S
StTommyMore
Guest
These statements do not indicate that they are devoid of Truth, but they are lacking in Truth When compared to the True Church
- Status
R
ron77nyc
Guest
I can’t get these 2 to fit together:
Baltimore Catechism
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.”
Baltimore Catechism
- They are not one either in government or faith; for they have no chief head, and they profess different beliefs;
- They are not holy, because their doctrines are founded on error and lead to evil consequences;
- 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;
- 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.
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.”
S
StTommyMore
Guest
Why not? They both speak to the fullness of faith subsists in the Catholic Church alone. The Baltimore Catechism is simply explaining why the the other Churches are not complete. There is no contradiction.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Whenever a non-Catholic Christian professes the faith of the Apostles, he is in union with the Church.
When he departs from this teaching, he is not apostolic, not holy, not catholic.
R
ron77nyc
Guest
- They are not holy
- They are not catholic or universal in time, place or doctrine.
- They are not apostolic
Protestants have always professed the faith of the apostles. They only reject the authority of the pope.
How could they be in union if they are not holy, catholic or apostolic and not in submission to the pope? Those were the requirements for unity from the beginning.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
At any rate the New Catechism is more authoritative that the Baltimore Catechism. The New Catechism is universal, the Baltimore Catechism was regional. You are still not looking at the teachings of the Church as a unified whole, but looking at little excerpts which are a stumbling block to you.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
If Sola Scriptura were true you would think that it would be in the Bible - even though it would be a circular position.
e.g. “This sentence is Scripture!”
By Sola Scriptura you can’t deny that it’s not Scripture. :doh2:
R
ron77nyc
Guest
Not really a stumbling block. What you are saying is the Baltimore Catechism was approved by a council of bishops but it did not teach the true teachings of the Catholic Church. I’m willing to say that the Church has changed its teaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Whatever infallible statements were made before Vatican II now need to be changed so there goes a man made rule which says that once an infallible statement has been made it cannot be changed. It reminds me of when the Holy Spirit told Peter to preach to the gentiles.
P
PRmerger
Guest
They are not holy. Indeed. For the have rejected the teaching of the Apostles.
Absolutely not! NonCatholic Christians differ greatly in their profession of the faith of the Apostles. Some claim baptism is a sacrament (here they are joined to us), some claim it is an ordinance (here they depart); some claim infants must be baptized (here they are joined to us), some claim infants cannot be baptized (here they depart.)
Some claim the Eucharist is the Real Presence of Christ (here they are joined to us). Some claim it is symbolic (here they depart).
Some claim…
actually, I can’t go into all the different varieties of positions NCCs hold. It’s too exhausting. But to the degree that they follow the teachings of the Apostles is the degree that they are joined to the Body of Christ.
P
PRmerger
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
It is true that the Church is protected by the gift of infalliblity, and that we believe Jesus has fulfilled His promise to lead her into all Truth.
No educated Catholic, though will deny that the Holy Scriptures are materially sufficient, since this is the Teaching of the Apostles that has been preserved in the Church.
The Scriptures, however, do not take the place of the Church, and cannot wield the authority that the Reformers desired to invest them with. The exercise of authority requires a person, which is why all those who believe that Scripture is their authority ultimately become their own authority.
S
StTommyMore
Guest
I am saying that the Baltimore Catechism was for use in North America. The New Catechism was intended to be a model for other regional Catechisms but was so well done that regional conferences used it unchanged. I would suggest you read The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Craft of Catechesis. It does a very good job of explaining the pedagogy of the New Catechism
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, Scripture does lead us to Jesus for eternal life, as all these scriptures testify. When we come to Jesus, we are born again into His One Body, the Church, which He has given to guide, shepherd, instruct, reprove, and equip for the work of the ministry. None of these passages preclude the equal necessity of the Church He founded. Scripture is profitable in the duties of the Church.
G
guanophore
Guest
It is true that the CC preserves this teaching of Christ, but you make it sound like men made it up, when in fact, it came from God. Jesus promised to set the HS to lead the Church into “all Truth”. Why should Catholics be maligned because we believe He kept this promise?
How is THIS NOT CIRCULAR?
G
guanophore
Guest
All the books of the Bible are separate books,and were “outside” until the canon was closed, and they were collected and bound together. That is why it is not appropriate to apply the promises made in one of the books to the others “whoever reads the words of this book” for example, as they all stood alone.
Revelation, along with the Gospels and NT letters, were read at the Liturgy, and were not separated from it until the Reformation.
Yes, and those who are obedient to the faith will be united in the One Church founded by Christ. When this does not happen, it is the result of disobedience, and sometimes ignorance.
J
Jimmy_B
Guest
S
schaick
Guest
Does our salvation depend on whether we follow those things you mention?
** Mark 11**
15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17And as he taught them, he said, “Is it not written:
" ‘My house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have made it ‘a den of robbers.’”
These say a great deal about how we are to worship:
Matthew 15
1Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2"Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!"
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? 4For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,’ 6he is not to ‘honor his father’ with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you:
8” 'These people honor me with their lips,
but their hearts are far from me.
9They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.
.
Acts 20
7On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
Acts 2
42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.
Ephesians 5
19Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord
2 Timothy 4
2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. 3For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. 5But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.
G
guanophore
Guest
I did not mean to imply that my separated brethren do not accept many parts of Catholic Sacred Tradition. The compliant was, though, that “there is no evidence” that Sacred Tradtiion exists, when in fact, you have cited it here.
The Bible is “proof” of Catholic Sacred Tradition, possibly some of the most widely visible evidence. However, some refuse to accept even this. Perhaps because they are so busy beating us over the head with it?
No, you are stating your percpetions of what is written, and how you personally understand the “requirements”. Other equally sincere and dedicated Christians have different “requirements” when they interpret it, and the Church founded by Christ teaches differently. Who will resolve all these differences?
I am sure it seems that way to you, since you are part of a spiritual tradition that has been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500 years. Due to the fact that you have received a truncated version of the Gospel, you believe these things “were never mentioned”. They have been excised from the abbreviated version of the Gospel that has come down to you.
Ok. I can certainly stipulate that Refomred Christians have developed their own doctrines.
I think you are not understanding the difference between inventing doctrines, and development of a doctrine. You see, the CC believes that the public revelation of God ceased with the death of the last Apostle. We are not at liberty to add or subtract anything from the once for all divine deposit of faith that was committed to the Church. What “develops” is our understanding of what was meant, not the Truths themselves, which were whole and entire at the beginning.
The Church came to clarity over the role of the successor of Peter, and of the Theotokos, just as she came to clarity over the canon of scripture. But the books of the Bible were inspired when they were written, just as the doctrines of the faith were complete when they were deposited to the Church.
S
schaick
Guest
You have said nothing a mere Christian following sola scriptura can’t believe in.
Have you ever considered the Holy Traditions set up by GOD that have been revealed in Scripture that Jesus followed?
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, and she called herself “Catholic”.
If His Presence is really there, then “it” is no longer an “it” but a “Him”, is that not so?
What you are basically saying is that those teachings that do not agree with how you understand the Scriptures are potentially fallible, and if they dont’ agree with your perception of “the requirements for salvation” (which we have already established vary among sincere and true believers) is “absolutely fallible”. It appears folks, that Pope Benedict has been fired, and replace by Pope Saint Schaick!
Once again, this will not be possible, since you reject the evidence.
It appears you have a very carnal perception of authority.
If you cannot believe the evidence that is within the pages themselves,then I don’;t think any other evidence will serve, do you?
I would go further than this to say it was downright diabolical. Jesus promised that there would be wolves among the sheep.
Luther had many legitmate complaints. They would have been heard better if he had registered them with humility.
I am sure that God can fulfill this promise however He likes. He chose to do it through the Apostolic Succession.
The Holy Scriptures are definitely profitable in preserving the Church from false gospels. However, when it is separated from the faith that produced it, then it can be used as a source of those false gospels.
- Status