You can't have it both ways.

[StTommyMore]

I find that difficult to believe. Of course, you can set up as many straw men as you like, and knock them all down, but what have you accomplished?

Could you identify even one denomination that teaches as official doctrine - based on its doctrine of Sola Scriptura - that the Bible is its only source of doctrine? There are individuals, even within my own Anglican church, that are misguided enough to believe that. But it is not official church doctrine.

Before you go off insulting me, perhaps you need to know little bit about me. I am not a Cradle Catholic. I am a convert. In my previous ecclesiastic community, we were taught that the Bible, and the Bible alone was our sole source for doctrine and practice. So stop your ranting.

 

[gtrenewed]

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.

You are very blinded if you think that God created Scripture without unity in the books. It is evident then that you see Scripture as a work of man and not the work of God.

Revelation, along with the Gospels and NT letters, were read at the Liturgy, and were not separated from it until the Reformation.

Scripture is central to the protestant liturgy.

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.

 

[StTommyMore]

You are very blinded if you think that God created Scripture without unity in the books. It is evident then that you see Scripture as a work of man and not the work of God.

Scripture is central to the protestant liturgy.

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.

Catholics understand the Scripture was the work of God, using the Catholic Church as His instrument

 

[gtrenewed]

That is supremely arrogant to think that ones own understanding is above those of the holy men of the past.

Those men lived in their own time and walked their discipleship out in that setting.

While I can draw from that I cannot live in that, except for Scripture, for I live in different times.

What is your problem? Maybe you should switch to decaf!

 

[StTommyMore]

Those men lived in their own time and walked their discipleship out in that setting.

While I can draw from that I cannot live in that, except for Scripture, for I live in different times.

What is your problem? Maybe you should switch to decaf!

No problem. Your view of Christianity is anemic. It has no past. Because it has no past you misunderstand the need for memorials. Because it has no past, you cannot understand the future.

 

[gtrenewed]

Catholics understand the Scripture was the work of God, using the Catholic Church as His instrument

guanophore said that all the books were not connectd and if not connected then it is a man’s work.

So take it up with him/her!

 

[Simka]

Before you go off insulting me …

I apologize humbly if what I said insulted you. Please allow me to clarify.

I was attempting to comment on what seemed to be your approach to the debate … to identify the single most radical, ill-conceived and unpopular form of the doctrine and refute that, without regard for the fact that only a tiny minority of Protestant Christianity holds that view.

And even you must acknowledge it’s a bit over the top to state that there are as many different definitions as there are denominations.

 

[StTommyMore]

I apologize humbly if what I said insulted you. Please allow me to clarify.

I was attempting to comment on what seemed to be your approach to the debate … to identify the single most radical, ill-conceived and unpopular form of the doctrine and refute that, without regard for the fact that only a tiny minority of Protestant Christianity holds that view.

And even you must acknowledge it’s a bit over the top to state that there are as many different definitions as there are denominations.

But you must acknowledge that there are many definitions covering a spectrum of opinions

 

[gtrenewed]

No problem. Your view of Christianity is anemic. It has no past. Because it has no past you misunderstand the need for memorials. Because it has no past, you cannot understand the future.

My view of Christianity goes all the way back to Genesis and all the way forward to the last word in Revelation!

Not sure why you brought up memorials?

I understand the future in light of Scripture and prophecy!

 

[1holycatholic]

First, Jimmy, you ought to better understand what a Protestant means by “Sola Scriptura”. It is not a doctrine that says the Bible alone is sufficient for all things to all people in all circumstances. It teaches that the Bible alone contains everything necessary for SALVATION ! And do you really need to have Scripture pointed out to you that supports that position ?

II Tim 3:15-17 is probably enough.

“I wish I could meet one Christian who attributed to the Bible the same authority that Jesus did!”

Enough for what? That doesn’t support Sola Scriptura.

 

[StTommyMore]

My view of Christianity goes all the way back to Genesis and all the way forward to the last word in Revelation!

Not sure why you brought up memorials?

I understand the future in light of Scripture and prophecy!

Not exactly…you are missing some books

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a simple misunderstanding. There are 23 Catholic Rites (that differ in language and culture) around the world. They all embrace the same doctrine.

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

A denomination is created when doctrine is defined over and against the group from which it is denominated. The Catholic Church, being founded by Christ, is not denominated from any other Christian faith.

 **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.

People of all denominations are welcome at the Mass. However, they are not considered Catholic because they are part of the congregation.

Catholic who roll their eyes, or otherwise reject the faith, are either poorly catechized, or in rebellion against the One Faith that was handed down to us from the apostles. It is possible they may be heretics, but most of these are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff. If they were baptized Catholic, and are now turned away from the Faith, they do not have Catholicity.

Are these people hypocrites?

Many of them are, yes. They continue to claim they are Catholic while rejecting the faith.

 Where do they fit?

On the wide and easy road.

Do they not care that they are participating in activities that they don't believe in?

Sadly, they don’t seem to. It demonstrates how seared their consciences are.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It is intended to be descriptive, not derogatory. It means that the person thinks it is fine to pick and choose out of what is available what parts of the One Faith they wish to recieve or practice, and not take the rest.

Being a “good Catholic” is not a matter of following rules, but of walking in unity with Jesus. No one is perfect, but a “good Catholic” is willing to recieve the Teachings of Jesus as they are infallibly preserved in the Church. If such a person does not understand or agree with a teaching, one will accept it anyway with childlike trust that what comes from God is good, even though it may not make sense. Such a “good Catholic” will apply one’s faith to further understanding, pray, and study, and seek to be conformed to God’s will. This attitude of humble obedience is what distinguishes a “good Catholic” from a Cafeteria Catholic, who assumes that the Church is wrong about the doctrines and disciplines they reject (things that don’t agree with them.)

Obedience does make us better more holy people, but obedience to His commands is joyful, because they are not burdensome for us. Those that find His Commands burdensome clearly suffer from a lack of love of Him.

 

[Simka]

But you must acknowledge that there are many definitions covering a spectrum of opinions

I confess I have not thoroughly analyzed and enumerated them, but my sense is, one definition covers probably 80% of the Protestant churches, one more covers perhaps 19.5 of the remaining 20%. (e.g several of the various Baptist Churches teach that the Bible is the final authority, but they stop short of saying it’s the ONLY authority. And it’s certainly not the only source.) So if in the remaining 0.5% of Protestant churches there are many definitions and a spectrum of opinions, and among these you find an even smaller minority that holds that the Bible is the only source for all doctrine, is this the position you want to spend your time and energy attacking? Seems to me that’s a mountain-climbing expedition over a mole-hill.

 

[guanophore]

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.

I see your point. However, we have the Catechism, which, though not considered infallible, is a sure norm for the doctrine of the faith.

 

[guanophore]

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.

You know, I agree with you, Doki. While I think it is important that we examine the sources of our ideas, I know that you and many of our separated brethren on here study on their own, and come to their own conclusions, apart from “some preacher”. I dislike this accusation about as much as I dislike the constant use of the 30,000 or 40,000 or whatever it is up to now that people use to refer to the number of divisions. Even one is too many!

Unfortunately, there are many blind leading the blind in all communities, and I don’t think most Catholics go home from Church with the Berean attitude either, to study the Scriptures in the light of what they heard.

 

[guanophore]

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

It is interesting that you took my description personally, when it was a general statement. It is curious that you are here, though.

 

[guanophore]

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

We have the Catechism.

Maybe Ron is saying that he needs one? Maybe it will come out on DVD?

 

[gtrenewed]

But Jesus is our High Priest. If High Priest, then he must be offering a sacrifice. What is this sacrifice? Himself, which is the eternal heavenly Liturgy which the Catholic Liturgy is a participation in. We see evidence of this Liturgy in the Revelation.

What you miss is that Scripture tells us that as believers we are in Christ and we sit with Him in heavenly places so we are constantly in that liturgy.

Jesus as the lamb that was slain, now sits at the right hand of the Father as our intercessor.

Heb 9:28, As the Apostle (one who was sent by the Father) and High Priest (perfect in offering His Blood) ; Jesus’ Words are eternal but that ministry was completed once for all time and Jesus’ Sacrifice is eternal but that ministry was completed once for all time.

Now Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father as our mediator and intercessor until He returns.

By having believing faith I have entered that rest, Heb 4, so it is not necessary to rejoin that ministry day after day or week after week, time and again; it is done once and continueously for all time as Scripture says.

That is why we disagree on Eucharist. I see it as the real presence by faith but you need a priest to follow the ritual of transubstantiation in order to tap into this ministry. That is why your liturgy is so important to you - you need to do this in order to partake of what is freely offered by grace as a free gift.

Don’t get me wrong, we both do this in remembrance; I just see a priestly class offering sacrifice as old covenant, and therefore done away with in the new. You feel the need to do a priestly ritual to bring to remembrance and I feel that the understanding of Scripture brings to remembrance.

We have been hitting it pretty hard here so I want to take a moment to say peace and God Bless

 

[guanophore]

I was speaking generally not specifically.

In which case, whether specifically, or generally, would it be admirable to accept doctrine on “blind faith”?

Childlike faith, which many uneducated Catholics do have, trusts the parent implicity and explicitly to provide what is best, and because the child knows the nature of the parent to be good, the child can rest with confidence in the parent’s arms, even without knowledge.

This is the faith that passes all understanding that Jesus encouraged.

“Blind faith” implies that the adherant follows along in ignorance and darkness, ready to fall into the pit.

 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.

I am sure we can all upgrade our charity. Each day, and each encounter gives us new opportunity.

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.

It might help if you were able to acknowledge the point of view. It is clear you don’t share it, but it is helpful in discussion to be able to appreciate the other point of view. In High School debate, we had an instructor who would poll us about our opinions, and deliberately assign us to the team that represented the opposing view. As frustrating as it was to learn to advocate for the opposite of one’s convictions ,it did help those who participated to see the contrary points, and how people reasoned who got to them.