whether God uses you or not for his purposes.Jacob,David,etcLots of naughty and unrighteous people including Peter and Paul(by his own admission) less then sterling but still needed for whatever purpose God wants and those purposes are not always clear at the time.

 

[KHI29]

Would everyone please refrain from using sarcasm or condescending remarks? Those are not charitable.

Our goal as Catholics should not be to “shut down” our Protestant bretheren or to prove them wrong, but it should be to show them the right–with love!

Our goal as Catholics is to answer their questions in a sufficient manner. P101 wanted to know where in the Bible it said that it dosn’t contain everything needed for salvation. His question was answered by John 21:25 thereby “shutting down” his argument that Catholics are wrong for saying that Tradition is just as important as the Bible. His goal was to try to back us into a corner with his “knowledge” of the Bible, clearly he was mistaken. I would however like to hear how P101 would respond to John 21:25…

 

[po18guy]

Our goal as Catholics is to answer their questions in a sufficient manner. P101 wanted to know where in the Bible it said that it dosn’t contain everything needed for salvation. His question was answered by John 21:25 thereby “shutting down” his argument that Catholics are wrong for saying that Tradition is just as important as the Bible. His goal was to try to back us into a corner with his “knowledge” of the Bible, clearly he was mistaken. I would however like to hear how P101 would respond to John 21:25…

I believe that he is looking for a passage that quotes: “My Brethren, always remember that scripture alone is not sufficient for your salvation”. Of course, that’s not there. But, neither is anything relating to scripture being all that is needed. We are not saved by a book made with human hands, in spite of the inspiration on its pages.

God’s Word does indeed save us: the Word made flesh, which dwelt among us. That is exactly why we live for the Eucharist. The evil one has caused many false teachings to spread to the corners of the earth, leading even Christian to fight against Christian, rather than against evil. That alone is a victory for darkness. If, indeed, what we have is truth, we are commanded to proclaim it to the world. We are admonished to do so with charity and, on that account, I have often failed. I ask forgiveness, but will retract not one word of truth.

Christ’s peace.

 

[jcrichton]

The description “the Catholic Church” dates from the first century, but no-one had heard of the term “Roman Catholic” until the Anglicans invented it.

The encyclopedia may **use the term **“Roman Catholicism” to describe the Catholic Church of the first century, but this term was only invented in the 19th century.

***Hi, Petergee!

Thanks for the info… I use simple logic: a) Rome; b) Catholic (universal): Roman Catholic!

Though I am aware that there is anti-Catholicism in the world, I do not readily put things together in my mind–it never dawned on me that the term Roman Catholic had risen from an assault on the Church!

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[agangbern]

The question is: did Christ give leaders of the church the authority to conduct these inquisitions?
Do we have any basis in the NT to think this was what He intended for the church?

“For those outside God will judge. Expel the wicked man from your midst.” (1 Cor 5:13)

 

[jcrichton]

I haven’t read this whole thread but I read the parts where P101 was posting and I’m surprized that this was never posted as a reply to shut him down (or maybe I missed it). The Bible does indeed say that it does not contatin everything for salvation:

P101 is shut down…

***Hi, KH!

…it’s been done!

My Mom has a saying:

“¡No hay más verdadero sordo que aquel que no quiere oír!”

Roughly translated it means that there’s no greater deaf person than he that refuses to listen.

These people are so caught up in their dogma that they are blinded to the fact that when Jesus taught (preached) He taught that which did not exist in the Holy Scriptures (Old Testament’s Sacred Writings). And, while He cited several passages of the Holy Scriptures, He did not simply quote Scripture but demonstrated through Scripture that He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord and Savior, the Emmanuel (Immanuel)!

Jesus Himself tells us that He would not reveal all to the Disciples that He would send another Paraclete that would reveal the total truth to the world–apparently, this part of the Bible is not clear enough…

…it is almost as difficult as convincing a Jehovah Witness that Jesus is God–they love citing Scriptures but they reject God’s Word when it testifies about Jesus’ Divinity!

Maran atha!

Angel

---

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Actually; I did not say any of these things in my posts. I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;” and what, from the apocryphs needs to be added to it, in order for it to be “complete” enough for salvation? What Bible verse or doctrine, needs somthing from the apocrypha, in order for it to be “complete” or “sufficient?” And what specific passage from the apocrypha would be needed in this case?

I will not address anything here which does not address the topic at hand.

I haven’t read the whole thread, but this just begged to be answered. Please forgive me if it’s already been dealt with.

You are asking us to find something in the Bible that is not sufficient, but we do not believe there are things in the Bible that are “not sufficient”. We believe that the Bible itself is not sufficient – that is, not enough – to bring one to salvation.

Saying that the Bible is insufficient is not the same as “it contains errors” or “this item is not needed” – we’re saying that one cannot rely on the Bible as the sole rule of faith, because not everything we need is contained there.

It is Protestants, my friend, who make a claim that everything we need is in Scripture. If this were true, it would stand to reason that Scripture would tell us so – but it does not.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

The description “the Catholic Church” dates from the first century, but no-one had heard of the term “Roman Catholic” until the Anglicans invented it.

To be sure – but does it really matter? I mean, is it really an insult if we don’t care? There is nothing inherently offensive about the term, as there are with some racial epithets, so I see no reason not to adopt it as ours.

That’s how we beat 'em – say, “So what?”

Peace,
Dante

 

[agangbern]

I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;” and what, from the apocryphs needs to be added to it, in order for it to be “complete” enough for salvation? What Bible verse or doctrine, needs somthing from the apocrypha, in order for it to be “complete” or “sufficient?” And what specific passage from the apocrypha would be needed in this case?

I will not address anything here which does not address the topic at hand.

OK, let me enter. Please tell me, what does the bible say of how exactly is baptism to be performed? What exactly are the words to be pronounced during the rite of baptism? Where shall the candidate place his hands while subjected to baptism?

 

[agangbern]

To be sure – but does it really matter? I mean, is it really an insult if we don’t care? There is nothing inherently offensive about the term, as there are with some racial epithets, so I see no reason not to adopt it as ours.

That’s how we beat 'em – say, “So what?”

Peace,
Dante

Even Jesus, a tag was placed above his head while hanging on the cross. “So what” if there is that tag? He is in fact King! So what if the faith that was preached to us is the faith of the Church in Rome. It is in fact the faith of the Church in Rome that is being preached to the whole world. (Romans 1:8)

 

[suupah]

I am just asking Catholics to please be specific, tell me exactly what in the Bible is NOT sufficient for “salvation;”

The fact that most of the world is illiterate. The bible can not save them. These need a church

 

[jcrichton]

It was the bishops and the popes who held authority and maintained orthodoxy for the first 3 centuries. Who told people to stop reading gnostic literature? In the one instance we have of early Christians ever reading the gnostic “Gospel of Peter” it was a bishop who ordered the work thrown away. Who decided the outcome of the first theological debates–what relationship did Jesus have to God, for example, and the Trinity?

***Hi, Anne!

Thank you for your kind words…

This is precisely what Protestants fail to understand… their encounter with the Word was made possible by the Church: i.e.: they’ve missed out on the persecutions (both early Church and new world Church), the battles against heresies, the definitions and clarifications of the Faith, the research and study and the hand transciptions and custody of the Holy Scriptures…

Being a critic is fantastic because you do not have to contribute much and you are always “right” since you are simply rendering your personal opinion! (Noticed how hollo wood keeps remaking sequals and pre-quals… and oh those remakes of remakes? No sweat! No talent! All “personal renderings.”) So it is for those who seek the devisive road; rather than listening to the Master and become one (a task that requires humility, hard labor, and loads of love) they want to copy the original Church (ransacking those items they consider important and rejecting all else) and reinvent her under their “personal renderings.”

---

Also I wanted to comment on the “Maratha tha” that used used in your signature. I believe Larry Hurtado and other bible scholars now think that phrase was the original “Come Lord Jesus” used within the first years of Christianity, most likely at the moment when the bread and wine were changed into Christ. Is that why you use it? Just curious.

God bless, Anne

---

I picked up that Aramaic phrase from my Biblia de Jerusalén–it’s an old Jerusalem Bible version, in Spanish, which comes loaded with concordance and notes. “Maran atha” is specifically found in 1 Corinthians 16:22.

The comment is as follows:
(Maran atha)
Aramaic words that had been introduced in the Liturgical Language; they expressed the hope in the Parousia. They meant: “The Lord is coming.” It could also be read as Marana tha: “Come, Lord!”, Apocalypse 22:20; Philippians 4:5; St. James 5:8;

Since Christmas is nearing I decided to use it as part of my closing!

Maran atha!

Angel***