P
Protector
Guest
Now, just so that I am understanding this correctly, are you saying that not all of Catholic Doctrine is based on the Word of God and cannot therefore be called, Bible Doctrine?
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Have you forgotten that in the post of YOURS to which PR replied above, you YOURSELF used the term 'extra ecclesiam nulla salis? (EENS)Thank you PR, I will.
Oh, just for the benefit of the uninitiated, would you please explain what EENS means, and what it entails. Otherwise they may be forced to stab at a guess, e.g. Every Evening Near Sunset.
Protector.
Once a term has been used in speech/writing, an abbreviation of the term can be used subsequently, as PR did.
YOU used the term, PR used the abbreviation. Surely since you raised the issue (with term) in your original post, your notation of PR’s remark to clear up the ‘confusion’ would make quite clear what ‘EENS’ was, would it not?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
All of Catholic doctrine is based not ONLY on the written word of God, but ALSO on the revealed truth from God (through both Sacred Tradition and the Magsterium, which Scripture told us that the Holy Spirit would 'lead us to).Now, just so that I am understanding this correctly, are you saying that not all of Catholic Doctrine is based on the Word of God and cannot therefore be called, Bible Doctrine?
Any Catholic doctrine not found explicitly or implicitly in the written word (which itself never claims to be the complete and only repository of all Christian teaching alone) will never contradict the written word.
Can you show us any Catholic doctrine (not ‘discipline’) which directly contradicts (in context) the written word of God?
P
Protector
Guest
What are these verses to which I have adder the word, “directly” ?
Thank you for that PR. I don’t think that even “Windows for Dummies” has that one!
I have NOT added anything to Scripture PR. What I said was,
This is quite plain if you read the Lord’s Prayer - Jesus is telling the disciples how to pray, He says, “Our Father who art in Heaven…,forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us…”. Is that not confessing our sins directly to God.
Even “Blind Freddy” could see that your statement is untrue!
Protector.
po18guy
Well-known member
First of all the Word of God is Jesus Christ, not merely the bible (John 1:1-4, John 1:14). Jesus Christ is living and cannot be contained between the covers of a man-made book, no matter how inspired its words may be. Rather, let’s reverse this and say that the bible came from, and is part of Catholic doctrine. Nowhere is it written that the bible is God’s only method of revelation to man, or that all of God’s revelation is contained in the bible. Quite the opposite is the case. The first council in Acts 15 gives evidence that doctrine is not derived from scripture, but rather, doctrine produces scripture. Yet, doctrine cannot be restricted to what is contained in the scriptures, because questions arise, as in Acts 15, that were not answered by scripture. The existing scriptures gave Paul no clue as to how to answer the question on circumcision. Church authority determined the doctrine, and was later reduced to writing, which was later also determined to be scripture. Church authority is the key.Now, just so that I am understanding this correctly, are you saying that not all of Catholic Doctrine is based on the Word of God and cannot therefore be called, Bible Doctrine?
po18guy
Well-known member
Jesus taught the Lord’s prayer before He gave the Apostles power to forgive sin or hold it bound. However, that has not negated, in any way, the power of the Lord’s prayer. Other scriptures teach of the normal requirement of confessing to someone with authority over sin (2 Corinthians, the Epistle of James, etc.). Public confession was an OT practice (Nehemiah 9:2-3).
The thread title is misleading. Catholics may confess directly to God, in a state of perfect contrition. However, confessing to a Priest or Bishop with God-given authority over sin is the normative means of reconciliation. In the normative means, we hear the words of absolution, just as Christ spoke, out loud, to sinners ears (Mark2:5, Luke 5:20, 7:48). Have you ever heard those words?
Just as confession to a Priest the normative means of justification, so also is water baptism the normative means of initial justification. The repentant thief on the cross was justified without water. But, that was the exception and not the norm.
P
Protector
Guest
Originally Posted by Protector:
Before I joined the Forum I had no idea what ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salis’ meant. So, being of average intelligence myself I have no doubt millions of other people, similarly endowed would have no idea either. So it was, as I said, for their benefit. Furthermore, I think that you will agree, that …“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” John 6:60
However, it is significant in light of the recent "heart-to-heart chat from Pope Francis (via video link possibly) to a meeting of Ministers of Religion of many denominations,
Protector.
No! I have not forgotten, but then my request was not for my benefit,
Before I joined the Forum I had no idea what ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salis’ meant. So, being of average intelligence myself I have no doubt millions of other people, similarly endowed would have no idea either. So it was, as I said, for their benefit. Furthermore, I think that you will agree, that …“This saying is hard, and who can hear it?” John 6:60
However, it is significant in light of the recent "heart-to-heart chat from Pope Francis (via video link possibly) to a meeting of Ministers of Religion of many denominations,
in as much as people must be fully informed what it will mean if they accept the Pope’s invitation to embrace their long lost brother (Joseph) in Egypt, (I think that that was the analogy the Pope was using)
Fair comment Tantum ergo, but as I said my request was for the benefit of others who might not have read the original post.
Protector.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Protector. Using the Our Father prayer as evidence for confessing your sins directly to God is irrelevant.
Aside from the fact that your theory ignores “binding” (not just loosing); I have already said Catholics have no problem going (in Christ) directly to God. We call that an “examination of conscience.” We already do this.
But then we obey Jesus and go to the Priest.
They went directly to God in the Old Testament too (think King David repenting). But then they obeyed and went to the Priest.
You assert Confession is an optional item.
I am asking for evidence of such an assertion. So far I have seen none.
Aside from the fact that your theory ignores “binding” (not just loosing); I have already said Catholics have no problem going (in Christ) directly to God. We call that an “examination of conscience.” We already do this.
But then we obey Jesus and go to the Priest.
They went directly to God in the Old Testament too (think King David repenting). But then they obeyed and went to the Priest.
You assert Confession is an optional item.
I am asking for evidence of such an assertion. So far I have seen none.
F
ffg
Guest
Confession for a lot of folks seems optional.
I think the original teaching for a lot of people was not focused on the grace received, but rather on the cleanse.
The cleansing is an immediate outcome.
The grace is a gift with a future outcome, be it strength to stay away from sin later, or other blessings.
Who doesn’t want grace?
I think the original teaching for a lot of people was not focused on the grace received, but rather on the cleanse.
The cleansing is an immediate outcome.
The grace is a gift with a future outcome, be it strength to stay away from sin later, or other blessings.
Who doesn’t want grace?
G
Gorgias
Guest
Fair enough. Yet, neither of these identify the means by which sins are forgiven. In the Lord’s Prayer, we beg forgiveness that is identical to the way we forgive others. In 1 John 1:9, we are informed that our forgiveness proceeds via our acknowledgement of the fact that we are sinful. Neither says how forgiveness happens… except in John 20:23, in which Jesus directly tells us that forgiveness happens through the absolution of one to whom He has given the right to forgive sins.
To be fair, you only said this after we pointed out that your Scriptural basis for your claim was deficient. Nevertheless, let’s address your assertion vis-a-vis the CCC:
Umm… pardon? Because this specific paragraph – which is the ‘thesis statement’ about prayer, as it were, in the very beginning of the section on prayer – doesn’t specifically mention confession, therefore your assertions hold? I have to admit, that’s probably one of the worst-thought-out arguments that I’ve ever heard! But, since you want to find a place in the ‘Prayer’ section of the catechism that deals with forgiveness of sins, I point you to paragraph 2839 (which, as it turns out, is discussing precisely your previous point – the Lord’s Prayer!): “Our petition begins with a ‘confession’ of our wretchedness and his mercy. Our hope is firm because, in his Son, ‘we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.’ We find the efficacious and undoubted sign of his forgiveness in the sacraments of his Church.”
So, there you have it: your assertion that a detailed exegesis on confession in #2664 implies that your case holds is simply indefensible; moreover, when the CCC does discuss the relationship between prayer and forgiveness, it does so in the context of sacramental forgiveness. Therefore, your case simply doesn’t hold water.
With respect to James 5, you’re still getting it backwards, and using that misinterpretation to fuel your assertion that the prayers of the faithful bring forgiveness of sins! It’s not that the forgiveness of sins proceeds from the prayer of the faithful – James is very clear that it is the prayer of the elders of the Church that brings deliverance and forgiveness (5:15)! The discussion of what the prayer of the faithful does (5:16) mentions only healing, not forgiveness!
Yes, it does! The prayers of the presbyterate are what bring forgiveness; the prayers of the faithful, on the other hand, bring healing! Thanks for helping us make that clear!
S
steve_b
Guest
M
MacQ
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waivering View Post
So are you saying that Jesus found the Catholic Faith to be first and the only fait. All other faiths are divided from Catholics therefore, are not recognized by God?
The Church does not teach that other faiths are not recognized by God.
Originally Posted by Waivering View Post
So are you saying that Jesus found the Catholic Faith to be first and the only fait. All other faiths are divided from Catholics therefore, are not recognized by God?
Steve: That’s overstepping it a bit, I reckon.
The Church does not teach that other faiths are not recognized by God.
po18guy
Well-known member
Quite right. All who confess Christ as part of an eternal and triune God, and are validly baptized are members of the One Church - just in an imperfect communion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waivering View Post
So are you saying that Jesus found the Catholic Faith to be first and the only fait. All other faiths are divided from Catholics therefore, are not recognized by God?
Steve: That’s overstepping it a bit, I reckon.
The Church does not teach that other faiths are not recognized by God.
S
steve_b
Guest
I meant to cross out that part before sending -] therefore are not recognized by God /-]Quote:
Originally Posted by Waivering View Post
So are you saying that Jesus found the Catholic Faith to be first and the only fait. All other faiths are divided from Catholics therefore, are not recognized by God?
Steve: That’s overstepping it a bit, I reckon.
The Church does not teach that other faiths are not recognized by God.
S
steve_b
Guest
members and imperfect communion, is a confusing statement.
S
steve_b
Guest
If they are members of the Church they are entitled to be called Catholic, and have all the sacraments of the Church available to them…true?.
S
seaton2005
Guest
What! You are so wrong.
po18guy
Well-known member
Please take the time to read and reflect on it.
- Status