You can't have it both ways.

[PRmerger]

Thanks for your opinion.

I wasn’t aware that SS had a test like that.

The test is in Basic Logic 101.

It’s a self-refuting paradigm.

“Scripture is the sole rule of faith”.

If this is true, then this rule of faith* must *be found in Scripture.

Since it is not found in Scripture, then it cannot be true.

Self-refuting.

 

[PRmerger]

That’s the problem. The catechism teaches contrary to infallible teachings.
INFALLIBLE TEACHING
In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

THE CATECHISM
‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.’" (C.C.C. # 847)

“However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these community [that resulted from such separation’ and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.” (C.C.C. # 818)

They both are saying the same thing: outside the CC there is no salvation.
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

You mean like the CC saying it’s the one and only church founded by Jesus?

Dokimas, the CC does not profess that each teaching must be explicitly stated in Scripture.

That’s YOUR self-refuting paradigm, not ours.

 

[guanophore]

“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.

I find it curious that this verse does not say that, and yet, this is the “summary” that is taken from it. In fact, it says that Scripture is “profitable”, not “all one needs to know”. And Paul, who wrote this passage, elsewhere is clear that the duties of teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness belong to those in the Church who have been gifted and appointed for this purpose. Scripture, in the hands of such people, is indeed profitable.

If everything we needed for salvation is found in Scripture, then why did Jesus found a Church?

Where does it say in this passage, or any other, that the scriptures should be used in isolation from the persons who have been called by God to equip the saints for the work of the ministry?

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.

I would not consider this latter view a Christian view at all, but a humanistic one.

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.

Not at all.

 

[guanophore]

For the record: I did NOT say catholics are taught to blindly follow the CC’s teaching. I said,

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

Ok. Which Catholics are you talking about here?

Do you find any “blind followers” on CAF?

 

[PRmerger]

They both are saying the same thing: outside the CC there is no salvation.

Edit: One is stating it in the negative; the other statement professes it in the affirmative.

Both true sides of the same coin.

 

[guanophore]

The purpose of my arguments are to make a statement about the change in Catholic teaching.

Your statement was clear, though erroneous. The Church does not have the authority or the liberty to make any changes to the Apostolic Teaching. The Magesterium is able to further understand it, and develop teaching based upon it, but no other foundation can be laid than that which has already been laid.

Our perceptions may change, and our understanding may develop, but the Teachings of the Apostles committed “once for all” do not.

 

[guanophore]

Second, of course Philip spoke orally but he was referencing Scripture and the life of Jesus. This is very different from oral tradition.

On the contrary, this is exactly what Sacred Tradition is. It is the Life of Jesus in the Church. It is completely consistent with Scripture because they came from the same Source.

When a preacher preaches he speaks of Jesus referencing Scripture. Since the Holy Spirit made certain that a sufficient record was created for the New Testament as he did for the Old, we can tell the story of Jesus sufficiently to come to faith and live as a disciple.

If this is true, why did Jesus found a Church? Who is responsible for equipping the saints for the work of the ministry?

While you have interesting info above, you miss the point again - we can rely on Scripture alone, rely on preachers preaching Scripture, rely on leaders leading by Scripture.

I can understand why someone would feel this way if they did not think that God was willing or able to preserve His Word any other way.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for your opinion.

I wasn’t aware that SS had a test like that.

If it does not pass that test, then it is an extrabiblical tradition. This is not a problem for Catholics, since we believe the Word of God is preserved infallible in the Church, as well as the Scripture. However, for those who reject the Word of God outside of the Scripture, the fact that they are guided by an extrabiblical tradition seems inherintly problematic.

 

[guanophore]

That’s the problem. The catechism teaches contrary to infallible teachings.)

No Ron, they are only contrary in your mind. If you think they do not compliment one another, then you don’t understand one, the other, or both.

 

[guanophore]

Hebrews 8:13 "When He said "A new covenant" He has made the first obsolete."

You need to understand? The old liturgy was made obsolete except for Judaizers.

You seem very confused, gtren. The Christian liturgy belongs to the New Covenant, not the old!

Perhaps you dont understand what liturgy means? The Christian liturgy was lifted from the Synagogue service,and the NT Scriptures and Eucharist added to it. This is easy to see, when the modern liturgy is compared to the Synagogue service. I encourage you to attend sometime, so you can see where the origins of the Mass are.

Liturgy is a prescribed set of rites and regulations as you mentioned. Jesus ended the earthly pattern of worship by entering the heavenly sanctuary with His Blood.

Liturgy is our spiritual worship. Yes, there are Rites and regulations connected to it, which prevent abuse. It is absurd to think that “the earthly pattern of worship” is ended. The earthly pattern of Christian worship comes from Christ, who gave it to us. Perhaps you have some sort of aversion to Liturgy, found it boring, or did not experience it as lifegiving. When you say you were “trapped” in Roman Catholicism it seems that way.

Perhaps you have to nullify the Liturgy to justify leaving it?

Now we worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Scripture says where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. So we have liberty in defining what liturgy looks like.

Liberty does not equate to license. We are not free to go beyond the boundaries given us by God. When we do this, we become enslaved again.

Liturgy, like all we do, must be done in faith. When you follow yours in faith that is Spirit and Truth. When I follow mine in faith that is Spirit and Truth.

It sounds like you are working to justify your decision to abandon the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

You mean like the CC saying it’s the one and only church founded by Jesus?

I fail to see how these are alike. Contrary to SS doctrine, which is not found in Scripture, the story of how Jesus founded the Church upon the Apostles and prophets is well told and documented in Scripture.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You mean like the CC saying it’s the one and only church founded by Jesus?

Hello again Dokimas,

Well then, in your opinion, which Church, is the “one and only church founded by Jesus”?

Thank you.

 

[guanophore]

The Gospel as recorded in Scripture is the ultimate leader judge.

If you are saying that the guidelines of conduct found in scripture are a reliable standard by which to judge, then I agree with you. However, Scripture itself does not “judge” because discernment is an activity of persons, not books, however Holy they may be. When people believe that Scripture is their authority, what has happened is that they have replaced those appointed by Christ to be in authority with themselves.

A leader is called by God and leads by reason of spiritual maturity.

Actually, all leaders in the NT who are authorized to do so were ordained. There were some people with spiritual maturity that were not ordained. Spiritual maturity is one element, but there are others.

 

[guanophore]

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?

It is not a strawman, Simka. We have seen as many definitions of SS around here as there are belly buttons.

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.

“It means that we Lutherans base our theology solely on the Scriptures of God and nothing else, not tradition, not human speculation, not modern scholarship, not our experiences or feelings or anything else.”

bookofconcord.org/confessionsandbible.php

 

[guanophore]

You are very blinded if you think that God created Scripture without unity in the books.

Indeed I would be! However, I did not say there was no unity in Scripture. I said that applying verses that are referring to the book or letter in which they are written to other books that may not even have existed at the time is a hermeneutical error.

It is evident then that you see Scripture as a work of man and not the work of God.

Really? Can you please explain how this is evident?

On the contrary, the men, moved by the Holy Spirit, spoke from God. It is an incarnational work, Just like Christ, divinity within humanity. I certainly don’t see that man was absent from the process.

Did you think your Bible just dropped out of the sky, fully formed.

Scripture is central to the protestant liturgy.

Yes. Having lost the central element of worship in spirit and in truth, the Scriptures are the next best thing.

Why do you call it “liturgy”?

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!

No, guanophore said nothing of the kind. If you interpret scripture the same way you interpret the posts you are reading here, then no wonder you are having so many problems!

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!

Memorial is the means established by God by which we worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. The core of our spiritual worship is in the Eucharist, which is anamnesis. It finds it’s roots in the Passover, which was also an anamnesis.

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.

You are new here, so you may not realize yet that it is not a good idea to try to read minds, hearts, and souls over the internet. You really have no idea what he is “missing”. This is a speculation on your part, and an erroneous one.

 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.

Do you think the Roman Catholic Church is “that ministry” that you don’t have to 'rejoin"?

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.

How are these opposed to one another? We still see it as the Real Presence by faith.

But, for the record, there is no such thing as “ritual of transubstantiation”.

And, for the record, the presence of the priest brings us as a community into His Sacrifice. People are not unable to “tap into it” if the priest is not present. On the contrary, there are more communion services at the local parish here with no priest present than there are Masses.

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.

Apparently you see the Divine Liturgy as something other than partaking of what is freely offered by grace as a free gift? It sounds like your experience of being Roman Catholic was pretty miserable.

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.

Yes, this is something we have in common. The OT priestly class does not exist in the New. However, unlike yourself, we see that shadow fulfilled (not abolished) in Christ, who is our sacrifice and our High Priest.

You feel the need to do a priestly ritual to bring to remembrance and I feel that the understanding of Scripture brings to remembrance.

Both things are needed. If we did not understand the meaning of anamnesis, then the “rememberance” would have only very superficial meaning, as is the case among many of our separated brethren.

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

And may God bless your journey also. You have a need that you are seeking to meet. I hope that CAF can serve in your benefit.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick, I forgot that you believe in the real presence. Sorry.

The universal Church.

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.

How can I know that our interpretation is right and my sisters interpretation is wrong considering the fact that you both defer the the bible as opposed to any one church leadership for the answer?

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

Both you and my sister insist that both your opposing beliefs regarding the Eucharist, are backed up by GOD’s Word, so what’s the next step?

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.

Again, you and I go to our bibles and bring from it a different interpretation, this time, regarding Simon renamed Cephas. We will always disagree regarding this point, so who was entrusted with the authority to resolve our differences?

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

The early church leaders that codified the bible, centuries after the apostles lived, believed that Mary was sinless and remained a virgin her whole life. The same people that decided that the book of Hebrews, Revelation, James and a letter of both Peter and John, would be officially part of the canon even though they were rejected by some, prior to that, and decided what would not make the cut, can be trusted regarding this fact, if they can be trusted regarding what should be in the bible and what shouldn’t be in the bible.

Prove that those who wrote the Bible believed the practice of sola scriptura, which is related to the purpose of this thread? I embrace both teadition ans scripture. You embrace only scripture, so where does scripture teach that the bible is the Christians final authority, as opposed to any one church leadership?

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.

Show me where the CC teaches that we can pay (money) - our way out of purgatory, and I will have to leave the CC? Again, Luther was right about those 16th century abuses.

continued…

 

[joe370]

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.

Well, Jesus established one church, not 2 or 20 or hundreds. He sent the holy spirit to His fledgling church to guide His church into all truth until His return, according to scripture. If someone steps outside the church founded by God and starts his own church, does the holy spirit leave the church founded by Jesus to now guide this other church into all truth?

Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority, in my opinion.

Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.

Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.

Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.

Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.

Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a bishop.

Hebrews 13:17 - Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.

Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.

2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.

Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.

1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.

1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).

1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.

2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.

2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry.

2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.

Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.

1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).

The CC determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) - at the end of the fourth century. You and I, therefore, believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the CC. After all, nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, (not the Scriptures) - is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) - and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith. (Matt. 18:17) It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (. Ephesians 3:10)

One last time and I’ll stop bugging you, LOL… if you disagree with my interpretation of the bible then who was entrusted with the authority, to help us to resolve our differences?

 

[ron77nyc]

They both are saying the same thing: outside the CC there is no salvation.

Your statement was clear, though erroneous. The Church does not have the authority or the liberty to make any changes to the Apostolic Teaching. The Magesterium is able to further understand it, and develop teaching based upon it, but no other foundation can be laid than that which has already been laid.

Our perceptions may change, and our understanding may develop, but the Teachings of the Apostles committed “once for all” do not.

Pope Eugenius and other popes said **living withing the Catholic Church **was necessary for salvation. He purposely excluded pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics.

INFALLIBLE TEACHING
In 1442 A.D, Pope Eugenius IV, 1442, at the Council of Florence, reaffirmed this truth. "It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (D.E.S.; The Sources of Catholic Dogma; 30th edition, # 714)

THE CATECHISM
‘Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.’" (C.C.C. # 847)

 

[1holycatholic]

If it does not pass that test, then it is an extrabiblical tradition. This is not a problem for Catholics, since we believe the Word of God is preserved infallible in the Church, as well as the Scripture. However, for those who reject the Word of God outside of the Scripture, the fact that they are guided by an extrabiblical tradition seems inherintly problematic.

Sola Scriptura isn’t just an extrabiblical position, it’s a contrabiblical position, it’s an unhistorical position…

Sola Scriptura is wrong in so many ways.