You can't have it both ways.

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

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

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.

We are saved by Jesus alone, as per all Christians, belonging to the Catholics Church. You have added sola scriptura to the equation. By your logic, show me where the bible alone, says the bible alone is the Christians final authority?

My sister says that I am wrong regarding my interpretation of my bible. Is she right? The bible does not settle the matter, so who or what does???

Go…

 

[schaick]

Hey Schaick…

That is a good point, and fulfilled prophecy is something that sets the bible apart from every other religious book. There are 26 other religious books that people of faith believe are divinely inspired (the Vedas, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads, the Quran, the Book of Mormon, the Tripitaka, etc.) - Of these twenty-six books, none of them, not a single one, contains any specific, fulfilled prophecies! So why was a letter of Peter, John, or the book of Hebrews, James and Revelation, rejected by some early on, if fulfilled prophecy is the sole barometer for identifying sacred scripture? Historically speaking, the CC decided what would and would not be in the bible, at a time when said books were considered spurious.

And what church in the world today, did these eyewitnesses belong to, if not the CC? Schaick,** all four Gospels are anonymous;** none of them include the author’s name. Those names are a product of tradition, and therefore you unwittingly embrace tradition. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - did not become associated with these writings until the second century. In the early centuries of Christianity, these 4 Gospels coexisted with a number of other Christian writings, many of which have not been preserved, and it was the Synod of Carthage of the Catholic Church, that defined the present twenty-seven New Testament books, including the four Gospels, as the canon of the New Testament in the year 397.

The universal Church.

Very true.

Again, the title pope, was a name adopted by both the EOC and the CC, to identify a bishop. What’s the big deal? Again, the bishop of Rome is not infallible. The fallible CC leaders can teach infallibly regarding the teachings of JC because the infallible holy spirit is mystically guiding her into all truth until the end of time. Who, in your mind can infallibly interpret the infallible bible, and discern truth from lies? If n one then we are simply left with an infallible collection of books with no means to discern truth when it comes to certain things like the Eucharist. You don’t believe that do you?

The disciples of the Apostles, eyewitnesses, believed in the Eucharist. Should I take your word for or theirs? Mary was believed to be sinless by the same people that defined the bible. The bible supports purgatory and paying our way out of purgatory is a silly thing to suggest.

How many times do I have to tell you that I do believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What Jesus did not tell us was to worship it, but consume it.

Any teaching is potentially fallible if not backed up by GOD’s Word and absolutely fallible if it changes the requirements for our salvation.

So once again show me the evidence that I must believe those things I have been repeatedly asking about are required for my salvation.

Was Peter a leader yes-** one of many. ** The Bible in no way shows Peter having ultimate authority over all the Disciples. Peter never claims it.

Prove that those that wrote the Bible believed the Mary Dogmas.

paying our way out of purgatory is a silly thing to suggest,
Which is why Luther fought against it.

Another question probably also to go unanswered.

Where in Scripture does it say that there has to be Apostolic Succession to keep the Church free from error? Today we now have the Holy Bible to keep the universal Church free from false gospels.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

How many times do I have to tell you that I do believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. What Jesus did not tell us was to worship it, but consume it.

Okay…We worship Jesus; not his his flesh; good point. How can I, or you, prove that what you say, is true? My sister says that you are wrong. Use the bible to prove her wrong???/

Any teaching is potentially fallible if not backed up by GOD’s Word and absolutely fallible if it changes the requirements for our salvation.

She says that your teaching is fallible. Are you right or is she right?

So once again show me the evidence that I must believe those things I have been repeatedly asking about are required for my salvation.

Was Peter a leader yes-** one of many. ** The Bible in no way shows Peter having ultimate authority over all the Disciples. Peter never claims it.

Who has the ultimate authority? Which church???

Prove that those that wrote the Bible believed the Mary Dogmas.

That’s easy. Hey, which church in the world today, wrote the bible? Was it one of the protestant churches? If not, then why should I trust their guidance???

I]paying our way out of purgatory is a silly thing to suggest,

Which is why Luther fought against it.

And he was right.

Another question probably also to go unanswered.

Where in Scripture does it say that there has to be Apostolic Succession to keep the Church free from error? Today we now have the Holy Bible to keep the universal Church free from false gospels.

The bible alone, as the Christians sole rule of faith, has led to the unity of Jesus’ church and to error free doctrine - right??? The bible is the key to unity - yes or no???

 

[StTommyMore]

You just agree with and now you are disagreeing? I gave this list at the request of Jimmy. I agree it is a love letter but the context is the sufficiency of scripture to lead us into love. By the way, everyone in scripture came to faith outside your liturgy for it was not developed as of yet.

The Scriptures, frome beginning to end are liturgical, and make no sense outside of the liturgy! Think about it. In Genesis 1, the world was created in six “days” for the sake of the seventh, which was then sanctified for worship. Adam was created with priestly duties. The first murder was due to liturgical abuse. Noah did not take two of each animal. Of the clean animals (which were as of yet undefined in writing, but handed down by tradition), he took seven. Why seven for liturgical worship. Likewise, Abraham is a participates in liturgy offering sacrifice multiple times, the most poignant being in Genesis chapter 22, wherein he offers Isaac at God’s command. The typology here goes deeper than you think. When the Patriarchs build altars throughout Genesis, they do not build altars and then just move on. An altar is not an altar unless it is used for sacrifice in liturgy. When Moses first goes to Pharaoh, it is not to lead Israel to the Promised land, but to let them go out to worship. This same pattern carries on throughout the Old Testament. Jews had a liturgical form of worship. This is not changed under the New Covenant. Jesus did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets, but to fulfill. The Liturgy was not abrogated, ab in fact, we see a very explicit account of the Heavenly Liturgy in Revelation. As long as you separate the written Word form the Liturgy, you will have an incomplete understanding of it.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, you said:

Where in Scripture does it say that there has to be Apostolic Succession to keep the Church free from error? Today we now have the Holy Bible to keep the universal Church free from false gospels.

Help me find the universal church that is free from error…free from false gospels??? Answer this question and you will have my attention my brother!!!

 

[ron77nyc]

Someone please explain this in relation to “You Can’t Have it Both Ways.”
The Church used to teach this:

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

The Church now teaches this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

(Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, “though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat.” And when they eat of it, “without knowing it or willing it” they are “incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

 

[PRmerger]

Someone please explain this in relation to “You Can’t Have it Both Ways.”
The Church used to teach this:

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

The Church now teaches this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

(Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, “though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat.” And when they eat of it, “without knowing it or willing it” they are “incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Ron, we’ve been through this before.

The Church has not changed its teaching. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yesterday. Today. And Forever.

 

[StTommyMore]

Someone please explain this in relation to “You Can’t Have it Both Ways.”
The Church used to teach this:

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 – 1829): “We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. …For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.’” (Encyclical, Ubi Primum )

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 – 1846): “It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved.” (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter )

The Church now teaches this:
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp

(Karl Adam, The Spirit of Catholicism, 179). Those who do not know the Church, even those who fight against it, can receive these gifts if they honestly seek God and his truth. But, Adam says, “though it be not the Catholic Church itself that hands them the bread of truth and grace, yet it is Catholic bread that they eat.” And when they eat of it, “without knowing it or willing it” they are “incorporated in the supernatural substance of the Church.”

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

Not everything a Pope teaches carries the Charism of infallibility. The Cgurch still holds that there is no salvation outside of Her, but also that while humans are bound to the Church and the Sacraments God is not. Our understanding of what constitutes “the Church” has developed over the centuries.

 

[ron77nyc]

Ron, we’ve been through this before.

The Church has not changed its teaching. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.

Yesterday. Today. And Forever.

Not everything a Pope teaches carries the Charism of infallibility. The Cgurch still holds that there is no salvation outside of Her, but also that while humans are bound to the Church and the Sacraments God is not. Our understanding of what constitutes “the Church” has developed over the centuries.

This is a very good example of having it both ways.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
“When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary.”

 

[ron77nyc]

Not everything a Pope teaches carries the Charism of infallibility.

Here is Jimmy Akin explaining infallibility.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

“In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”

Look at Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore **we declare, state and define **that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff."
POPE BONIFACE VIII Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302 AD)

 

[PRmerger]

This is a very good example of having it both ways.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
“When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary.”

Yes, some things in Catholicism are not either/or but both/and.

 

[StTommyMore]

Here is Jimmy Akin explaining infallibility.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

“In the course of performing a canonization, the pope states “we declare and define that Blessed N., is a saint” (example). This triggers the Church’s gift of infallibility, which Vatican I teaches “the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals” (source). Consequently, the verb “define” has come to be used as a trigger word for infallible papal statements. If you see a pope say “we define” or “I define,” it is a signal that he is making a definition and thus exercising the Church’s gift of infallibility. (This is not the only way in which he can do this, but it is the standard way.)”

Look at Unam Sanctam: “Furthermore **we declare, state and define **that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff."
POPE BONIFACE VIII Unam Sanctam (November 18, 1302 AD)

God is not bound to the statements of the Pope. God can save who He will. There are those who, through no fault of their own, are not Catholic. These people are not shut off from salvation, and we trust in the mercy of God being perfectly merciful and perfectly just.

 

[ron77nyc]

This is a very good example of having it both ways.
catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0512fea3.asp
“When the Church infallibly teaches extra ecclesiam, nulla salus, it does not say that non-Catholics cannot be saved. In fact, it affirms the contrary.”

Yes, some things in Catholicism are not either/or but both/and.

What they are saying is: When the Church teaches “No Salvation Outside the Church” it really means there is salvation outside the Church.

 

[StTommyMore]

What they are saying is: When the Church teaches “No Salvation Outside the Church” it really means there is salvation outside the Church.

There is no salvation outside the Church. However, there are those in Christ who appear to be outside of Christ, and there are those outside of Christ who appear to be in Christ. You assume Catholics only view the Church as institutional, much as you view the Church as only mystical. The Church is institutional and Mystical. Truthfully, it can be said that there are those who submit to the Roman Pontiff without realizing that they are doing so.

 

[PRmerger]

What they are saying is: When the Church teaches “No Salvation Outside the Church” it really means there is salvation outside the Church.

No. If anyone is saved* it is through the CC. *

 

[ron77nyc]

No. If anyone is saved* it is through the CC. *

I agree but the Catholic Church did not always teach that. Just talk to a devout Catholic over the age of 70.

 

[StTommyMore]

I agree but the Catholic Church did not always teach that. Just talk to a devout Catholic over the age of 70.

It is called the development of doctrine. Doctrine evolves and changes as it is reveald to us through the Church

 

[PRmerger]

I agree but the Catholic Church did not always teach that. Just talk to a devout Catholic over the age of 70.

Yes, the catechesis we all received was abysmal.

Their understanding of many things the church “taught” was impoverished.

However, it has been the constant teaching of the church: EENS. That they understood it incorrectly is unfortunate.

 

[ron77nyc]

Yes, the catechesis we all received was abysmal.

Their understanding of many things the church “taught” was impoverished.

However, it has been the constant teaching of the church: EENS. That they understood it incorrectly is unfortunate.

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism taught:
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:

1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is what the Baltimore Catechism taught:
baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm
Q. 571. How do you show that Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church?
A. Protestant Churches have not the marks of the true Church, because:

1. They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
2. They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
3. They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine. They have not existed in all ages nor in all places, and their doctrines do not suit all classes;
4. They are not apostolic, for they were not established for hundreds of years after the Apostles, and they do not teach the doctrines of the Apostles.

Amen!