J
joe370
Guest
Hey Ben. Are you talking about the morning-after pill, or an actual abortion of a baby well into a woman’s pregnancy?
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
Blessings my friend. Everyone is entitled to opinions and can use Scripture or Tradition to support their views. However, here is where it differs and ends wthin the CC. Christ founded his Church and bestowed it with His full authority. It is the Church which defends and protects issues of faith and morality. The lay folks are not the ones who make such declarations.So, there is no debate among Catholics on this issue? Catholics are in lock-step?
How about on abortion. What percent of Catholics voted for Obama?
Over the last 1,000 years, how successful has sacred Tradition been in solving the Great. Schism? I guess Tradition has failed, too.
Jon
As for Sacred Tradition? Sacred Tradtion has not failed…it is the leadership,faithful and both the CC & EO.
N
Nicea325
Guest
JonNC:
But at whatt point in time and who decided Scripture was the sole rule and norm?
Who made such a declaration? Jesus? The 12 Apostles? The early church ecumenical councils?
But here is the argument to the bolded words:
But at whatt point in time and who decided Scripture was the sole rule and norm?
Who made such a declaration? Jesus? The 12 Apostles? The early church ecumenical councils?
J
joe370
Guest
Good question…
On this a truly agree. and I would further say this is the cause of our division as well.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
Hmmm… So, is it fair to say that sacred tradition can be trusted still, just as it was prior to the east - west schism, if in fact sacred tradition has not failed?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Of course. That is like blaming Sacred Scripture for the theological chaos that it out there. Indeed…Sacred Scripture is used to defend many positions, but scripture cannot contradict itself or was it ever intended to be interpreted for everyone’s own means. People make the mess…not Sacred means.
J
joe370
Guest
I think Jon would ask: which sacred tradition can still be trusted - catholic or eastern orthodox…
J
joe370
Guest
That is a really good point.
B
benjohnson
Guest
I see you started another thread! As I understand it, most states will require it.
J
joe370
Guest
P
Porknpie
Guest
If the EO and CC split is an issue, then lets go back to 1,000 ad and look at the one faith, One Church before the split. The One Church before the split believed in:
Baptism…is a sacrament
Confirmation…is a sacrament
The Eucharist…is a sacrament
Marraige…is a sacrament
Penance…is a sacrament
Annointing of the sick…is a sacrament
Holy Orders … Is a sacrament
What is a sacrament:
The traditional definition of a sacrament is this: “A sacrament is a visible sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.” Within this definition there are three important statements:
A visible sign
An action is performed by a minister (usually a priest).
For example, when a baby is baptized in the church the priest pours
water over its head and at the same time says the words “I baptize
you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That is a visible sign.
Instituted by Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ instructed His church to offer the seven
sacraments to His followers. For example, His directive to His
disciples in Matthew’s Gospel (28/19), “Go then, to all peoples
everywhere and make them my disciples; baptize them in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teach them to obey
everything I have commanded you.”
To give grace
Grace is God’s free gift of Himself as the controlling influence in
our life and the decisions we make once we have committed ourselves
to Him in faith.
It’s clear that the One Faith, passed on through the ages believed in the 7 sacraments. Why would one attend a Church today that did not believe in the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ?
Baptism…is a sacrament
Confirmation…is a sacrament
The Eucharist…is a sacrament
Marraige…is a sacrament
Penance…is a sacrament
Annointing of the sick…is a sacrament
Holy Orders … Is a sacrament
What is a sacrament:
The traditional definition of a sacrament is this: “A sacrament is a visible sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace.” Within this definition there are three important statements:
A visible sign
An action is performed by a minister (usually a priest).
For example, when a baby is baptized in the church the priest pours
water over its head and at the same time says the words “I baptize
you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”
That is a visible sign.
Instituted by Christ
The Lord Jesus Christ instructed His church to offer the seven
sacraments to His followers. For example, His directive to His
disciples in Matthew’s Gospel (28/19), “Go then, to all peoples
everywhere and make them my disciples; baptize them in the name
of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and teach them to obey
everything I have commanded you.”
To give grace
Grace is God’s free gift of Himself as the controlling influence in
our life and the decisions we make once we have committed ourselves
to Him in faith.
It’s clear that the One Faith, passed on through the ages believed in the 7 sacraments. Why would one attend a Church today that did not believe in the 7 sacraments instituted by Christ?
S
Simka
Guest
Why does the requirement for an objective interpretation invalidate sola scriptura? Do you understand what the doctrine means?
S
Simka
Guest
It seems to me that so much of this discussion is taking place without a reasonable understanding of what is – and what is not – contained within the doctrine of sola scriptura.
The doctrine states that “the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.” It does not mandate how one must extract that knowledge. It does not insist that a man must ignore authoritative teaching or interpretation. It does not say that “scripture is the sole rule and norm”.
Sola scriptura claims that only those doctrines that are found directly within the scriptures – or indirectly by using logical deduction and reasoning from scripture – are required for one’s salvation.
Sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. It simply requires that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God.
The alternative to sola scriptura is to allow the written word of God to be corrected by some other, higher authority.
C
CatholicKnight3
Guest
Well, from what I gather, protestants do not follow the Catholic church cause they do not believe in Church authority.
The justify that by stating their authority is SCRIPTURE.
What the Catholic Church actually does is VALIDATE THE WORD of God, by holding fast to the traditions as it is passed down.
Protestant churches claim they go by scripture alone, and yet there are so many crucial aspects of scripture that they reject. For example, the church is the pillar of truth. 1st Timothy 3:15.
The writings about the Eucharist are diminished. Grape juice? Really? Grape juice?
There are many aspects of sola scriptura that are shown to be invalid. Meaning, the church has final authority, where many protestant (if not all protestant churches) claim the bible as final authority. That is the issue.
S
Simka
Guest
Where in scripture does it state that for one to be saved, he must abhor juice and drink only wine in the Eucharist? I understand the details of the Last Supper, but do you insist that even a repentant alcoholic must not substitute juice, but must drink the wine, or he cannot be saved?
Remember, sola scriptura applies to the doctrine of Salvation.
In truth, very few Protestant churches follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It was a fundamental principle of reformers in the 16th century.
In the Episcopal Church of the USA, there are leaders who teach that the Bible is an interesting historical document which details how an ancient people related to God as they understood him. They give it no relevance for today. Others say, “We wrote the Bible, and we can re-write it.” In other words, Scripture has no authority.
If I understand you correctly, you would have the Catholic Church assume authority for correcting mistakes in the written Word of God, rather than being corrected by it. Please tell me this is not what you mean.
P
Porknpie
Guest
I would change this and say
“In truth, NO Protestant churches follow the doctrine of Sola Scriptura” … as Sola Scriptura itself is a tradition, not found in the bible.
S
Simka
Guest
I beg to differ. The Presbyterian congregation of which I am currently a member adheres to the teaching (i.e. “doctrine”) that “the Bible contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness.”
P
PRmerger
Guest
But your doctrine is self-refuting. The Bible does not contain the canon of Scripture. That comes from Tradition.
Therefore, you are not following your own doctrine by giving submission to the Sacred Tradition which gave you the canon of the NT
- Status