Well I can agree with your statement here. But there is nothing wrong with hating error. We are to love people but hate the error of their ways.
Well, I can partially agree. He did give his priesthood the authority. I’m sure you are aware of Peter’s words on this, " YOU also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. " 1st. Peter. 2:5.
All believers are in the priesthood of God to offer up spiritual sacrifices… But Peter didn’t mention anything about a pope, nor did the others.
Yes I am, but here’s a news flash, so are you.
I have no problem with baptism. I believe in it. whether or not it is an entrance rite, is debatable. Secondly, I know you are talking specifically about water baptism. I am not.
Jesus gave us the conditions to enter the kingdom of God. You must be born of the Spirit so that you can spiritually see it, an
then enter it.
I’ve never seen even one reference to Mary’s sinless state, actually the exact opposite is true. I’m not sure what you’re trying to pull off here. Then you say, “people who received their faith whole and entire from the Apostles…” is a subjective, invalidated, wishful notion. It doesn’t exist in God’s word. Therefore it is not of God. Faith is produced by what God has said, not by what people may have heard.
Oral tradition, if it was consistent, will never contradict holy scripture. So if you tell me something passed down that does contradict scripture, then for sure we can know it wasn’t something God said. Scripture is always the measuring ruler to determine what is of God and what is not. Any tradition is ALWAYS is submission to inspired scripture.
I’m not sure what world you are living in Vonsalza, Not only do I belong to such an authoritative Church, but this same Church has a wonderful skill to interpret scripture. I thank God for such a church.
Secondly God’s word is more than sufficient to answer my questions. It is a completed work in every way.
No I am in full communion with
the Catholic Church the only church that Jesus established. The one that is headed by his representative on Earth the Pope. That is the church with which you are imperfectly connected.
One of the 4 marks of the Church is that it is apostolic.
Unless you’re Catholic or some form of Orthodox, then you lack this necessary mark.
The New Testament gave us very clear language to describe a teacher that didn’t bear this mark.
If it were, then Christendom wouldn’t have had at least 7 ecumenical councils followed by a plethora of additional councils/synods by the Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants.
Scripture is an amazing resource. But it is very, very obviously incapable of answering every question we have.
Thank goodness that there’s a living apostolic Church granted the power to “bind and loose” by Christ Himself for the specific purpose of picking up this scriptural “slack” that leaves us hanging.
This common sense statement is why there was no such thing as a non-apostolic Church until the Reformation.
This is a good point. It was Luther who replaced the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ with Sola Scriptura. Calvin just took advantage of this innovative doctrine to jettison many Apostolic Teachings and specifically, the authority of the hierarchy.
I am not sure what these might be, but he replaced Catholic authority with his own, and that of which he only approved. He was a vicious and intolerant as any Catholic Bishop when it came to following the new way.
There are some aspects of spiritual authority possessed by each believer, but Scripture is clear that not all are called to each office, gift, or vocation.
Until the Reformation, authority in the Church founded by Christ was passed through the Apostolic succession, and ordination. At the Reformation, this line of ordained authority was jettisoned, in favor of the model you espouse here, that all authority is given to each. Such a model cannot be supported by scripture or Sacred Tradition, preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit.
we all share in the role of priest, prophet, and king, by being baptized into Christ, but not all of us are called to be overseers of the flock.
Peter could never have imagined what the Church would become, partly because he, along with the other Apostles, thought Jesus would return “soon”. The tiny mustard seed that existed during his lifetime became the largest tree! The role of the successor of Peter grew with the Church, but the gifts and responsibility passed on by Peter to his successor never changed. The successor of Peter has the duty to feed and care for the flock, and confirm the brethren.
The early Christian Church did not argue over whether or not babies should be baptized, only whether or not the 8 days should pass (as was the Tradition for infants born into Israel). Why do you think this occurred?
I don’t doubt that you are unable to receive the references that exist. You have never seen a Scriptural reference to which books belong in the NT, but that does not seem to bother you at all! You will accept Sacred Tradition when it suits you, and reject it when it does not.
I am sure it must seem like it to you, but history is clear that the first documents in the NT began to be written at around 50AD, and continued up until as much as 100 AD. The Teaching of Jesus was whole and entire in the Church during that time, and has continued to be to this day. You don’t seem to believe that God is willing and able to keep His word…
“…so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.” Isa. 55:clock11:
Why do you think God would abandon His promise?
I think you lost me here.
“Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.” Rom. 10:17
It is good that we can agree on something! However, Sacred Tradition does contradict your interpretation of Scripture, so it appears to you as though there is a contradiction which only exists in your perceptions.
This is the great innovation of the Reformation. Each man has been empowered to interpret the Scriptures according to his own experience and education (or lack thereof) so that there are as many interpretations as there are belly buttons.
The great doctrinal innovation that spawned the fruit of the Reformation (division and disunity). But when we read the writings of the successors of the Apostles, we find that Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are, on the contrary, two equal strands of the same thread. The children of the Reformation are separated from the Sacred Tradition, so have lost the lens through which Scripture is to be understood. The Scripture was never intended to be separated from the faith that produced it. The Apostolic Commandment has been abandoned by our separated brethren.
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter. " 2 Thess. 2:15
Scripture was produced from the Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition.
tgG, I think you do not see the contradiction of what you are saying here. You are affirming that you have people with “wonderful skill to interpret scripture” (which no doubt is consistent with innovative doctrines that were created at the Reformation) and yet you also claim that the Scriptures are more than sufficient to answer all your questions.
If this latter is true, then what use would you have for the “wonderful skill” of the interpreters/preachers/pastors?
Yes I am aware this article explains it better than I could
The Priesthood Is Both Ministerial and Universal
Pope as I am sure you know means father. Pope is the title that we gave the position that Jesus established for the head of His Church. If you could give me the scripture that states, that we should only believe what is written in scripture.
tgG has already admitted believing in a number of doctrines created at the Reformation, and believing preachers in his Reformed community that “interpret the scriptures” in a way that he finds life giving. So clearly, though claiming to adhere to Sola Scriptura, he really does not.
I am a member of the Episcopal Church. I do not hate the Catholic Church. In fact, I attend Catholic mass at least once a week. And I think that the Pope is Christ’s vicar on earth.
Yeah,… we’ve all got a taste of what your interpretation is all about guanophore. I’m sorry but you don’t get to condemn our interpretation while you get a pass, it doesn’t work that way. When the N.T. says something like… " are not his brothers here with us? …" but then the CC turns it around to mean, well, tradition tells us that his brothers were really relatives because of their custom. na… other passages using the same Greek word use it to mean what we easily see it to mean, it was his brothers.
Our interpretation is not isolated and private, millions around the world see scripture at face value, yet you claim to have the edge over this because you think that your organization is in charge of everyone.
two things here: The title pope, is a title the founders of Christianity knew nothing about. It wasn’t in their speech, it wasn’t in their teaching, or in any N.T. narrative. But we do have Jesus words, “Call no man on earth your father…” Mt. 23:9 a clear teaching of Christ the CC needs to repent of.
Secondly, in their teaching they taught that Christ alone is the head of the Church and not a man. The only example of being a representative of Christ is the example we all are called to. This is why I’ve said on this site, I will gladly kiss the ring of the pope, but he must kiss mine as well.
Thirdly, to the point about scripture being the only source. There is not one scripture to say exactly what you request, but the concept of it is surely in scripture and very clear, especially when it comes to tradition.
We know the N.T. is called the Word of God and is our source of all divine truth. But we also know that tradition plays a part such as the few instances where this word is mentioned. But does scripture TEACH that tradition is another source of divine and inspired truth found in scripture or in addition to sacred scripture? The answer is no. Jesus charged the Pharisees of exalting the traditions of men above the word of God. How did they do this? By interlacing and intertwining their traditions with holy scripture, but eventually they came to see tradition more importantly than they did scriptures. How so?.. they made an interpretation of what the scripture should mean, but they were wrong.
Here’s one example: "Mk 7:5-13 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?"
6 He answered and said to them, "Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
7 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'
8 "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men–the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do."
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.
10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.'
11 But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban”–’ (that is, a gift to God),
12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother,
13 MAKING THE WORD OF GOD OF NO EFFECT, through your TRADITION which you have handed down. And many such things you do.”
That sounds kinda snarky. Catholics can make private interpretations of scripture, so long as it does not conflict with the One Faith that was handed down from the Apostles. Trouble is, I have not shared any of my interpretations on CAF! For that reason, I think you lost me here!
Did I say something condemnatory? Perhaps my reference to Calvin’s heresies sounded insulting? I guess you still espouse a majority of them. I am not really in a position to condemn them, though, that was done by the Church some centuries ago.
This is a good example of what I mean by personal perceptions. I know that many modern bible Christians espouse this view, but even the Reformers accepted the Apostolic teaching that Mary was Ever Virgin. Perhaps that is what you meant when you said they did not “go far enough”?
One has to have an understanding of tribal cultures. There is no word for “cousin” or “stepbrother” in the Hebrew. Anyone who is a close relative in the clan (too close for marriage) is considered a brother or sister. Naturally not all of the nuances of Hebrew get into the Greek, but this is one reason we follow the Apostolic command to “hold fast to the traditions whether by writing or in person”. Sacred Tradition is much about how we understand what is written.
Perhaps, when you see Jesus face to face, and meet His Mother Mary, and the rest of His relatives, you will finally be able to accept that what was passed down to us from the Apostles is true.
Again, I have to ask, how is it that Christians for 1500 years (and indeed to this day) understand that Jesus was Mary’s only child? How is it that so many scripture scholars “missed” this Truth? Or could it be that being separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the NT there has been a misunderstanding in modern times?
No one has suggested they did, tgG. This is just another strawman. “Pope” is Latin, a language that did not come into official use in the Church until the late third century. It is unreasonable to expect a word to be found earlier that was not in common ecclesiastical use. The same could be said for the word “trinity”. I don’t see you making the same complaint that the “doctrine” or “term” Trinity was unknown to the founders of Christianity! Listen to how it sounds “the word Trinity was not in their speech, it wasn’t in their teaching, or in any N.T. narrative”.
When you do things like this, you appear to be grasping at straws.
I know you accept the Trinity, though the word did not come into official use until 325 AD.
And yet, the Apostles demonstrate the use of the word “father” to speak of their teachers, themselves, and their elders in the faith. I think you have taken this commandment out of context. If what you are saying is true, then the Apostles themselves violated it. More likely, it is your perception of it that is in error, rather than the behavior of the Apostles.
On this one I have to agree with you. I cringe every time someone on here calls Peter the “head” of the Church. It think it just causes more confusion for people like you, and is not necessary. Peter does not need to be called a “head” in order for the Petrine ministry to be valid. Peter himself would cringe at such a thing!
Yes, we are all called to bring Christ to the world, and be examples of His love and character. But we are not called all to the same offices and we don’t have all the same gifts and responsibilities. The successor of Peter in Rome has been charged with the care and feeding of the whole flock, and to strengthen his brethren. No one else was given this duty, which has been passed on from Peter to this day.
As far as a “ring”, the seal of the pope, and any jewelry he might wear are temporal items that have purposes in this world only and not the next. The seal of the pope, which he uses to mark official documents, when a pope dies or retires, is smashed so it can be buried with him.
The ring is a holdover from medieval time when rings symbolized temporal powers and succession. All the valid successors of Peter were recipients of the Petrine gifts and responsibilities, even before they started wearing a ring.
So I am wondering why you might be wearing such a ring? Do you see yourself as having been given the responsibility by God to feed and care for the whole flock, and to confirm your brethren in their roles as overseers of the flock?
I agree that there are many passages that point to the authority of Scripture, but it is also those same scriptures that point to the fact that authority was given as well to the Church. If it were not for that authority, you would be an Arian, and you would have no table of contents for that Holy Book with which you seem to love smacking us Catholics over the head.
And I must reiterate, Protestants often do more with only part of the divine Truth than Catholics do with more. It is a testimony to the passionate faith of our siblings in Christ. Reformed Christians are, in some ways, like Apollos. He was passionate about the portion of the Teaching he had received.
It is no if you reject part of what is written in the text, of course!
“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2 Thess 2:15
The Apostle delivered the Word of God to them. "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. 1 Thessalonians 2:13
You seem to agree that the Church really did receive the Word of God from the Apostles, but you don’t seem to believe that Jesus kept His promise to watch over His Word to perform it, and to lead the Church into all Truth. If the Church teaches error, tgG, then the Gates of Hell prevail, and Jesus has abandoned His Bride.
I think you are confused tgG. You don’t seem to be able to distinguish the difference between the Word of God that was delivered to the Church, and the traditions of men. These are two different types of tradition.
Are you saying that calling the successor of Peter “pope” the word of God has no effect? Are you saying that the use of the word “Trinity”, or hypostatic union, or saying that Mary only had one child is “making the word of God of no effect”? Perhaps you can help me understand why these practices accomplish that?
Hope you had a good weekend and have some good plans for Valentine’s day, my brother!