You can't have it both ways.

[guanophore]

The word heretic was at an earlier time used to describe those who worshipped Jesus outside the Church. Now they are separated brethren. Would you call that a development or a change? I call it a change of heart.

It is both a change of heart, and a change of mind, but not a change of doctrine. They still embrace heretical beliefs, like Sola Scriptura. However, a heretic is one who once embraced the Truth, then willfully and knowingly departed from it. The vast majority of our separated brethren have never been exposed to the full Gospel, They believe the abbreviated version they received from their spiritual ancestors is whole and entire. they think that Catholics “added”, since the excisions began happening 500 years ago, and continue daily.

 

[schaick]

I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another. Catholic denominations- there is actually at least one Catholic denomination that is separate from the Roman Catholic denomination.

I think the person was asking me to prove that the Catholic Church is a denomination?

The point I would like to make:

In every Catholic congregation there exists a multitude of denominations-some that are more Lutheran then Catholic, more Greek Orthodox, more Methodist, etc.

These people are following along, going through the motions. Yet outside church rolling their eyes when Pope infallibility is mentioned, shaking their heads at Mary Dogmas.

Are these people hypocrites? Where do they fit? Do they not care that they are participating in activities that they don’t believe in?

 

[StTommyMore]

I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another. Catholic denominations- there is actually at least one Catholic denomination that is separate from the Roman Catholic denomination.

I think the person was asking me to prove that the Catholic Church is a denomination?

The point I would like to make:

In every Catholic congregation there exists a multitude of denominations-some that are more Lutheran then Catholic, more Greek Orthodox, more Methodist, etc.

These people are following along, going through the motions. Yet outside church rolling their eyes when Pope infallibility is mentioned, shaking their heads at Mary Dogmas.

Are these people hypocrites? Where do they fit? Do they not care that they are participating in activities that they don’t believe in?

They are what is called a “Cafeteria Catholic.” Truth is objective. The Scriptures are inerrant, no matter what an individual accepts. Public opinion had no bearing on truth.

 

[guanophore]

Lol!! No I think your complaint is that I am not compliant!!!

Sorry.

No, I meant that you were complaining about a lack of evidence. How does one comply with that which they believe does not exist?

Could you study the constellations when all you have ever received is broad daylight?

The only example I have seen from the Bible is Matthew 16 and Peter being a Pope, that is hardly evidence when taken into context with things he wrote, what Paul wrote and events that occurred.

Yes. I understand that you cannot accept the evidence. Maybe, someday, in your little world, the sun will set, and you will finally see the “stars come out”?

On that day, you will know and understand in the deep places of your heart that the stars have been there all along.

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.
{/QUOTE]

What am I missing?

It seems clear that you don’t believe you are missing anything.
schaick;7093508:

On another thread I came to the conclusiion that:

*The Sacred Traditions that a non-Catholic Christian doesn’t have access to according to the Catholic Church all revolve around the authority of the Catholic Church.

I think I understand now - why Sacred Tradition for the Catholic is on equal terms with Scripture. The authority can’t really be concretely proved- it must simply be accepted.*

Yes. I believe this is true. I don’t think Moses could “prove” to anyone that God spoke to him out of a burning bush up on that mountain. They either accepted it by faith, or not.

In the same way, I cannot “prove” that the Scriptures are the most widely known example of Sacred Tradition.

For gaps of hundreds of years to pass before something is made clear? That is saying nothing, except they are slow learners.

Yes, often humans are slow learners, for sure. But, one also must consider that the canon was not closed unitl 382 AD. Why wait for “hundreds of years”?

Understanding that sola scripture is not a doctrine but a practise what doctrines have mere trinitarian Christians made up?

It is a practice based upon a false doctrine, so I don’t see a separation between the two. It assumes that the authority given by Jesus to the Church became null and void at some point. It assumes that God was unable to preserve His Word in the Church, where He placed it. It assumes that it is appropriate to separate the Scritpures from the faith of those who produced them. All of these are false conclusions.

How can a “practice” based upon so many false conclusions, bear good fruit? And in fact, the fruit we observe is division and separation.

 

[guanophore]

I agree but that’s not what is being taught here:

“There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that **it is absolutely necessary **for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; ” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Ron, Peter was appointed to feed and care for the flock until the return of Christ. He passed this responsibility to his successor, and so on until the present day. There is only One Flock, and One Shepherd. All who are members of His flock are subject to the shepherds He appointed. The fact that they are rebellious subjects changes nothing. He is still responsible for care and feeding of their souls.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

They are what is called a “cafeteria Catholic” by you, not all posters or Catholics. It’s a derogatory and divisive term that implies one type of Catholic is perfectly following the rules and is a “good” Catholic, holy and by the book. The other is a sinful, hypocritical, un-Catholic poser. That is what the cafeteria catholic term gives off. I don’t see it as a useful term at all except to edify myself as better than someone else.

They are what is called a “Cafeteria Catholic.” Truth is objective. The Scriptures are inerrant, no matter what an individual accepts. Public opinion had no bearing on truth.

 

[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?

Rom 4:3
Rom 10:11
Gal 3:8
Gal 3:22

Rom 4:3
For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

Here is how the Catechism (147) addresses Romans 4:3 - "The Old Testament is rich in witnesses to this faith…

In other words, this reference to Abraham, is from the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Genesis**. Jesus and the early Apostles and disciples’ often referred to and quoted passages from the Old Testament. This does not support a belief in “Sola scriptura”, when understood and viewed in context. However, is does support the fact that there does exist a Bible typology. **

Rom 10:11
For the scripture says, "No one who believes in him will be put to shame*."*

If you read the next few verses, you will see that in Romans 14,15 & 17, these follow up verses, put Romans 10:11 in context and proves that since the beginning of the Church, written and oral traditions were both important and these verses, actually refute the notion of “Sola scriptura”, when understood and viewed in context.

Romans 10:14,15 & 17
14 But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach?
15 And how can people preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring (the) good news!”
17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

**Moreover, the preceding verses, **Romans 10:18,9 **seem to demonstrate the same thing…and also refute the notion of “Sola Scriptura”. **

Romans 10:18,9
8 But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach),
9 for, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Gal 3:8
Scripture, which saw in advance that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, foretold the good news to Abraham, saying, “Through you shall all the nations be blessed.”

See my response to Romans 4:3, This verse does not support “Sola scriptura”, when viewed in context. See also, Galatians 3:2, which refutes “Sola scriptura”.

Galatians 3:2
I want to learn only this from you: did you receive the Spirit from works of the law, or from faith in what you heard?

**This is just another example of why context is so important and why we should take the time to read the verses, before and after the verse that we are attempting to understand. **

To be continued…

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t remember if it was on this thread or another. Catholic denominations- there is actually at least one Catholic denomination that is separate from the Roman Catholic denomination.

I think the person was asking me to prove that the Catholic Church is a denomination?

The point I would like to make:

In every Catholic congregation there exists a multitude of denominations-some that are more Lutheran then Catholic, more Greek Orthodox, more Methodist, etc.

These people are following along, going through the motions. Yet outside church rolling their eyes when Pope infallibility is mentioned, shaking their heads at Mary Dogmas.

Are these people hypocrites? Where do they fit? Do they not care that they are participating in activities that they don’t believe in?

That people dissent from the Deposit of Faith does not negate the fact that there is One Faith.

As far as where these people “fit”, well, they belong to the CC by virtue of their baptism. When they profess with their mouths and with their bodies every Sunday that they are in communion with the CC, we must assume they believe what they are proclaiming. I cannot see into their hearts.

 

[ron77nyc]

Do you realize the implications of this statement? You are saying that if you think something is infallible, it is for you, but If I don’t, then it isn’t for me, which undermined the entire doctrine of infallibility.

Do you realize the implications of your statement?

Papal Bulls are not infallible. If they are, then all of the United states is legitimately Spanish territory

You contradict the definition of infallibility.
ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

THE FOUR TESTS OF INFALLIBILITY

There are, clearly, four tests of infallibility: The Pope must be (1)
intending to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority (3) a
matter of Faith or morals (4) to be held by the universal Church.

Papal Bulls have these 4 requirements.

jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

“…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.)”

PAPAL BULL
“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)

“Absolutely necessary” means that if you do not submit to everything the pope teaches you cannot be saved.

 

[ron77nyc]

Are you under the misapprehension that Catholics must give their assent only to “infallible declarations”?

No. Catholics must give their assent especially to infallible declarations but there is no authoritative, definite and complete summary of them so we have to figure it out for ourselves much like Protestants trying to figure out the meaning of scriptures without a central authority.

 

[Dokimas]

Ok.

Catholicism has never said that we are to blindly follow any teaching. Oh, the irony of being on a Catholic Apologetics forum and proclaiming that!

At work today, while I was doing something mindless, I was thinking about this interaction. Then I remembered that you accuse some of us of believing some things because a pastor told us so. IMO, if you get offended with the comment of ‘blind faith’ then you should NEVER say this to any of us again. It’s like telling us we blindly agree with what we’ve been taught.

 

[Dokimas]

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 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.

I disagree with your understandings of what gives me peace but thank you for your opinion.

 

[PRmerger]

At work today, while I was doing something mindless, I was thinking about this interaction. Then I remembered that you accuse some of us of believing some things because a pastor told us so. IMO, if you get offended with the comment of ‘blind faith’ then you should NEVER say this to any of us again. It’s like telling us we blindly agree with what we’ve been taught.

Agreed.
I won’t call you Protestant but will use the term Non-Catholic Christian, or NCC.
And I won’t say that you believe somethings just because your pastor told you.

You won’t say Catholics are taught to blindly follow the Church’s teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

No. Catholics must give their assent especially to infallible declarations but there is no authoritative, definite and complete summary of them so we have to figure it out for ourselves much like Protestants trying to figure out the meaning of scriptures without a central authority.

We don’t need a complete summary of infallible teachings, ron.

We have the Catechism.

 

[Dokimas]

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

I was speaking generally not specifically. Take a look at the way you communicate to me if you want to see personal insults and derogatory statements that are personal. I don’t hold that against you. You’re welcome to your opinion.

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.

How about that I sincerely disagree and that every time specific things are discussed I say the same things in response.

Why have you rejected my point of view? Do you not understand what I’ve said, do you have a bad memory or are you deliberately stubborn? SEE, I guess these same things could logically be said to you. However, I retract them because they are insulting and derogatory.

 

[Dokimas]

These statements do not indicate that they are devoid of Truth, but they are lacking in Truth When compared to the True Church

So we who are non-catholic Christians don’t have Jesus? He is THE Truth.

 

[Dokimas]

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.

By faith in Jesus

 

[Dokimas]

If Sola Scriptura were true you would think that it would be in the Bible - even though it would be a circular position].

Gee, you may have the answer.

 

[Dokimas]

The word heretic was at an earlier time used to describe those who worshipped Jesus outside the Church. Now they are separated brethren. Would you call that a development or a change? I call it a change of heart.

Joh 10:16 "And other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they will hear My voice; and there will be one flock and one shepherd.

Mark 9:
39 But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me.
40 "For he who is not against us is on our side.

I’m not against Jesus. I’m not against the CC. I don’t disagree with any of the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the NT. I do disagree with some of the understandings of the CC as portrayed by some catholics on CAF.

 

[Simka]

“Sola Scriptura” is essentially the doctrine of the Reformation Protestants that paraphrases II Timothy 3:15-17: “… the sacred writings are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. … All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete.”

In simple terms, it means that everything one needs to know to be saved is written in the scriptures.

Very few denominations that identify themselves as Christian disagree on this matter, as it relates specifically to the matter of salvation. There are some, of course, that regard Scripture as nothing more than an interesting, ancient text that tells us how an ancient people related to God as they understood Him. Don’t condemn all denominations for the heresy of the few.

Passages such as that in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (2:8) announcing that “you have been saved by grace through faith” are generally accepted by both Protestant and Catholic as being truth; that some cults deny this truth does not weaken its power.