You can't have it both ways.

[PRmerger]

It is good to pray for others but not to take credit for the outcome - I’ll thank God for the good parking place!

Well! That’s a little rude. If your mother were having surgery and your pastor said, “I’ll pray for her” you wouldn’t say, “Thank you so much!” You’d say, “Well, I’m not going to let you take credit for that. I’m going to thank God only.”

It’s a good thing Catholics get that most things aren’t either/or but both/and. We can thank each other for interceding for us, and thank God.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick… You said:

Quote:
I still don’t think you understand what I am saying. It isn’t that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus built it is simply one more denomination of the Church Jesus built. I say that because from the one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church.

Again, I think that I do; tell me if I am wrong, just in case I missed the boat? The bible, as opposed to any one denomination, comprising Jesus’ one church, is the Christians only source of divine knowledge, and the Christians only authority for resolving the differences that have cropped up or might crop up in the future? If I am wrong then please accept my apologies for there are a few different interpretations of sola scriptura.

When Jesus said, I will build my church, what He really meant was: I will build my church which will be comprised of many denominations? Again, I promise you that I mean no sarcasm; just attempting to understand clearly, what you mean, for I once use to share your proclivities regarding the bible alone belief.

Schaick, I agree with you: from one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church, but I am talking about the actual interpretation of a teaching stemming from the early church that is starkly and contrastively different from the interpretation of churches stemming from later churches, founded by man as opposed to God. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the founder of the CC then you are right and the interpretation of the CC cannot be trusted, and of course the same logic would apply to the rest of the non-Catholic churches, as well, which is the very reason why protestants rely solely on the word of God as their pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to any one church, which begs the question, why did Paul call the church the pillar and foundation of truth? I really do get the logic of the premise but the premise is terribly flawed, unless of course you can satisfactorily answer my question, a question to which I had no answer, as a former protestant. With that said, I ask again, if you don’t mind:

If in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, (or multiple applications, without actually changing, in its entirety, the interpretation of any one teaching) - - regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist, then please use the bible alone application as the Christians final authority to resolve our debate, once and for ALL, as to whether Jesus was speaking in metaphor or not, regarding the Eucharist?

The credibility of Sola Scriptura is not to be questioned, if in fact you can provide an answer to the preceding question that will be satisfactory to all Christians, regardless of denomination, as well as resolving all of the other differences that exist in Christianity, due to Sola Scriptura, if in fact the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, which of course it truly is! This teaching is critical to Christianity according to the bible.

Again, for the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC, (as well as all PC’s) - is not the church founded by God. Why would His established church, or any church for that matter (authoritatively speaking only) - even matter, if in fact, God left the world with His authoritative word to mold, shape and guide each and every Christian into all truth as opposed to varying degrees of truth or opposing truths? Let’s assume what most non-Catholics believe; let’s assume that Jesus left each and every Christian, regardless of denomination) - with ONLY His authoritative word, and the ability, via the guidance of the HS, in perpetuity, to authoritatively interpret His word. At this point in our discussion, there is no longer any need to mention any churches, regardless of denomination. Let us focus on the bible alone (SS) - as the Christians final means of accessing truth, regarding the Eucharist or any other teaching found in the Christians supposed sole source of divine knowledge and final authority regarding said sole source of divine knowledge!

Schaick, I think, leaving all churches, (regardless of denomination) - out of the discussion of sola scriptura, and the efficacy of SS, is good jumping off point from which to start considering the fact that the sloa scriptura claim is that sola scriptura is the Christians sole authority. :newidea:

 

[Dokimas]

I little levity is a good thing…

Disrespect is not funny, thus not a good answer to my question.

 

[Dokimas]

Hey Dokimas…

I eventually learned that the word catholic was the normal part of the vocabulary of a person living in the latter part of the 1st century, as attested by Polycarp, who lived from 69 AD to 155 AD: “When Polycarp had finished his prayer, after remembering everyone who had ever crossed his path—both small and great, high and low—and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world, the time came for him to leave. They set him on an *** and led him into the city…”

As far as I can tell the first extant reference to the “Catholic Church” occurs in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written in 107 AD we find the following statement:

*“Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *

This statement is quite compelling for several reasons. One reason is that the name “Catholic” used to designate Jesus’ Church was clearly not something new. He felt no need to explain or defend the name, which, in my mind, points to an earlier time for the beginning of the name Catholic. Another reason that this statement is interesting is that the man that first wrote that the Church was called “Catholic” was from Antioch, in the East as opposed to the west. It was also in Antioch that the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians.” see Acts 11:26 - One more reason why this statement from Ignatius is so compelling is that Jesus and the Catholic Church, according to Ignatius who was a disciple of the apostles, are united as one.

*“Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” *

In other words, Jesus is always found with the Catholic Church and this fulfills the words of our Lord, “Behold, I am with you always even until the end of the world! (Matthew 28:20)

Dokimas, is it your contention, as it was mine, as a former protestant, that the CC, very early on, deviated from authentic biblical Christianity, and simply invented a new word to identify their newly founded man-made church (and their new brand of Christianity) - which traversed the centuries along side the authentic biblical church founded by God?

The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’ as you know. In that sense, all true believers are part of the church that Jesus started and it’s all over the place as the Gospel spread throughtout the world - the universal (catholic) church. My question was when did ‘believers’ start calling themselves catholics? That’s different than saying, ‘I’m part of the universal (catholic) church’.

 

[Dokimas]

Those are man-made traditions, and if you believe, as you stated below, that “sticking to the written Word” is “safer” then you ought not participate in those man-made traditions not found in Scripture. For clearly there is no mention of wedding rings, brides wearing white, brides getting married barefoot and on a beach while the ponytailed minister reads a poem…

Let’s not get off tract.

There are man-made traditions that have NOTHING to do with being against God’s Word. You mentioned several of them. IMO, those traditions are NOT against the Bible, have nothing to do with godliness vs ungodliness so are not part of the Biblical warnings.

 

[Dokimas]

Well! That’s a little rude. If your mother were having surgery and your pastor said, “I’ll pray for her” you wouldn’t say, “Thank you so much!” You’d say, “Well, I’m not going to let you take credit for that. I’m going to thank God only.”

It’s a good thing Catholics get that most things aren’t either/or but both/and. We can thank each other for interceding for us, and thank God.

Come on!!!

I’ll bet GT was describing the difference betwee God that answers pray and us that prays. God gets the thanks, praise, worship or the answer and our friends get thanks for sharing the burden in prayer.

BTW, where’d you get ‘rude’?

 

[joe370]

The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal’ as you know. In that sense, all true believers are part of the church that Jesus started and it’s all over the place as the Gospel spread throughtout the world - the universal (catholic) church. **My question was when did ‘believers’ start calling themselves catholics? ** That’s different than saying, ‘I’m part of the universal (catholic) church’.

And I earnestly answered your question. These were Christians belonging to the CC as early as the latter part of the 1st century, even in the East. I am sure they called themselves Christians belonging to the CC. There were no protestant rivals so there was no need to use the term catholic to make a clear distinction between a catholic and a protestant. I can provide many ECF quotes using the word catholic and these people preceded the era of Constantine. This really surprised me as a former protestant, because I was always told that the CC was a product of Constantine in the 4th century.

Is it safe to say that you and I both belong to the same church, which was started by JC in the 1st century?

The first extant reference to the “Catholic Church” occurs in a letter written by Ignatius of Antioch. In his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, written in 107 AD we find the following statement:

“Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

You believe that all true believers,** belonging to different churches **(regardless of denomination, and when that particular denomination was founded) - belong to the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem, on Pentecost? In other words, the “true” believers belonging to the CC, the Baptist, church, the, Lutheran churches, the Pentecostal church, the Methodist church, the Presbyterian church, the non-denominational/Evangelical churches etc etc, all belong to the one church started by Jesus in the first century? Historically, that is inaccurate for I can give you the name of the person that started each and every church, and when, and his/her name is not Jesus and the place is not Jerusalem on Pentecost, and the time is not the 1st century. I agree that Christians, regardless of denomination, all comprise the Mystical Body of Christ, but His Body is now terribly fractured, with many points of demarcation. Jesus’ Mystical Body of which He is the head and savior, is now comprised of many isolated churches as opposed to just one church of “true” believers, or am I missing something?

 

[joe370]

Dokimas. perhaps you could address the following, which was originally directed to Schaick, when you get the chance.

Hey Schaick… You said:

Again, I think that I do; tell me if I am wrong, just in case I missed the boat? The bible, as opposed to any one denomination, comprising Jesus’ one church, is the Christians only source of divine knowledge, and the Christians only authority for resolving the differences that have cropped up or might crop up in the future? If I am wrong then please accept my apologies for there are a few different interpretations of sola scriptura.

When Jesus said, I will build my church, what He really meant was: I will build my church which will be comprised of many denominations? Again, I promise you that I mean no sarcasm; just attempting to understand clearly, what you mean, for I once use to share your proclivities regarding the bible alone belief.

Schaick, I agree with you: from one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church, but I am talking about the actual interpretation of a teaching stemming from the early church that is starkly and contrastively different from the interpretation of churches stemming from later churches, founded by man as opposed to God. Furthermore, if Jesus is not the founder of the CC then you are right and the interpretation of the CC cannot be trusted, and of course the same logic would apply to the rest of the non-Catholic churches, as well, which is the very reason why protestants rely solely on the word of God as their pillar and foundation of truth, as opposed to any one church, which begs the question, why did Paul call the church the pillar and foundation of truth? I really do get the logic of the premise but the premise is terribly flawed, unless of course you can satisfactorily answer my question, a question to which I had no answer, as a former protestant. With that said, I ask again, if you don’t mind:

If in fact there is only one truth leading to one application, (or multiple applications, without actually changing, in its entirety, the interpretation of any one teaching) - - regarding any one teaching, such as the Eucharist, then please use the bible alone application as the Christians final authority to resolve our debate, once and for ALL, as to whether Jesus was speaking in metaphor or not, regarding the Eucharist?

The credibility of Sola Scriptura is not to be questioned, if in fact you can provide an answer to the preceding question that will be satisfactory to all Christians, regardless of denomination, as well as resolving all of the other differences that exist in Christianity, due to Sola Scriptura, if in fact the bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God, which of course it truly is! This teaching is critical to Christianity according to the bible.

Again, for the remainder of our debate let’s assume that the CC, (as well as all PC’s) - is not the church founded by God. Why would His established church, or any church for that matter (authoritatively speaking only) - even matter, if in fact, God left the world with His authoritative word to mold, shape and guide each and every Christian into all truth as opposed to varying degrees of truth or opposing truths? Let’s assume what most non-Catholics believe; let’s assume that Jesus left each and every Christian, regardless of denomination) - with ONLY His authoritative word, and the ability, via the guidance of the HS, in perpetuity, to authoritatively interpret His word. At this point in our discussion, there is no longer any need to mention any churches, regardless of denomination. Let us focus on the bible alone (SS) - as the Christians final means of accessing truth, regarding the Eucharist or any other teaching found in the Christians supposed sole source of divine knowledge and final authority regarding said sole source of divine knowledge!

Schaick, I think, leaving all churches, (regardless of denomination) - out of the discussion of sola scriptura, and the efficacy of SS, is good jumping off point from which to start considering the fact that the sloa scriptura claim is that sola scriptura is the Christians sole authority. :newidea:

 

[Dokimas]

You believe that all true believers,** belonging to different churches **(regardless of denomination, and when that particular denomination was founded) - belong to the one church founded by Jesus circa AD 33 in Jerusalem, on Pentecost?

Incorrect.

We all belong to the Body of Christ which is the church Jesus founded. It’s name is not the name of any particular church or denomination. His church is not an organization but an organism. It’s alive.

 

[PRmerger]

Let’s not get off tract.

There are man-made traditions that have NOTHING to do with being against God’s Word. You mentioned several of them. IMO, those traditions are NOT against the Bible, have nothing to do with godliness vs ungodliness so are not part of the Biblical warnings.

Ok. But they are man-made traditions done in the context of a religious ritual by a minister invoking the name of God.

 

[joe370]

Incorrect.

We all belong to the Body of Christ which is the church Jesus founded. It’s name is not the name of any particular church or denomination. His church is not an organization but an organism. It’s alive.

Dok, we, as Christians, regardless of church affiliation, all belong to the Body of Christ which is comprised of** many isolated church(es) not just one big united church - correct? **

For example, Martin Luther is the founder of the Lutheran church and John Calvin is the founder of the Presbyterian church. Did Jesus start the Lutheran church or the Presbyterian church in the first century or the 16th century, or did ML start the Lutheran church and John Calvin the Presbyterian church? I really am trying to follow your logic! Of course I am not denying the fact that all churches, regardless of when it was founded and by whom, comprise the Mystical Body Of Jesus. It’s just that His Mystical Body has been fractured. The unity for which Jesus and his apostles prayed, has been compromised. I know of no one, belonging to one of the PC’s, that denies this historical fact. Actually, scratch that; there is a guy here named Josiah that shares your belief. I do believe, however, that Christianity is universal in the sense that we all believe that Jesus is our savior and that all believers have access to Christ, but this access, depending on the person, to Christ is achieved through more than just one big united church. For example, my niece has access to Jesus through one of the Lutheran churches; my dad, through one of the Evangelical churches in Arizona; my sister through the church of apostle Brown and myself through the CC. We are all guilty of placing our myopic glasses onto our faces to gain access to Christ, either through our own interpretation of the bible or through the interpretation of our respective church leaders/Pastors. Does that seem like a fair assessment?

You don’t believe that a church, regardless of denomination, is an organization?

 

[guanophore]

PS: I understand I’m out of my league here and probably shouldn’t be engaging in apolgetics at this point. I’m just a Catechumen. Sorry guys - I’ve always had a hard time keeping quiet. My fellow Catholics feel free to correct me if I’m making statements that contradict Catholic teaching. That’s what I’m here for, after all, to learn from other Catholics.

For what it’s worth, I think you are doing GREAT! As a Catechumen you already know miles more than most of the folks in the pew next to you on Sunday.

Besides, the Apostle tells us to “give an account of the hope that is within you”. That begins when the hope begins.

 

[guanophore]

Sola Scriptura:

Protestants take on the authority of TRADITION that the Holy Bible is the Word of God.

Why do they celebrate the feasts of Christmas and Easter?

What are some other practices Protestants take on Tradition?

Sunday worship, the hypostatic union, the Trinity, the creeds, the list goes on and on.

One would think that a doctrine as important as Sola Scriptura would be FOUND in the Scripture!?

 

[guanophore]

Good point.

The Bible speaks of two types of traditions: ones to follow and ones to avoid.

I think there is yet another category - ones that are ok to practice (need not be avoided) but that need not be followed, either. For example, Paul went to the synagogue in every town he visited “as was his custom”. This was a tradition that he followed. It does not mean we all must follow it.

 

[guanophore]

The problem for me is which tradition is directly from God’s people as they were inspired by God and which where man made no matter how good the intention.

IMO, it’s potentialy very dangerous to add to or subtract from the Gospel what’s not or what is intended by God. That’s why sticking to the written Word seems far safer.

Basically what you are saying is that God is too weak or disinterested to preserve His Word in the Church where He deposted it.

Or, perhaps you are saying that the shortcoming of man are stronger than the ability of God to preserve His Word?

 

[guanophore]

The problem for me is which tradition is directly from God’s people as they were inspired by God and which where man made no matter how good the intention.

IMO, it’s potentialy very dangerous to add to or subtract from the Gospel what’s not or what is intended by God. That’s why sticking to the written Word seems far safer.

I agree that it is potentially dangerous. That is why, when the Reformers decided to “subtract” the part of the Word of God that resides in the church, great concern resulted.

 

[guanophore]

It isn’t that the Catholic Church isn’t the Church that Jesus built it is simply one more denomination of the Church Jesus built. I say that because from the one interpretation has stemmed applications that differ from the ones in the earliest Church.

I understand what you are saying, it is just not accurate. The CC is not a “denomination”. To “denominate” means to take one’s name from, in this case, identity. All the ecclesial communities that denominated from the CC defined themselves by which part, and how much, of Catholic Teaching they departed from. The CC was the whole, from which they all denominated. That is why it is not “just one more denomination”. It is the Source from which all the others defined themselves.

Not only that, but the Apostles taught that we are to be of one mind, and one heart, preserving the ONE FAITH in truth. Therefore, it is improper to “stem applications” that depart from what the Apsotles believed and taught. This consittutes “a different gospel” which is to be rejected.

There are also extra applications stemming from?? that have been added to the Catholic experience.

Yes. But even more than “applications” their questioning of Catholic experience resulted in the development of alternative DOCTRINES that are a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.

There is one interpretation.

Jesus wanted all of us who accept HIM as our Saviour to be baptized.

There can be multiple applications.

Some baptize as adults, children, some dunk some sprinkle.

And some depart from the Apostolic Teaching on baptism, claiming that the baptism has nothing to do with water!

By the way, I know of no one that “sprinkles”, and this has never been a modality supported by the Apostolic teaching.

There have been people reading the Bible for the first time in foreign and hostile to Christianity countries that have been lead to Christ.

Every Catholic here will affirm the power of the Scriptures.

I have actually already discussed this on another thread:

Interpretation:

We are to partake in the Eucharist.

Eat both the bread and fruit of the vine in rembrance of Jesus.

HIS Blood is a New Covenant.

Spirit is life flesh is death and His flesh is the bread of life

Different aplications:

Body and Blood present in, under and with the Bread and Fruit of the Vine

Only partake of the Bread[Catholics now take both]

Bread and Wine transformed into Body and Blood of Christ.

Grape juice used in place of the Wine for the Fruit of the Vine.

Some believe the Bread and Wine are Jesus Spiritual Body and Blood- not to be confused with a symbolic flesh and blood.

Some believe it is human flesh and blood and divine flesh and blood.

Some say it is the ressurrected Body and Blood of Christ.

?? applications:

Merely symbolic*

Transported back to the original crucifixion.*

The problem is that these are not just different "applications " (a word I don’t find in Scripture either), but different DOCTRINES.

 

[guanophore]

All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.

If you believe this, why are you here at CAF?

 

[joe370]

Schaick or Dokimas…

Since the bible is a collection of books, like any other book, it needs an authoritative interpreter, and ultimately, interpreting scripture comes down to a question of authority and who has it, which means that anyone and everyone who does so is putting him/herself in a position of authority. It is no secret that the greatest obstacle to Christian unity is also the question of authority, regarding the interpretation of scripture.

Who, in this divisive world of Christianity, was entrusted with the God given authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, to interpret scripture infallibly? **I know it was NOT entrusted to me **or you or anyone else here at this thread. Of course we can interpret scripture, but ultimately, we were not entrusted with the divine mission via the guidance of the holy spirit, in perpetuity, to interpret scripture infallibly. Somebody was, otherwise some of the the doctrinal truths found within the pages of scripture cannot be known to all. For example, again, someone is 100% wrong about their interpretation of the Eucharist and someone is 100% right about their interpretation of the Eucharist, and the bible is of no help at all in settling this dispute, so help me find that person or people, in a position of authority, who can settle this dispute once and for all, and let’s assume for the time being that it is not the CC for the simple fact that every time I address this subject people **( not you guys) **- come back with some sort of dismissive remark about the CC which not only fails to address the question but changes the subject altogether.

Thanks guys…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Originally Posted by schaick
***All the information a person needs for their salvation is in the Holy Bible. ***Scripture is sufficient in telling us what is needed.

If you believe this, why are you here at CAF?

This is an excellent point **guanophore **because, if schaick were correct, then we would not need Churches, ministers, religious conferences, Christian books (other that the Bible) and posts from Protestant, “Bible-alone” Christians… you get the point. Using his argument here, makes what he says worthless, right? Because his comments are not in the Bible. According to this, all a person needs is his own mind and his Bible, a Catholic book. Christianity was based on a community, not individuals with a Bible. Incidentally, most Protestant denominations do not share this extreme view of Sola scriptura, especially the older denominations that do have churches, a liturgy, Sacraments, ministers and so on.