Who Has Authority?

[ALLFORHIM]

John 6:56-57 seems very

plain, to me. Of course it makes sense to you. I should have been more clear-sorry. Where in the bible does it say the Jesus’s blood is the Holy Spirit? Isnt the HS part of the Trinity? Jesus’s blood was the sacrifice for our sins.
Your statement is confusing. Im sure you just mixed up your words.

Yes, that’s how we get into the Church. The first Sacrament of Initiation is Baptism: the person receives the anointing for learning (the “ephatha” blessing of the opening of eyes, ears and mouth) and is cleansed from all their sins, thus opening the way for the Holy Spirit to work in that person’s life.

I can somewhat understand what you are saying here, but it also seems alot like works. It seems to be somehow tying a person into having to do something to get something–Grace. Sounds an awful lot like faith+ works, but the catholics here tell me the CC does not teach that so then what

 

[artist3189]

I can somewhat understand what you are saying here, but it also seems alot like works. It seems to be somehow tying a person into having to do something to get something–Grace. Sounds an awful lot like faith+ works, but the catholics here tell me the CC does not teach that so then what

It is faith and works, if someone tells you that it is not, then they are confused. They are one and the same. It is not , faith alone, or works alone, but both, one proceeds from the other. We are saved by Grace, something* we cannot* merit on our own, but it is incumbent on us, in professing faith to manifest this faith through good work, they go together and can not be separated.

 

[artist3189]

I can somewhat understand what you are saying here, but it also seems alot like works. It seems to be somehow tying a person into having to do something to get something–Grace. Sounds an awful lot like faith+ works, but the catholics here tell me the CC does not teach that so then what

Hi ALLFORHIM. Just one quick question. What is you religious affiliation, if I can ask and what is their or your, teaching on the Holy Trinity and what it is. I’m curious about this… Thanks

 

[MariaG]

Anyone else having trouble viewing this thread or is it just my computer that is sick?

I can’t access and see posts #490-500. 500 posts

 

[jmcrae]

I can somewhat understand what you are saying here, but it also seems alot like works. It seems to be somehow tying a person into having to do something to get something–Grace. Sounds an awful lot like faith+ works, but the catholics here tell me the CC does not teach that so then what

St. James says, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” James 2:26

 

[Blue_Serenity]

There is a similar thread going on in the Apologetics forum “How Can Protestants Be Sure?” and Contarini said it nicely regarding scripture and its interpretation:

Contarini:

If you mean that I cannot be certain of opening to any passage in Scripture and knowing exactly what it means, then of course I can’t. That would be an irrelevant argument, since Catholicism doesn’t demand or offer such certainty either.

The question is a bogus one, because it assumes that we are supposed to be able to interpret every single passage in Scripture with absolute certainty.

To add to that, we can’t understand Scripture without studying it and praying for the ability to understand. It was written under the guidance of the HS so in order to understand what is being said, we must pray for guidance from the HS. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

St. James says, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” James 2:26

Indeed but where does it say that we are saved by works?

 

[RNRobert]

Anyone else having trouble viewing this thread or is it just my computer that is sick?

I can’t access and see posts #490-500. 500 posts

Probably a technical glitch. I have that happen sometimes too.

Yeah, 500 posts. Didn’t think this thread would be that long when I posted it.

 

[MariaG]

Indeed but where does it say that we are saved by works?

And where in the Catholic teachings does it say this or even on this thread imply it?

I think, part of the misunderstanding stem from the definitions the Catholic Church uses.

From scripture in James, we can see that people can have faith, ie intellectual assent, but not be really saved. According to the definitions the Catholic church has used based on scripture, we can never be saved by faith alone as per James.

However,

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

There is a nice article on this by James Akin, Justification by Faith Alone that explains the difference in words and defines hope and charity. It may be that we are just talking past each other here.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[artist3189]

Indeed but where does it say that we are saved by works?

You need both, it’s faith and works…but note, the Church does not say we are SAVED by works, nor faith but by GRACE, which is NOT meritted by any actions we can take, but a free flowing gift from GOD… and with this Grace, we are incumbent on having faith AND doing works, which naturally must proceed from faith. Christ commanded as such and by his example and by the words of the Apostles. A Protestant misconception, and some times repeated wrong on purpose, is to CLAIM Catholics believe they are SAVED by works, and no where, and I repeat, no where was this EVER stated, EVER, NEVER, and if someone takes the time to read the Catechism to see what the Church really teaches, they would save a lot of time!

 

[sterryfamily]

There is a similar thread going on in the Apologetics forum “How Can Protestants Be Sure?” and Contarini said it nicely regarding scripture and its interpretation:

To add to that, we can’t understand Scripture without studying it and praying for the ability to understand. It was written under the guidance of the HS so in order to understand what is being said, we must pray for guidance from the HS. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

The Church doesn’t make definitive statements on every passage of Scripture and, in fact, allows for multiple understandings of some. But you are begging the question, here…

The issue is this; When the Church defines a doctrine and/or tells us specifically how to interpret certain passages and then someone comes along and disagrees with it - whom do you believe? Whom did Christ promise His eternal protection and guidance to, every Bible-totin’ Tom, Dick and Harry, or the Church He promised us?

When given conflicting interpretations of Scripture, everyone will tell you they were guided by the Holy Spirit. This is clearly not the case. And, if you look into the beliefs of the early Christians, it is clear that the apostles taught them that it is His Church that is protected by the Spirit and we are to follow her.

Just like in the Old Testament covenants, God left us leaders. Leaders with His authority. “Anything you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven”.

 

[RNRobert]

Indeed but where does it say that we are saved by works?

MariaG gave a good answer, but also read Matthew 25, especially the parable of the sheep and goats- Jesus makes it abundantly clear that salvation or damnation is based on what we do or don’t do.

You know, I used to attend a Baptist Church, listened to Evangelical radio programs, read Evangelical literature, and they all said faith alone was all that was needed. No need for good works, salvation is simply a matter of “believing in Jesus.”
However, being a good Protestant, I read my Bible, and what I read did not square with what I was being taught. For starters, there was James 2:24 which clearly stated faith without works was dead (no wonder Martin Luther hated that book). And then, there were the words of Jesus himself, probably some of the scariest words in the New Testament. He said that not everyone one who said “Lord, Lord,” will enter the kingdom of heaven. The parables of the talents and of the sheep and the goats in Matt. 25 demonstrates that our salvation is in fact based on our works. Even St Paul, whom Protestants cherry pick to bolster sola fide, declared the need to “prove one’s repentence by one’s deeds” (Acts 26:20) and that those who neglected their families were "worse than infidels (1 Tim 5:8).
This was one of the reasons I rejected Protestantism: Catholic teaching, when properly understood, is more Biblical.

 

[artist3189]

Those men were inspired by the HS and instructed by God to do so.
Why do you want to know my religious affiliation? Is “follower of Christ” not enough?

And my response to that is, they still are, and they are called the Magesterium! And I was just curious, your answer certainly IS enough, thanks!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

You need both, it’s faith and works…but note, the Church does not say we are SAVED by works, nor faith but by GRACE, which is NOT meritted by any actions we can take, but a free flowing gift from GOD… and with this Grace, we are incumbent on having faith AND doing works, which naturally must proceed from faith. Christ commanded as such and by his example and by the words of the Apostles. A Protestant misconception, and some times repeated wrong on purpose, is to CLAIM Catholics believe they are SAVED by works, and no where, and I repeat, no where was this EVER stated, EVER, NEVER, and if someone takes the time to read the Catechism to see what the Church really teaches, they would save a lot of time!

Hi,
Thank you for explaining the faith and works the way you did. There are many catholics here who say opposite. I guess they need to read their catechism:thumbsup:

BTW I go to a non-denom church we believe in the Trinity the way you do/the CC.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

St. James says, “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.” James 2:26

Hi,
Do you believe what post #508?

 

[artist3189]

Hi,
Thank you for explaining the faith and works the way you did. There are many catholics here who say opposite. I guess they need to read their catechism:thumbsup:

BTW I go to a non-denom church we believe in the Trinity the way you do/the CC.

I guess the one thing I’d say is, you asked someone before, your quote “*HUH?Where does it say that in the bible?” *And I’d answer that with, where are the words or concept of the “Trinity” in the bible and…we know it’s not. That was a theological *concept *understood, from very early on, and then professed and made a Doctrine of the Church after many battles with different heresies. You accept that, but it’s not in the bible, but is a RCC Doctrine handed down. NOW, NOT THAT I THINK YOUR CHURCH SHOULD THROW IT OUT, NOW THAT I’VE SAID THAT!!! but just something to help you, as a non-Catholic, understand when we talk about certain theologies that aren’t word for word from scripture. But ARE scriptural in nature. The instructing and teaching did not end with Christ’s Ascension, nor did it end with the last word written in the last book of the New Testament as ‘Scripture Only’ proponents believe. It continued, through the Holy Spirit, then, in the 1st and 2nd century, and still does, now in the Church. If you can see that understanding, in relation to your belief of the Trinity, then that helps you see where we are coming from…and then later on, we’ll bring you home!

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I guess the one thing I’d say is, you asked someone before, your quote “*HUH?Where does it say that in the bible?” *And I’d answer that with, where are the words or concept of the “Trinity” in the bible and…we know it’s not. That was a theological *concept *understood, from very early on, and then professed and made a Doctrine of the Church after many battles with different heresies. You accept that, but it’s not in the bible, but is a RCC Doctrine handed down. NOW, NOT THAT I THINK YOUR CHURCH SHOULD THROW IT OUT, NOW THAT I’VE SAID THAT!!! but just something to help you, as a non-Catholic, understand when we talk about certain theologies that aren’t word for word from scripture. But ARE scriptural in nature. The instructing and teaching did not end with Christ’s Ascension, nor did it end with the last word written in the last book of the New Testament as ‘Scripture Only’ proponents believe. It continued, through the Holy Spirit, then, in the 1st and 2nd century, and still does, now in the Church. If you can see that understanding, in relation to your belief of the Trinity, then that helps you see where we are coming from…and then later on, we’ll bring you home!

Thank you and I do understand where catholics are coming from(thanks to you guys here) I do believe in most everything you said. I dont even have a problem with tradition . This is my question:

Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture?

 

[RNRobert]

AllForHim, Blue Serenity,

I have a question for you that is relevant since as the OP I asked about authority. You claim to follow the Bible as your sole rule of faith. How do you know for a fact that your Bible is in fact, *the *Bible? I’m not talking about the Old Testament since that was already in existence at the time of Jesus, but referring specifically to the New Testament. Jesus himself never wrote a word of the NT, and the church was in existence for years before any of the sacred writers set pen to paper. Even when they did, they were not writing for the entire Church but for a selected community. After the deaths of the Apostles their writings were collected and circulated and used during Church services. However, there was dispute on which book should could be inspired and which should not, and this process took a couple hundred years.
So, how do you know that there should be 27 books in the New Testament, not 25 or 30? How do you know that the books that make up the New Testament are supposed to be there? Perhaps one of the books isn’t really inspired (for instance, there’s nothing in Philemon in 3 John that really jumps out at me as being inspired), or perhaps there was an inspired book that was left out. Who had authority to set the New Testament canon?

 

[artist3189]

Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture?

This is a great question and one I don’t know if a bunch of us Catholic know-it-alls on his site, well, know…There’s big ‘T’ and little ‘t’. If it’s Tradition, as in “Teaching Tradition” handed down by the Church through history, now I have to be careful here as how to word this, then yes. If the Church looks at Tradition in a theological sense, and deems it, binding as Doctrine, then yes, and it would necessarily HAVE to be Scriptural in nature. There are traditions, such as liturgical ones, prayer and devotional ones, Saints, etc. No one is bound, to pray certain prayers(except at Mass!!), or pray to Saints, we be believe them to be in heaven, in Communion with us, the Church on earth, but we are not bound to acknowledge them, that is private pious devotion, same goes with private revelations such as Fatima. Catholics are not bound to acknowledge Fatima with prayers or anything else, the Church states and acknowledges that the EVENT was REAL, TRUE and from GOD, and if you CHOOSE to ask Mary for her prayers under the title of ‘Our Lady of Fatima’, as a pious devotion, then do so, but we are not bound to it. Then we have Doctrines, with some scriptural nature but are Revelations through the Church, by way of understanding of certain things, like Immaculate Conception, which is Dogma, to be accepted by all Catholics. This obviously, is not STRICTLY spelled out in Scripture but is supported by Tradition, Theological understanding and with a Scriptural connection. Long answer and I’m not sure it was what you needed.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

AllForHim, Blue Serenity,

I have a question for you that is relevant since as the OP I asked about authority. You claim to follow the Bible as your sole rule of faith. How do you know for a fact that your Bible is in fact, *the *Bible? I’m not talking about the Old Testament since that was already in existence at the time of Jesus, but referring specifically to the New Testament. Jesus himself never wrote a word of the NT, and the church was in existence for years before any of the sacred writers set pen to paper. Even when they did, they were not writing for the entire Church but for a selected community. After the deaths of the Apostles their writings were collected and circulated and used during Church services. However, there was dispute on which book should could be inspired and which should not, and this process took a couple hundred years.
So, how do you know that there should be 27 books in the New Testament, not 25 or 30? How do you know that the books that make up the New Testament are supposed to be there? Perhaps one of the books isn’t really inspired (for instance, there’s nothing in Philemon in 3 John that really jumps out at me as being inspired), or perhaps there was an inspired book that was left out. Who had authority to set the New Testament canon?

God had the authority and He made sure the church put it together the way He intended.

Faith carries me through the rest of your question.