You can't have it both ways.

[gtrenewed]

You sound like an evangelical Anglican…just from what you said. Go read the 39 Articles. Sounds like what you’re saying.

Interesting, I’ll check it out, thanks.

 

[gtrenewed]

Sounds like possibly a Catholic trapped inside of an Anglican to me…

You’re right, I was a trapped RC…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Good question???

I don’t fit many places because according to Scripture:
I believe in the real presence bread and wine but not transubstantiation;
I believe in salvation by faith alone but also that baptism is necessary to walk as a disciple of Jesus and that a type of regeneration happens in baptism;
I believe in the gifts of the Spirit and their manifestations including tongues but not caught up in any of the craziness found in some churches… anymore ;

However there are believers out here to fellowship with who have had similar experiences.

How’s that?

Hello gtrenewed,

Go here , to the search section, of the Catechism and see if any of this fits… I think that you might be surprised how close we all are and that many of these arguments involve semantics. …Visit the home page here at Catholic Answers and read the footnotes in the Catholic Bible here and you might also find some answers.

God bless you and good luck on your journey!

 

[gtrenewed]

In other words, you rely upon your own interpretation, instead of the infallible guide of the Church.

Yeah, OK, Whatever …

 

[gtrenewed]

Hello gtrenewed,

Go here , to the search section, of the Catechism and see if any of this fits… I think that you might be surprised how close we all are and that many of these arguments involve semantics. …Visit the home page here at Catholic Answers and read the footnotes in the Catholic Bible here and you might also find some answers.

God bless you and good luck on your journey!

Thanks for the thought…

 

[gtrenewed]

Rom 16:26
but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith,

**Read Romans 16:22-26. This one is an interesting one, because it is recording something written by “Tertius”. Apparently referring to a **manuscript… another document, outside the Bible… . There is no “Book of Tertius” in the Bible.

Romans 16:22-26
I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord. Gaius, who is host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and our brother Quartus greet you. Now to him who can strengthen you, according to my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret for long ages but now manifested through the prophetic writings and, according to the command of the eternal God, made known to all nations to bring about the obedience of faith,

To be continued…

It is commonly accepted that Paul dictated this letter to Tertius. Not sure about your take that it is a separate book outside the Bible for it is in the Bible.

My point of including it was that it talks about Scripture being able to bring us to the obedience of faith.

 

[Jimmy_B]

By Sola Scriptura I mean Scripture is sufficient guidance to follow Jesus into eternal life:

2Tim 3:15-17
Heb 4:12
Rev 1:3
Eph 6:17
Rom 16:26
Acts 8:35
Rom 4:3
Rom 10:11
Gal 3:8
Gal 3:22
1Pet 2:2
1Pet 2:6
Acts 17:2,3
Acts 17:11,12
Rom 15:4
1Cor 15:3,4

How is that for starts?

*Acts 8:35 *Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.

This verse here, where is says, "Then Philip opened his mouth and with this scripture passage…." , supports the belief in oral tradition, this is a “Catholic verse”. Also, what does he say when he, “*proclaimed Jesus to him”… he “proclaimed” what? Because, the next couple of verses say,“As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. (now eunuch is being quoted) What is to prevent my being baptized?” Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.” *

Most experts agree that The Acts of the Apostles were written around 64 A.D., This is the most probable the date for the Acts. It was written by St. Luke and not by Phillip. Keep in mind that the Bible your using today, is not the “scripture” that Phillip is talking about here, although some of what he said may have been included in the Bible… it may have come from the Old Testament, it may be something that was eventually included in the New Testament. We don’t know from this verse, because it doesn’t say what “scripture” that is was, that he (Phillip) used , or the he “beginning” what he said. And, there is no “Book of Phillip” in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

Actually 500 years isn’t even close. Fundamentalism is not yet 200 years old. It was a Protestant reaction to modernism.

This is true, but Fundamentalism is based upon the same errors that occurred during the Reformation. It was that separation from the Apostolic Faith that has continuned to fragment, split, and deviate further and further away from the doctrines of the faith. In fact, most Fundamentalists believe that Catholics “added” to the faith, since they don’t realize that subtractions began 500 years ago, and continue on an almost daily basis.

 

[guanophore]

Prove to me that Jesus said to worship the Euharist.

OK. Let’s start with the verse where Jesus commands His Aposltes to worship Him. Do you remember where it is?

Can you tell me what ones?

For example, that He gave His Body and Blood, both at the Last Supper, and again on the cross.

And for example, that All Authority was given to Him and He authorized His Apostles to govern the Church until He comes again, and that the Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the bishops.

That He founded a visible and authoritative Church, which produced the NT, the interpretation of which is not to be separated from that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Can you show me proof?

No, I don’t believe so. You clearly are unable to accept the Scriptures themselves, the early fathers, and history, so I doubt there is anything but a divine intervention that will pursuade you.

tell me and prove what the Apostles taught.

The Gospel is to be recieved, through faith, Schaick. Although it is accompanied with “proofs”, it is not a science, and does not lend itself to scientific “proofs” such as you demand. The revelation of God to mankind is quite above any puny human “proofs” that we can manage.

Besides, since you cannot accept the evidence that is right in front of your face, it seems certain that your needs for “proof” will not be met. It is like asking someone to “prove there are stars, but you are only allowed to make a case for this at noon, and no other time of day or night is allowed”.

You have placed conditions upon yourself that prevent any “proofs” from reaching you.

This is not the first thread I have asked to show and prove chain of transmission of a Sacred Tradition that only Catholics have access to.

Yes, I am aware of that. I don’t think it is the first time that I have compared your request to one that “prove there are stars in the sky” at midday.

What new doctrine do I follow that is not Biblically based- remembering that sola scriptura was what Jesus practiced- HE always turned to GOD’s Word

I am sure that all your doctrines are biblically based, or at least you believe they are.

Jesus did NOT practice SS. This is a preposterous notion. Do you honestly believe that the God of the universe has confined Himself to the writings? Honestly. It seems that you need to believe this so much, it would probably be dangerous to try to pursuade you otherwise.

 

[guanophore]

Itis written in Scripture that the Eucharist is Real Presence- we have proof for that. We know the Disciples believed this. In fact it caused some to turn away as Jesus was talking about it.

WHat we don’t have is evidence that the Eucharist was worshipped. Jesus never said to worship the Eucharist.

You don’t have evidence, because you belong to a spiritual tradition that has rejected the custodians of that evidence 500 years ago,and you insist on perpetrating their rejection of the Apostolic faith. There fore, such evidence is not available to you, just as a clear view of the starry sky is not visible at noon.

It is there, you are just unable to perceive it, because you have created conditions for yourself that prevent the evidence from being visible.

Besides, Jesus commanded the Apostles to worship Him several times in the NT, and after each occasion, there is a reminder about how He is really present in the Blessed Sacrament.

So you are calling me a heretic because I will not worship the Eucharist when we are never instructed to by GOD?

No, I said that there was an early sect that believed as you do, and they were considered heretics by the members of the Church founded by Christ.

Modern Evangelicals do not qualify for the title of heretics, because it requires that one have received the fullness of the faith, then willfully and knowingly departed from it. It is quite clear from your posts that you have never received the Apostolic Faith. You have recieved a truncated version of the Gospel, and therefore, believe that Catholics “added” to it.

 

[guanophore]

I guess your answer means ‘no’ but to properly understand the verses you must be correctly connected with the CC.

No, I don’t think so. Even a person who has been separated from communion by mortal sin can still understand the Scriptures correctly.

Some people are even open minded enough to understand the Catholic point of view,when they don’t wish to become Catholic.

Then there are others who intractibly refuse to see, much less to embrace, the Catholic point of view. I think to do so might grieviously distrupt their peace of mind.

I like the way the Bereans dealt with truth.

I think not. If you did, you would be Catholic! They received the Word of God from the Apostles with eagerness, and applied themselves using Catholic Sacred Tradition.They searched the Scriptures from the point of view of the Apostolic message.

 

[Jimmy_B]

This is true, but Fundamentalism is based upon the same errors that occurred during the Reformation. It was that separation from the Apostolic Faith that has continuned to fragment, split, and deviate further and further away from the doctrines of the faith. In fact, most Fundamentalists believe that Catholics “added” to the faith, since they don’t realize that subtractions began 500 years ago, and continue on an almost daily basis.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You don’t have evidence, because you belong to a spiritual tradition that has rejected the custodians of that evidence 500 years ago,and you insist on perpetrating their rejection of the Apostolic faith. There fore, such evidence is not available to you, just as a clear view of the starry sky is not visible at noon.

It is there, you are just unable to perceive it, because you have created conditions for yourself that prevent the evidence from being visible.

Besides, Jesus commanded the Apostles to worship Him several times in the NT, and after each occasion, there is a reminder about how He is really present in the Blessed Sacrament.

No, I said that there was an early sect that believed as you do, and they were considered heretics by the members of the Church founded by Christ.

Modern Evangelicals do not qualify for the title of heretics, because it requires that one have received the fullness of the faith, then willfully and knowingly departed from it. It is quite clear from your posts that you have never received the Apostolic Faith. You have recieved a truncated version of the Gospel, and therefore, believe that Catholics “added” to it.

*“because you belong to a spiritual **tradition ***that has rejected the…”

How true and interesting…"tradition"

“You have recieved a truncated version of the Gospel, and therefore, believe that Catholics “added” to it”
**

How was this “recieved”, through some more, Modern Evangelical traditions… I think so.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy’s heading off to Starbucks to load up on caffeine. He’s going to be pulling an all-nighter studying this stack of verses!

You’re funny…I’m trying but I have to get up early tomorrow…

 

[guanophore]

OT priests were of the tribe of Levi. I doubt any CC priest is a Levite. Maybe there is a very small number that maybe.

This is quite correct, Doki.

The NT priests are all grafted into the priesthood of Christ. They are after the order of Melchizedek.

How do you know this?

PRMerger may tell you that your priest told you this.

Because we have preserved the traditions as they were handed on to us from the Aposltes, and they contained the Liturgy. This is the Teaching of the Apostles mentioned in Acts. The disciples of the Church founded by Christ have always learned of the Apostles the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.

So you know what you know from the Bible?

The Catholic Church is not a “bible based” church. We see our faith reflected in the NT, but the bible is not the source of the Church. Jesus is the Source.

Interesting. Then all Christians are priests.

Re 1:6 and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Yes. We are grafted into the priesthood of Christ. Some are called into the ministerial priesthood.

I didn’t add to the Bible. I answered your question.

I know you know the NT wasn’t formally put together at the time of the Bereans, however, they are good examples for us who now have the NT, wouldn’t you say?

Indeed they are! If everyone would receive the Apostolic message from the Church with such eagerness, and search the scriptures in the light of what the Church teaches, then all of Christendom would be Catholic.

There’s a difference between respecting and blindly following or being under their authority.

This is very true. Scripture is clear that we are to study to show ourselves approved. We should obey our leaders, and also understand why we obey.

You ALWAYS seem to leave out the Holy Spirit so you can elivate the place of the CC in the cannon of the Bible.

No, not at all. But, since we don’t suffer from a deficient understanding of Church, we don’t separate them. We know that the HS working in and through the Church is what produced the Bible. It is the HS who elevates the Church, by working through fallible men to produce infallible results.

Sorry that you misunderstood me.

It is not a misunderstanding at all. The expression comes across as insulting and derogatory.

Do you think I have a bad memory to have to keep telling me what you believe?

It is not clear if you are unable to accept our beliefs because you don’t understand, have a bad memory, or are just deliberately stubborn. We can accept that you don’t wish to embrace our beliefs, but to insult us for embracing them makes it seem like there is a problem somewhere.

 

[Jimmy_B]

OK. Let’s start with the verse where Jesus commands His Aposltes to worship Him. Do you remember where it is?

For example, that He gave His Body and Blood, both at the Last Supper, and again on the cross.

And for example, that All Authority was given to Him and He authorized His Apostles to govern the Church until He comes again, and that the Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the bishops.

That He founded a visible and authoritative Church, which produced the NT, the interpretation of which is not to be separated from that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

No, I don’t believe so. You clearly are unable to accept the Scriptures themselves, the early fathers, and history, so I doubt there is anything but a divine intervention that will pursuade you.

The Gospel is to be recieved, through faith, Schaick. Although it is accompanied with “proofs”, it is not a science, and does not lend itself to scientific “proofs” such as you demand. The revelation of God to mankind is quite above any puny human “proofs” that we can manage.

Besides, since you cannot accept the evidence that is right in front of your face, it seems certain that your needs for “proof” will not be met. It is like asking someone to “prove there are stars, but you are only allowed to make a case for this at noon, and no other time of day or night is allowed”.

You have placed conditions upon yourself that prevent any “proofs” from reaching you.

Yes, I am aware of that. I don’t think it is the first time that I have compared your request to one that “prove there are stars in the sky” at midday.

I am sure that all your doctrines are biblically based, or at least you believe they are.

Jesus did NOT practice SS. This is a preposterous notion. Do you honestly believe that the God of the universe has confined Himself to the writings? Honestly. It seems that you need to believe this so much, it would probably be dangerous to try to pursuade you otherwise.

All great responses, which may just fallen on deaf ears, unfortunately.

 

[Jimmy_B]

OK. Let’s start with the verse where Jesus commands His Aposltes to worship Him. Do you remember where it is?

For example, that He gave His Body and Blood, both at the Last Supper, and again on the cross.

And for example, that All Authority was given to Him and He authorized His Apostles to govern the Church until He comes again, and that the Apostles passed this authority on to their successors, the bishops.

That He founded a visible and authoritative Church, which produced the NT, the interpretation of which is not to be separated from that One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

No, I don’t believe so. You clearly are unable to accept the Scriptures themselves, the early fathers, and history, so I doubt there is anything but a divine intervention that will pursuade you.

The Gospel is to be recieved, through faith, Schaick. Although it is accompanied with “proofs”, it is not a science, and does not lend itself to scientific “proofs” such as you demand. The revelation of God to mankind is quite above any puny human “proofs” that we can manage.

Besides, since you cannot accept the evidence that is right in front of your face, it seems certain that your needs for “proof” will not be met. It is like asking someone to “prove there are stars, but you are only allowed to make a case for this at noon, and no other time of day or night is allowed”.

You have placed conditions upon yourself that prevent any “proofs” from reaching you.

Yes, I am aware of that. I don’t think it is the first time that I have compared your request to one that “prove there are stars in the sky” at midday.

I am sure that all your doctrines are biblically based, or at least you believe they are.

Jesus did NOT practice SS. This is a preposterous notion. Do you honestly believe that the God of the universe has confined Himself to the writings? Honestly. It seems that you need to believe this so much, it would probably be dangerous to try to pursuade you otherwise.

This is for Schaick,
Are yousure that all your doctrines are biblically based, or are they based on what other non-Catholics have told you and did you decide, which verses you would use to defend your Protestant beliefs, or did you get some help with that, as well?

 

[joe370]

Rightly, Schaick…any SS advocate for that matter, who can tell the world who is right and who is wrong, doctrinally speaking, regarding the teachings of Jesus?

This is the only question, from a sola scriptura point of view, that has no answer, outside of the answer that JonNC has provided. I am gonna copy and paste this question until a sola scriptura advocate answers it…If you ignore it, I will have my answer…which is - no ONE!!!

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

And because directly after the times of the apostles, and even while they were still living, false teachers and heretics arose, and symbols, i. e., brief, succinct [categorical] confessions, were composed against them in the early Church, which were regarded as the unanimous, universal Christian faith and confession of the orthodox and true Church, namely, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed, we pledge ourselves to them, and hereby reject all heresies and dogmas which, contrary to them, have been introduced into the Church of God.
Properly understood, sola scriptura is used to protect the true faith from "personal interpretation.

That would be great Jon, but, unfortunately, SS advocates do not understand sola scriptura in that way - agreed??? The bible alone, in their opinion, is the Christians only source of truth, and those outside, making proclamations of what is truth and what truth is not, regarding the truths found in the bible, are to be ignored.

See how silly this idea is??? No one can infallibly interpret the infallible word of God, according to the protestant perspective. According to them, the truth regarding the Eucharist, can never be known.

They are wrong, right Jon???/ If they are wrong, then how can we know that they are wrong, if the bible alone is their ONLY authority for realizing this supposed lie???

Jon, you and I are simpatico, no doubt about that, so please, show me the light regarding this fork in the road???

I don’t think that you have the answer. I don’t either!!! Jesus left us with a church, as opposed to a bunch of writings, and He said that He would be with His church forever, regardless of the bad people mixed in with the good people. Doesn’t it make sense to want to be belong to that church? Maybe I am wrong???

 

[schaick]

There are plenty of predictions that come true. That does not make them God’s Word. There are market specialists that can tell what the indices will do, and the mortgage rates. That does not make them theopneustos.

What makes it so hard to accept, schaick? Can’t you just stipulate that the Bible is a product of Catholic Sacred Tradition?

The only reason you know they were eyewitnesses and disciples is because of Sacred Tradition.

Actually we know who the eyewitnesses were through the writtings of the early Church Fathers, the students of the disciples.

No, but it is a strong arguement.

From the perspective of those who have received the Apostolic faith, you are the one who is teaching “a different gospel”, and has subtracted elements of the One Faith that was handed down to us.

In what way? The Gospel message is about our salvation in Jesus Christ. I only state what GOD’s Word states as requirement.

I have not added- Mary dogmas, Pope infallibility, purgatory, etc. into the equation- things that were never mentioned.

You accussed me of being frustrated, only in respect to no one answering my questions.

Someone mentioned that the Mary dogmas were developing doctrine or not yet fully developed?

That is just not a good arguement. Reformed Christians could all say that theirs is a developing doctrine.

We know that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses came about by developing doctrine.