Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

2 Thess. 3:6, 2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2 versus Matt. 15:3-6, Mark 7:8-9, Col. 2:8. A contradiction?

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 21, 2003

Answers

The Pharisees ,in Matt. 15:1-6, were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture.

The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 21, 2003.

Colossians 2:8

"See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world 3 and not according to Christ."

Because the Catholic Church's traditions are not mere human traditions, but are Christ-centered traditions, no contradiction exists when following the Holy Bible and Catholic tradition.

-- (tradition@catholic.christian), June 21, 2003.


"The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive ‘to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114).

Eugene & Paul will be the first to object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1- 6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition.

But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. The Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles told their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11). No doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 21, 2003.

Also without a tape recording, Sacred Tradition cannot be proven. Only the infallible Word of Jehovah-God remains. Show me proof and not blind faith in a church.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 21, 2003.

Proof: Matthew 16:18.

Either:

1) You believe that a yet-unnamed Church (maybe a virtual church?) is the true Church founded by Our Lord, or

2) You believe that Our Lord was a liar.

The burden of proof is on you, Mr. Ortiz. So far, you have made an accusation against the Holy Catholic Church without providing evidence to support your claim. Show me proof and not blind faith in your prejudiced views.

Dogbert

-- (tradition@catholic.christian), June 21, 2003.



What is the one true church? Well it is the church founded by Jesus Christ, a 'universal', or 'catholic' church. The true church is not an Roman organization. We, the true believers are the church.

1 Cor.3:16 teaches that each of us as individuals are the temple of God because “the Spirit of God dwells in you.”

We are called Col. 1:24: “His body, which is the church,” 2 Cor. 6:16 that “we are the temple of the living God.” As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”

2 Cor.3:7 It will be Gods dwelling place. together we are the temple (the church) the dwelling of God. Christ “In You” is the hope of glory.

Eph. 2:20-22: “Having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.” Jesus is the cornerstone and the apostles the foundation stones. Paul explains further in Eph. 4:15-16: “but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-- Christ-- from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.” The Church is a living temple made up of bricks whom are the people. We are all interdependent on one another. Just as a house is not made with one brick but all are cemented together.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 22, 2003.

You are right that the True Church is the body of all true believers. "True believers" of course means "believers in the truth". It does not mean "everyone who truly has some sort of beliefs about Jesus Christ". It should be immediately obvious to any thinking person that a system of thousands of conflicting sects, who cannot agree on a single doctrinal matter, cannot possibly all be "believers in the truth". Conflicting believs mean untrue beliefs, for truth cannot contradict itself. Belief in the truth means unity of belief. Therefore, the true Church can only be a Church which exhibits unity of teaching, around the world and across the centuries. This description fits only one Church, the one Jesus founded, the Holy Catholic Church. This Church then must be the True Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 22, 2003.

More anti-Protestant proganda. That 20,000-40,000 denominations is a lie, and the source you got it from also claims 16 Roman catholic denominations. Plus, you act like if we're in 'chaos' and disagree about EVERYTHING. Catholics are divided over the little things too. Yes, some Protestant groups have gone away from the truth, some have become traitors by holding hands with rome. I say 2+2=4, and you say 2+2=5, and someone else says 2+2=3. Just because I don't agree with the third person doesn't automatically make you right. Those groups/cults use the same methods as the Romanists do for interpeting scipture (isolating verses). It is a invisible church, not an organization or system or building. There are true believer in Christ everywhere on this planet.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 22, 2003.

http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/solscr02.htm

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 22, 2003.

It's kind of funny, really--I usually hear the accusation about isolating verses being lobbied at Protestants. As it is, Scripture, since it is a text, will always suffer when it's used as a polemical bludgeon. "2 Thess. 3:6 says this!" "But Matt 15:3-6 says this!"

We will get nowhere with that kind of nonsense. Let's call a truce!

D.O., if you'll refrain from waging guerilla warfare on Greenspun Catholic for a few posts, maybe we can discuss the real issue you raise: it could seem, at first glance, that there are discontinuities involved between the preaching of Jesus and that of his disciples.

Incidentally, as a Protestant, it remains in your interest as much as ours that there be established some sense of continuity between the two, especially considering that the Gospels were written within the context and embedded in the preaching of the disciples. If there appear to be discontinuities, they probably only require a certain minimum amount of investigation before they disperse.

Let's be optimistic--it is the Bible, after all. I'd rather this thread not devolve into mutual excommunications and anathemas again. And D.O., no pot shots about those being Catholic words (I'm anticipating your response here).

Please, civility and charity; incidentally, I hope the Catholics here too refrain from launching Scripture-missiles. --------------------------------------------

Different Christian churches and ecclesial communities put the stopper on divine inspiration at different points in history. Incidentally, Luther himself recognized that if he wanted to keep his belief in certain things, like the current formulation of the Trinity, he had to accept that some early councils were validly inspired and were the work of the Spirit.

The Eastern Church puts the stopper a little later. More radical Protestants of the Calvinist tradition put the stopper a bit earlier, rejecting the first councils. Traditionalist sects put the stopper at Trent. Everybody tries to define a specific point in time in history, before which the Holy Spirit inspired the teachings of men, and after which there could be no novelty.

The Catholic Church simply has not put the stopper down yet. The content of faith, belief, and practice in the Catholic Church is remarkably organic and ecclectic. The development of Sacred Tradition is not a zero-sum comptetition with primordial Christian belief--a Catholic can read the Bible and the earliest Church fathers comfortably, because he or she knows that these sacred sources can be assented to freely and without fear of dissent.

Incidentally, Protestants would do well to recognize that the Magisterium performs a very valuable function--to judge Church practice against the earliest Christian witness. It is the very essence of the mission of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith to obey Paul's commandment: "Test everything, retain what is good." These people are absolutely obsessed with one thing (the very same thing D.O. is very concerned about): let there be NO contradiction.

However, non-Catholic groups have settled instead on "let there be NO novelty." That is not Catholicism.

I gotta run, I'll be back later.

-- Skoobouy (skoobouy@hotmail.com), June 22, 2003.



David

I agree with you Brother. In my other posts I have tried to explain pre-election and it seems that this could be the core problem. God had chosen who He was going to save from before the foundation of the World. The true church is a spiritual Church whom God draws and saves as the true gospel is proclaimed. These are all of the people that Christ's blood will cover. It is God who does all the work and wakes up these individuals.

God say so in many places but one place is in Ezekiel 34:"11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I, even I, will both search my sheep, and seek them out.12 As a shepherd seeketh out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered; so will I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places where they have been scattered in the cloudy and dark day. "

The catholics believe this spiritual church could only be the catholic church. People in this forum should not get upset about pre- election because there could be some "elects" within this forum. If the catholic church was the true church then as a whole they should be perfect in any which way. But when you go out in the real world and you'll see the opposite is true. There are priests who rape boys and at the same time they bless people and forgive their sins. This is what I don't get. Could this be a sign pointing to something?

God would not allow this to happen if the Catholic church was the true church. Anyhow I am not here to start trouble or give oppinions, I rather let the scriptures speak! Unfortunately, in a great many churches, no distinction is made between the corporate external church that consists, which are the various local congregations, and on the other hand, the eternal invisible church.

Fact is, in many churches, it is assumed that those who have made profession of faith, who have been baptized in water, who have become members of the church, and who regularly eat the Lord's Supper, are truly saved. But I think the Catholic Church says we have to do these sacraments till the end and maybe God will save you if you don't fall away. (totally unbiblical) They vary a little. Therefore, the idea exists that the whole congregation is saved. We can see that's not true.

To add to what you said about the physical church, GOD tells us that these churches consists of true believers (the Elect who are saved) and the unsaved. Let's look as some of these verses carefully. In

I Corinthians 3:16, we read:"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

The context of this verse begins in verse 9, where we read: "For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building."

The foundation of the temple is indicated in verse 11:"For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

The building blocks that are built into this temple are indicated in verse 12: "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;"

It should be immediately apparent that the true believers are typified by gold, silver, and precious stones. They are the lively (living) stones who are built up into a spiritual house (I Peter 2:5).

On the other hand, the wood, hay, and stubble must relate to the church members who are still unsaved. Fire does not destroy gold or silver, but fire will utterly destroy wood, hay, and stubble. Thus, the Bible is teaching that the spiritual temple is a spiritual house representing the churches and congregations, but within those churches there are people who are truly saved (gold, silver, and precious stones), and those who are not saved (wood, hay, and stubble).

We also know the members of churches and congregations were typified by Jerusalem and Judea. In Revelation 21:2 we read:"And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband."

This verse is speaking of the whole body of believers, throughout eternity future we are called the new Jerusalem.In Galatians 4:25-26, the Bible speaks of a present Jerusalem:

"For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. "

The context shows that the Jerusalem which now is consists of individuals who are still in spiritual bondage. That is, they have not become saved even though God calls them a Jerusalem. But these verses also speak of a Jerusalem above. This Jerusalem can only relate to those who have become saved.

We read in Ephesians 2:4-6:"But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we [the Elect] were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:"

In principle, the true believers are seated in the heavenlies with Christ even though we live on this earth serving as ambassadors of Christ. Thus, the body of believers on earth is made up of Jerusalem above (those who are saved), and Jerusalem which now is (those who think they are saved but are still in bondage to sin). These individuals make up the churches and congregations. Therefore, the churches are spiritually called Jerusalem.

Thus, we see a parallel as God speaks of the churches as a temple and as Jerusalem. In the temple those who were saved were called gold, silver, and precious stones. They are called the Jerusalem above. However, also in the temple there are those who are called wood, hay, and stubble. They are called the Jerusalem which now is. The churches are also called Judea because Jerusalem was the capital of Judea.

We read in Luke 21:20-21:"And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. "

This command is for those true believers (the elect) to get out of the churches when we see the abomination of desolation sitting in the Holy place. The Bible give us clues to identify the abomination of desolation but that would be another discussion.

God bless.....

-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 22, 2003.


Friends,
Ortiz and the Soldier Boy have posted redundant waste matter in this thread, as they've done in others before. Nothing they say is relevant to holiness or truth.

The Truth shines out from Jesus Christ. He is incontrovertible today, as He was rebuking the Scribes & Pharisees.

Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. He named Simon Peter His Rock; and there is only one Church built on the Rock, Saint Peter. Logic then, is: Truth shines from the Church of the apostles, the Catholic Church. In essence, no other Truth is relevant. Not if the Bible is invoked (by heretics), not if an angel of light proclaims a ''truth''.

Just because ''Chr. Soldier'' reads a Bible passage or two, or forty, and adores what he reads, does not give him authority. Especially authority over Catholic theology and faith. Just because Ortiz is led into stupifying error every time he reads a passage of scripture, doesn't lead True Believers into confusion. He lives in a confused state, and Chris Soldier is even more confused, because he loves his own ''intelligence''. --His EGO; more than any truth.

They wanted to lock all of us into mortal combat over the meanings of certain Bible passages. Because, in their confused way, they feel powerful when they quote scripture. The devil leads both these boys by the basic fault in their character: Pride, in C.Soldier. Ignorance in David Ortiz. The devil found their weaknesses. The devil exposed himself behind these two immediately; by denouncing the Church Christ built.

You can't love Jesus Christ and not love His masterpiece on this earth: His Church. You can't dispute with His Church as with an earthly establishment. The Church isn't a country. She isn't a department of State. She isn't a Book. The Church is the instrument, the HAND of the Holy Spirit, and the dwelling-place of Jesus Christ. Who batters his head against her is splitting his head with ROCK.

Who remains faithful to her is safe from the wickedness of the devil. Safe from Satan's horns. That's why Satan hates her and reviles her and urges men to strike at her. And boys too; like David O., the punk kid. And Boy Embasador. (How do you invent a word like embasador??? Is that like ambassador? Guess not.) They work for the devil. One from personal Pride, the other in darkness and ignorance. The Bible is a mystery to each one. Let's continue praying for their conversion to God's truth.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 22, 2003.


Eugene

All I have to say is 1 John 4:20 "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? "

Peace brother I still Love you!!!!!!!!!!! Keep reading the Bible you may be shocked to find things you never read before because we are living in a time very very near the return of Christ, and every prophecy will be coming to light if you hummble yourself.

P.S. Thanks for giving so much scripture to support all your remarks. It's funny how the pharasies reacted to Jesus when HE kept giving them the scriptures. Nobody likes the truth. I have not one tiny bit of hatred towards you brother, but your bitter attacks are towards God. I have given much scripture to support a truth. Why do you keep arguing with the BIBLE? The Bible identifies the true church! You probably didn't read any of those scriptures.

In CHRIST...Peace!

-- Christian soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 22, 2003.


The Church was and still is a cohesive unit that is an organic outgrowth of the apostolic "Catholic" Church.

Let's see what history says:

"See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out[through their office] the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2(A.D. 110),in ANF,I:89

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp,16:2(A.D. 155),in ANF,I:42

"For the blessed apostle Paul himself,following the rule of his predecessor John, writes only by name to seven Churches in the following order--to the Corinthians afirst...there is a second to the Corinthians and to the Thessalonians, yet one Church is recognized as being spread over the entire world...Howbeit to Philemon one, to Titus one, and to Timothy two were put in writing...to be in honour however with the Catholic Church for the ordering of ecclesiastical discipline...one to the Laodicenes, another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to suit the heresy of Marcion, and several others, which cannot be received into the Catholic Church; for it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. The Epistle of Jude no doubt, and the couple bearing the name of John, are accepted by the Catholic Church...But of Arsinous,called also Valentinus,or of Militiades we receive nothing at all." The fragment of Muratori (A.D. 177),in NE,124

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?'...Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those menlived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus,until on account of their ever restless curiosity,with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled." Tertullian,On the Prescription Against Heretics,22,30(A.D.200),in ANF,III:253,257

"Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another." Cyprian,To Florentius,Epistle 66/67(A.D. 254),in ANF,V:374-375

"But for those who say, There was when He was not,and,Before being born He was not,and that He came into existence out of nothing,or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance...these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes" Creed of Nicea (A.D. 325),in ECC,216

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325),Canon 8,in NPNF2,XIV:19

"[T]he Article, In one Holy Catholic Church,' on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts... But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, And in one Holy Catholic Church;' that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,18:23,26(A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VIII:139-140

"I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, and eternal life. Amen" Apostles Creed(A.D. 360),in ECC,369

"And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is together worshiped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic, and apostolic Church" Constantinopolitan Creed(A.D. 381),in ECC,298

"Those who from heresy turn to orthodoxy, and to the portion of those who are being saved, we receive according to the following method and custom: Arians, and Macedonians, and Sabbatians, and Novatians, who call themselves Cathari or Aristori, and Quarto-decimans or Tetradites, and Apollinarians, we receive, upon their giving a written renunciation [of their errors] and anathematize every heresy which is not in accordance with the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God." Council of Constantinople I,Canon 7(A.D. 381),in NPNF2,XIV:185

"We must hold to the Christian religion and to communication in her Church, which is Catholic and which is called Catholic not only by her own members but even by all her enemies. For when heretics or the adherents of schisms talk about her, not among themselves but with strangers, willy-nilly they call her nothing else but Catholic. For they will not be understood unless they distinguish her by this name which the whole world employs in her regard" Augustine,The True Religion, 7:12(A.D. 390),in JUR,3:40

"You think that you make a very acute remark when you affirm the name Catholic to mean universal, not in respect to the communion as embracing the whole world, but in respect to the observance of all Divine precepts and of all the sacraments, as if we (even accepting the position that the Church is called Catholic because it honestly holds the whole truth, of which fragments here and there are found in some heresies) rested upon the testimony of this word's signification, and not upon the promises of God, and so many indisputable testimonies of the truth itself, our demonstration of the existence of the Church of God in all nations." Augustine,To Vincent the Rogatist,93:7,23(A.D. 403),in NPNF1,I:390

"Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intending thereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as: it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor's sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be." Augustine,On Faith and Creed,10:21(A.D. 393),in NPNF1,III:331

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure,deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--'Manichaeus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I donor believe Manichaeus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichaeus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichaeus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. ... for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichaeus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichaeus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichaeus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichaeus." Augustine,Against the Epistle of Manichaeus,4:5,5:6 (A.D 397),in NPNF1,IV:130-131

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors." Council of Ephesus,Session III(A.D. 431),in NPNF2:XIV:223

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or anyone else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they arise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation?' For this reason,--because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another, so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novation expounds it one way, Sabellius another, ... Arius ... another ... Pelagius ... another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation" Vincent of Lerins,Commoniories,2:4,5(A.D. 434),in NPNF2,XI:132

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon,Session III(A.D. 451),in NPNF2,XIV:259

All quotations taken from the Fathers of the Church and assembled by Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.

These were NOT poor folk operating under a terrible misinterpretation of scripture! Christ did not mean for everyone and ANYONE to form their own church in his own name and formulate his own doctrines. That is ABSURD!

Christ did NOT allow the "Catholic Church" to be lead away in error FROM THE GETGO until He could find a brave fellow, Luther, 1500 years later to get things right and reform this terrible disaster. Yet that is what you MUST believe to authenticate Protestantism, i.e., that the Church was completely apostate from the BEGINNING!

The Church is both invisible and VISIBLE . . . BUT there would be no INVISIBLE had it not been for the VISIBLE. You guys are chopping away at the trunk of a tree while you dangle on a tiny branch on which is depends for its sustenance.

Gail

P.S. Just once I would LOVE to have one of you guys (anti-Catholics) READ HISTORY! If what you believe is the truth, then Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius, Iraneus, Athananius, Origen, etc. were all apostates because THEY WERE CATHOLIC, as were the Bishops who canonized the N.T. you are using to bludgeon the Church, much like a dog who bites the hand of the one who feeds him.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), June 22, 2003.


A great display of CS wisdom: ''Nobody likes the truth''.

Is that an aphorism? How did CS conclude ''nobody'' likes the truth? --Not even himself?

The way he evades the truth, you'd think CS is against all truth. He thinks we hate him, and protests that he loves me. But why? Because he is confronted here. His falsehood is called falsehood. His ego is called ego. His love of God's truth is questioned. To Chr. Soldier, that's hatred! Love me, love my mistakes. His motto.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.



In somewhat lighter vein: I wonder if CS is actually an elderly gentleman (or woman). My evidence:

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 23, 2003.

D.O. You posted the following TRASH:

Romanists. (What's that?) You found it in Dr. Seuss?
Isolating verses. See the isolated verses Jesus quoted. Plenty to be seen in the Gospel.
Invisible Church? Not Christ's Church. Men & women in it were all VISIBLE & are visible still.
Organisation or system or building? --Or Bible??? Why do you except the Bible? If the Church is invisible, who gave you the visible Bible, D.O. An invisible hand who took your dollars over the invisible counter, at the invisible Christian Book Store???

No. The Catholic Church, acting in the Holy Spirit. She gave the world the Holy Bible. But, what can you possibly know about the Holy Spirit? You're thinking of ''buildings''. Poor self-deluded Bible Scholar. Trash interpretations, nothing true.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.


That's all you make, Ortizzo, CLAIMS. When have you ever proven something from your sick imagination? I've been waiting. I only see: '' I say that Roman Catholicism is NOT the true Church, and is a false system (counterfit-christianity) that is leading people to hell.''

--Well; that only shows you aren't very bright. If you understood the Holy Bible, you wouldn't say that. You'd still be a faithful Catholic, like the people in the Bible. Peter & Paul, and the disciples of Jesus were the original faithful Catholics. It is from them, and-- in Spain it was Santiago, Saint James, --that the world was first given the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Your blessed ancestors learned about Christ from Saint James the apostle. He baptised them into the Catholic Church. Ortizes, David! That was when they were Spaniards! Your Catholic ancestors. Converted into Christianity, by the Catholic apostle Santiago. May he pray for your immortal soul; and may the Ortiz family in heaven pray for their lost boy.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.


Hear this: ''We (the heretical Bible thumpers) need to be very humble and grateful that the Holy Spirit guides us--(What?? Maybe you think the Holy Spirit is a heretic too?) --to many truths in the Bible TRUTHS??? Name ONE, soldier boy.

We can't even take one tiny bit of credit for understanding the salvation of the Bible. --(You shouldn't CS. There is precious little you understand.) CREDIT??? Does a termite take credit for destroying your house?

You're the first Bible thumper, C. soldier, who claimed to be ''saved'' by the Bible. Usually you frauds say only Jesus can save you. Here you give that role to the Bible! The Bible saves! Most of all, when you misinterpret every passage? Poor child; a devil has done this to you.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.


Now I think Moderator has begun deleting the obnoxious posts. Is it so?

God in heaven, thank You! I will cease & desist from further squabbling. May God forgive the heretic!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 23, 2003.




-- (turn@italics.off), June 24, 2003.

If anybody has ears to hear and eyes to see, listen to what the the Word of God reveals......

2 Thessalonians 2: 3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God."

{wow! does this mean Satan will we ruling in the churches?

Matthew 24 :"15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:"

[God now tells us not to go back in the churches]

1Peter 4:17 -"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? "

[Does this mean God will destroy the churches? History just repeats itself!!!! God intesively speaks about acient Isreal because he is giving us a picture of todays churches! The churches today have become a harlot! This is what Revelations tells us.]

Pray for wisdom people before it is to late! We are in the great tribulations, right before Christ's return!!! God Bless

Hope to be back soon.... I leave my peace to all. Eugene I will pray for you Brother because Satan has a strong hold on you. Aren't you suppose to represent Christ? How do you speak with such filth. You curse with your mouth and then you Bless God?

-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 24, 2003.


CS,
You a Salvation Army recruiter? (No matter.)

The spray of new chapter-verses you post is truly lovely. All written by Catholic saints in the infancy of the Church, to the saints we see venerated in the great churches of Rome today! Some of whom rest under the altars. Or, were entombed in the catacombs. Every one a faithful Catholic. Just like your blessed ancestors, Chris. Yes; it's historically certain.

Did you find my posts filthy? Where, Commander? I steer clear of ''bad words''-- only occasionally emphasising by mild profanity. For which I'm ashamed. --Oh, well. If you say so, it must be true.

Your Bible interpretation is still ringing hollow. No Holy Spirit to put His damper on your extravagant imagination. Try again later, Ciao.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 24, 2003.


To CS, DO, and others: First of all you have to ask yourselves if you are open to truth or not. You exist now with - basically - two options: First is that you are right; and challenging your beliefs will only prove that. Second, you are wrong and the truth is still out there. History shows that first there was Jesus, then the disciples, then the church, then the scriptures of the New Testament, and then the canon of the Bible. This is something to think about. There was no book for the early church to follow. There was only the teachings of the apostles - by the way this is another way of understanding the idea of Sacred Tradition (I'm oversimplifying a bit but I think it makes the point). The "teachings of the apostles" = Sacred Tradition.

A look at the four marks of the Church reveals the source of this teaching: Holy (Jesus) and Apostolic. So let's fast forward a bit to the end of the fourth century. So far we have Jesus, the disciples, the Church, and the scriptures. We also have a tremendous problem. It seems there are an awful lot of spurious scriptures out there.

The Bible that is used so often to try and prove Catholicism wrong is a Catholic book (Or better put - A Catholic Library.) IT holds four gospels, yet there are approximately 100 known gospels, 25 or so still in existence. IT holds one Book of Acts, yet more than half of a dozen still are extant. One Book of Revelation, yet plenty more are out there.

The question than is how did we get the Bible? By that I mean the collection of books that comprise the canon? I know when I (A Catholic) got it. Four Councils in the late fourth, early fifth centuries decided. These books are in; those books are out. Pretty easy to trace.

How does one who is not a Catholic determine if he has the correct collection of books? Particularly if he does not believe in a "visible" church. If he denies church authority then doesn't he have to go out and decide these books all by himself? Actually, I truly am curious...How do you know that the books you have in your Bible are truly the inspired word of God?

To the statement that any one particular church doesn't matter I would say this: If my cousin lived nearby (A loving family) it still would not be right for me to leave my proper home to live there. The parallel is this: If God did in fact create a Church then we live in that Church out of obedience to God, and we leave it out of arrogance and sin. Now, note that I said "If God..." As I said at the top of the post, we are all, hopefully, searching for the truth.

I of course believe that he did. The early Church Fathers believed that he did. Paul spells out the norms of church leadership (Very visible). The apostles call and execute a church council in Jerusalem to discuss the gentiles - again a very visible sign of the church.

Finally, since the battle about Sacred Tradition always (Sadly) pits Bible against Tradition I cite the Bible. While there are many citations the two I make are these: 1 COrinthians 11, 23-29. This passage is in response to the scandals that had crept into the Corinthian Church. Paul was writing to correct them. Throughout the epistle Paul uses his own thoughts and opinions until he gets to verse 23. In responding to their abuse of the Lord's Supper he "passes on to them" what he had "received from the Lord." That my friends is Sacred Tradition. It is bound up in Sacred Scripture and perfectly illustrates the relationship between the two. They are not "equal" to use your word. They are different; like a movie and a book. Yet they are still a representation of the same thing.

The last is a bit oblique but I trust it will make the point. Read the Third and Second Epistle of John. These short letters basically say hello. They go on to commend the writer to the reader. They mention a bit of local news, and then they do something quite unremarkable but important. They both say: I have much to write you, but I do not want to do so with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon and we will talk face to face.

John clearly does not see a need to write down his thoughts to make them valid. He has no idea of writing an epistle of the New Testament. He is writing a letter to a friend. What he tells the friend when they meet constitutes Sacred Tradition.

Jesus started the Church. The apostles spread the word. By the year 105 Ignatius - a disciple of John's - is using the word Catholic. By the year 415 the Catholic Church canonizes the Bible. Two thousand years later the Church is still thriving. It is still being guided by Christ as he prayed in John's gospel: Holy Father protect them by the power of you name so that they may be one as we are one (17,11)...My prayer is that you protect them from the evil one (15)...Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth...For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified (19).

Sorry so long.



-- john vena (johnpnaok@cs.com), July 09, 2003.


The church did not give us the Bible. The Bible is given by God to His people, the church, and not the other way around.

The Greek kanon means a measuring-rod. In Christianity, the word canon refers to the total collection of inspired scriptures which are the rule or standard of our faith. The canon was complete when the apostle John wrote the last book, Revelation. However, the 27 books of the New Testament were not immediately collected together into a single book.

This was done after a long historical process. The four gospels, the Acts and most of the epistles were generally recognized as Holy Scripture by the churches. There was a measure of uncertainty about a few books. It was the Eastern Orthodox church thatfirst recognized the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. The canonical books were listed in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. Later on the Western church accepted the same books at the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397).

Does that mean that the church is infallible? If not, how can we be confident that we have all the inspired books and nothing else?

The church is not infallible, yet almighty God providentially guided His fallible church to recognize correctly His Word. His sheep hear His voice, as Jesus promised and they would not listen to the voice of a stranger.

This process is similar to the formation of the Old Testament canon. God gave His people the inspired books. The Jewish leaders and the people recognized a corpus of books which they called 'sacred Scripture.' Jesus and the apostles reasoned with the Jews from the Scriptures, implying of course, that there was a recognized canon which was not disputed.

Yet, it is clear that the same Jews that recognized the canon were not themselves 'infallible.' Jesus does not attribute infallibility to the leaders whose forefathers had first recognized the books of the Bible. As a matter of fact, they were mistaken on many issues of doctrine and morals, to the extent that they crucified the Messiah prophesied in the same Writings.

So we can be confident that God has providentially worked in history that we now know the inspired writing, but we would be wise to follow Jesus and His apostles not to attribute infallibility to the 'church' He used to that end.

We thank God for giving us His Word in written form. Rather than waste our time arguing on the canon of the New Testament, about which Catholics and Protestants agree, we should move on to study these sacred books to learn God's will and to correct false doctrines that have crept into the churches.



-- Anonymous (none@none.com), July 09, 2003.

Anonymous, you said the "Eastern Orthodox church that first recognized the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367." I'm not sure where you got this tad of information but it is incorrect. The Eastern Orthodox church did not break from the Catholic church until much later. Perhaps this is simply a misnomer on your part.

But at any rate, we certainly can trust that the Lord in His goodness, might and promise, lead the Catholic bishops to discern His will with regard to the canon.

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), July 09, 2003.


Anonymous, you miss the point. Certainly God inspired the scriptures and "gave" them to us. But since so many other non-canonical books were in existence - and being used to the detriment of the far flung christian churches - someone had to sort the wheat from the chaff. If someone says that there is no authoratative church, than how does that person accept a canon from anyone but himself?

Luther did not agree with the canon - even New Testament books - but could not agree with other reformers. He did, however, do what I think every protestant MUST do if he feels that there is no authority in the Catholic Church - determine the canon for himself. If you haven't done that than you have accepted the authority of someone else.

It is easy to say the last gospel was written by John, however, the truth is that gospels were written for years after John. How did you - Anonymous - decide that they were spurious, but that John was authentically inspired? That is the answer I am so curious about.

-- John Vena (johnpnaok@cs.com), July 09, 2003.


"The church did not give us the Bible. The Bible is given by God to His people, the church, and not the other way around."

A: Obviously the Church did not give us the Bible apart from the action of God. The point is, the Bible is a collaboration between God and the Church. God provided the inspiration to selected leaders of the Church, who did the actual writing. The Church made the decision to collect its inspired writings into a single book. The Church alone discerned, by the power of the Holy Spirit, exactly which writings would go into its book and which would not. The Pope approved that canonical list. It could not have been binding on the Church otherwise. So, the Church would still exist and would still teach the fullness of truth, even if it had never made the decision to produce such a book. But the book would not exist at all if it were not for the Church.

"It was the Eastern Orthodox church that first recognized the 27 books of the New Testament in A.D. 367. The canonical books were listed in Athanasius' Easter letter from Alexandria. Later on the Western church accepted the same books at the Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397)."

A: There was no Eastern Orthodox Church until the 11th Century. Athanasius was a Catholic bishop. The "Eastern Church" and the "Western Church" were both fully Catholic, under the divinely ordained headship of the Pope, just as they are today.

"Does that mean that the church is infallible? If not, how can we be confident that we have all the inspired books and nothing else?" The church is not infallible, yet almighty God providentially guided His fallible church to recognize correctly His Word."

A: Perhaps you don't understand what infallibility is. Again, it isn't a characteristic of the Church or its leaders, apart from God. What infallibility means is that God providentially guides the otherwise fallible leaders of His Church to CORRECTLY recognize His Word. So, infallibility is exactly what you just described! There is a bit more to it than simply compiling the Bible however. You ask - "how can we be confident that we have all the inspired books and nothing else?" The answer is - infallibility! God guided the otherwise fallible leaders of His Church in compiling the Bible. I ask - "Now that we have the Bible, how can we be sure that what our Church teaches us from the Bible is the actual Word of God and nothing else?" The answer is - infallibility! God guides the leaders of His Church in the interpretation and teaching of His Holy Word. If it were not for the gift of infallibility, no-one would have any way of knowing which writings are truly the Word of God and which are not. If it were not for infallibility, no-one would have any way of knowing whether a given interpretation of a biblical passage is the Word of God or not. It's all part of the same picture. What good is an infallibly compiled book which is thereafter subject to the fallible interpretations of men? Can you imagine God saying to us - "I have ensured that you received only the texts I want you to receive, but I am not going to provide you with any way of knowing what they mean"??

Now, this is when a Protestant jumps in and directs us to John 16:13 ... "when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth". The Holy Spirit is going to guide each man to the correct interpretation of God's Word! However, they overlook a couple of rather important particulars here. First, Jesus was not speaking to the people at large when He said these words. He was speaking directly and only to the assembled leaders of His Church - the first bishops and Pope. Secondly, to make such a claim in the face of the current state of doctrinal chaos seen in Protestantism is simply ridiculous. The Holy Spirit obviously is NOT responsible for such a situation of widespread contradiction, division, and general confusion. Jesus said that His followers were to be ONE. The Holy Spirit cannot be actively involved in a methodology which results in the fragmentation of Christianity, in direct opposition to the stated will of God.

"His sheep hear His voice, as Jesus promised and they would not listen to the voice of a stranger."

A: Really? Which sheep? Do Seventh Day Adventists and Lutherans both hear His voice? Presbyterians and Anglicans? Pentecostals and Amish? If so, God must be contradicting Himself almost every time He speaks! Is that possible? His voice would mean truth, would it not? Truth would mean unity of belief, would it not? Unity of belief cannot exist without authority, for without recognized central authority, each individual is his own authority, which guarantees disunity. And certainty of truth requires infallible authority, the kind that can allow a Church to grow and prosper in unity of belief, around the world and across the centuries, in the face of constant persecution, for 2,000 years. Anything less would surely result in widespread disunity, division, and untruth within a relatively short period of time. It already has.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 09, 2003.


With all of the bickering I see on these posts, it saddens me. If I were an unbeliever looking for understanding, this conversation would not be it.

Catholics and Protestants: please remember to love one another

-- na (fayewray@usa.net), January 21, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ