In the RCC catechism it says that the teachings must be followed and should not be questioned and if you disagree with a teaching it is up to you to change your opinion.
Please cite the Church document that says this, esp. the “should not be questioned” part.
Definitely. At some point between the writing of the Gospel of Luke, and Ignatius in 107, the descriptor “catholic” that was used to describe the One, Holy, and Apostolic Church, passed from being a modifier into a proper noun.
You see it this way, but obviously other Christians of sincere faith see it differently. There is a Reformed Christian on here (and not the only one I have experienced here) that is pursuaded that Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels are not directed toward Gentile Christians, but are for the Jews only. I have been told that these teachings of Jesus “do not apply to me”. So, it is not a matter of what is contained in scripture, but a matter of how that information is applied. If scripture alone “is enough”, then there would not be these divergent ideas among Christians about what it means, and how it applies.
You see this in scripture because you read it through the lenses of the doctrine you have already received. Others, who reject the teachings of the Apostles on Trinity, understand it differently.
This promise was made to the Church. Individuals can only benefit from it to the extent they are in unity with the Church.
This is a very important point, Doki. Yes, we all have the HS, if we have been sealed by Him. Yet, our spiritual perceptions and abilities are indeed hampered by self, sin, levels of learning and levels of understanding. To prevent distortion, God gave the HS to the Church to preserve His Word in her, so that those who recieve her teachings can be confident that they will not go astray. Whenever individual perceptions fall short, the Church provides the clarity of Truth.
Agreed but irrelevant to my statement.
I agrree, a church is a group of people assembling together to worship. Do you believe that Jesus will set up His Kingdom, here on earth, when He returns?
Exactly, and Jesus’ Mystical Body is the Church, ergo the church is Jesus’ temporal kingdom on earth, comprised of both weeds and wheat!
This was very true in the beginning, but today each believer is part of a local church, often isolated from other churches, doctrinally speaking as well as nominally speaking, and yes, I agree with you that all of these isolated autonomous churches comprise the Mystical body of Christ, which makes Jesus’ Mystical Body fractured, which was not the case for the first 1000 years of Christianity. In the future, someone will start another church and that church will be isolated from all of the previous churches. For example, the Lutheran church and the Methodist church and one of the Evangelical churches are all separate churches, nominally speaking, often isolated, doctrinally speaking, and in no way to they claim to belong to the same church. My dad and my sister would never claim to belong to the same church or to the church to which I belong.
Exactly! Of course, new churches didn’t start springing up until the reformation. Prior to that there were only 2 churches, nominally speaking and doctrinally speaking, with the exception of some of the break away church in the East. Surely you will agree that there can only be one truth regarding any one teaching, found in the bible, and that the Holy spirit will never guide people, regardless of denomination, into conflicting truths? For example, the HS will not guide the Lutheran church to believe one thing about the Eucharist, and one of the Evangelical churches to believe the polar opposite - right? So, clearly these churches, all churches, are not united or connected through the holy spirit, nominally speaking, or when it comes to doctrinal truth in many respects.
Sorry, I don’t know who “they” are! Jesus founded one visible church, which was to remain united, as per the bible, and now that visible church is nowhere to be found due to corruption, according to your logic. Now, according to you, there is just one invisible universal church which has no unity in structure or doctrine. Faith that Jesus Christ died for our sins is the only thing that binds this invisible, universal church. This is not the unity for which Jesus and the apostles prayed. According to your logic, no one church leadership, can authoritatively claim to tell anyone else what truth is, regarding any one teaching. This task is is left in the capable hands of each and every Christian such as yourself and other SS advocates, imparting what they/you believe to be truth, and believing that you are right, for the simple fact that the Holy spirit is guiding you, according to your own words, which is basically the hallmark of sola scriptura via individual interpretation, so why should I give any one church my loyalty if in fact you are correct? My loyalty should be to the bible alone via my authoritative interpretation - right??? If so, is this biblical? If one can figure it all out for oneself, then why would one need a Church, other then to worship God with others, and why would Paul, say what he said in Hebrews 13:17? He should have told them to defer to the bible as their one and only authority.
Just as this is important to each and every isolated, autonomous PC, it is important to the isolated autonomous CC.
To the CC, the PC’s have diluted the Gospel and shifted the focus away from being Jesus centered by introducing other doctrines not confirmed by Scripture. This tactic gets us nowhere fast.
Quite the contrary. Paul, in Hebrews, tells us to obey and submit to the authority of the church leadership: “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”
I understand that you believe that the CC teaches heretically and is to be avoided, so please recommend a church, in the world today, that you do trust to teach authoritatively?
Firstly, I agree that the foundation of salvation, eternal life by the Grace of God is found through Jesus Christ by faith and not by my works via the Gospel, and no, my interpretation of salvation does not require Jesus plus many other things to be saved; we are saved by JC only. Of course you go ahead and believe what you want to believe about the CC; many do.
This is why it is so important to recognize that Jesus identifies Himself entirely with His Holy Bride, the Church. She is infallible because He is her Head, and the Holy Spirit is her Soul.
Because it is the Word of God, and it goes forth to accomplish that for which He has sent it. Catholics believe that God is able to preserve His Word, no matter where He puts it - tablets, parchments, and the hearts of man. Those who reject sacred tradition seem to perceive the failings of man as stronger than God, since they don’t believe He is able to preserve HIs Word where He placed it in the Church.
Yes, you have. The entire NT is a product of Sacred Tradition, so you read it every day!
Yes, I think this is one of the major shortcomings of catechesis in the Catholic Church.
I am sure it seems like that to you, but you must keep in mind that the context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. It cannot be properly understood outside of that context.
Scripture actually says quite a bit more than this about the role of the Church.
This is a bit disingenuous, don’t you think? Of course the sinners prayer is a work. It is an act of obedience, and one of the “works of God” that have been prepared for us before the beginning of time.
Yes, but the Apostles taught that to believe in Jesus was to believe in all that He did and taught, and all of His commandments. It is not “Jesus plus something else” but all that is included in “Jesus”.
That is true. I am a perfect example of that fact. I, once, would have agreed with a lot of what you are saying, but my opinions have changed as I grew spiritually, but doctrinal truth does not change; it remains the same regardless of personal opinion, and that doctrinal truth is safeguarded in Jesus’ church, by the Holy spirit, forever guiding His church into all truth. It can develop but it cannot change otherwise the truth has been altered. This is what happened when people, 1500 years after Jesus walked the earth, started altering the truth regarding things like the real presence.
In other words, if my opinion aligns with your interpretation of scripture. We all as Christians, receive the HS, but the HS was sent to Jesus’ church and in a special, singular way, the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, as opposed to guiding each and every Christian, regardless of denomination, into all truth. For along time I refused to believe this, but no longer. It’s the only thing that makes since in a world of confusion regarding doctrinal truth.
These were your exact words: “No other person or church will stand before God and me…” I think I will choose Christ and stand on His merits, who is teaching through His established church and will do so until the end of time.
You are your own authority when it comes to doctrinal truth, and that is what I meant when I said: you have moxie, which I of course lack. I know that I was not entrusted with the authority to infallibly interpret scripture. Of course most protestants insist that no one can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God. If that is the case then the infallible word of God certainly loses its credibility, if it cannot be infallibly discerned - right???
Are you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote? Or do you really believe that all of God’s Word is confined to the Scriptures?
I agree, it is not rocket science. One can easily understand the Scriptures if they are read within their context, which is the Catholic Church.
And would that include understanding it according to the faith of those who wrote it? They were Catholics, writing to other Catholics about Catholicism.
Absolutely. We believe that the public revelation of God about Himself was completed at the death of the last Apostle. At that time, the complete deposit of faith was committed once for all to the Church.
Before the canon was closed in 382, over 400 written works were examined by the Church in the light of Sacred Tradition. Of those, 27 were included in the NT.
Guanophore, that is a good way to put it.
I think the best evidence of this is the multitude of denominations. Sacred Tradition is what preserves the unity of the faith. Without it, splintering and factions result.
No, because there is only ONE CHURCH in the NT, and it teaches ONLY TRUTH. There are individuals who taught and espoused error, and there were believers who individually and communally fell into error, but the Church CANNOT teach error. This is what the gift of infallibility is about. It does not prevent people from falling into error. It only prevents the Church from teaching error. That is because teaching error causes the sheep to pass through the gates of hell. When Jesus made HIs promise to the Church that the HS would lead them into all Truth, He meant what He said. He does not lead people into error.
It is spiritually a fact that we are born again, saved. Many scriptures say we are saved, in almost every letter that can be found. We are born again now and when we die we are saved from our flesh where sin resides.
“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw” 1Cor3:11-12And how can adultery be a work that builds upon that foundation?
Really? Besides all of Scripture that declares Jesus sinless, Paul says in Rom 8:3 “For what the law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh.” Paul is stating here that while Jesus had flesh, it was not sinful flesh.,
How do you see those as different?
And both of them are considered the Word of God.
This is an interesting man made tradition.
This is an interesting statement, since there are some areas that completely rejected the Apostolic preaching, and killed the messengers.
Jesus is not separate from the Church He founded. He is completely identified with His HOly Bride.
Yes. Some use this as a convenient excuse to reject the authority Jesus appointed over HIs flock.
Yes, Paul was referring to the Septuagint. There is not a Christian alive today that would try to live a Christian life without the NT, is there?
The only part of us not saved in this life is our flesh. Since we are spirit, soul, and body; our spirit is born again, saved, our soul is saved but needs renewing, but our flesh contains sin and must die to be renewed at the resurrection or changed if we are alive when Jesus returns.
Both are intended to have someone take action. A command generally is short and to the point without much communication. An exhortation is generally a more in depth communication urging some action. I see Paul’s use of the verses before as qualifying as more in depth and therefore I see it as an exhortation.
Where is sacred tradition found today? Where is tradition found today? I would like to read sacred tradition like I can read the Scriptures. Where do I find it?