Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
It does not such thing. It says that Bishop Timothy will be fully equipped for his work if he supplements his formation with the study of the scripture. But Paul says so only after he exhorted him to heed the lessons St. Paul and apparently others gave him orally (2 Tim 3:14). Likewise, the Catholic Church teaches that one can profit from reading the scriptures if such reading is combined with solid catechism.
Says which gospel? Every gospel I know, every letter of Paul, teach otherwise.
How does one have a sound belief system when it is predicated on error from the beginning?
Adam fell hard.
The Eternal word preexisted Mary and the evangelists. Both Mary and the Evangelists, however, are those who made the written Word available to us through their particular work, either mothering Jesus or recording the events of His life. My point is that the latter would not be possible without the former.
Christ makes the same connection Himself: "27 ... Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the paps that gave thee suck. 28 But he said: Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it." (Luke 11).
Yes, the elect are those who persevered of their own free will. However, it is God's grace that animated their choices, therefore they are God's elect.
True, but it empowers strictly within the parameter of the deposit of faith. No pope, for example, had the power to declare Luther's heresies correct. He has no power but what has been given him from above. Luther, however, encouraged men to read the gospel on their own and preach their private interpretation of it without regard for anything but their own little heads. Protestantism is traditons of, and power grab by men.
I believe it is true that the scripture has many facets. Very often they record a specific event, which can be taken as a simple narrative (for example, Jesus turned water into wine) but also it showed His divinity; it tells us that Mary intercedes for our needs; it relates to Christ as bridegroom of the Church; it prefigures the Eucharist where wine is transsubstantated into His blood; it tells us that the latter revelation of Christ is of greater importance than the earlier revelation of the Prophets.
In the eunuch story it is of course true that on its surface it is a mere anecdote from the life of Apostle Philip. But since the scripture mentions it among, we are sure, many other episodes from the Apostle's life, we have to believe that it has a deeper meaning and that it illustrates a general principle of transmission of knowledge from the apostles to the laity.
I disagree that the Apostles were equivalent to today's Roman Catholic Church.
Based on what? I gave you the scripture that says that they were sent by Christ; He promised us a Church and the final chapters of the Gospels and the Acts tell us how the Church was built. The pastoral letters tell us how that Church was steered away from error. For ten centuries there was but one Church run from Rome. Christ foresaw the schisms, but he also prays that in the end His Church will be one, and so it will be. When, do you think, the Catholic Church became distinct from the whatever "church" you have in mind?
I am not sure what is your argument here. Is baptist baptism not by water?
The Bible is a treasure trove that can more than satisfy any appetite
Except, it seems, when you come across a verse you don't like, like Acts 8:30, and then is just becomes a "guy explaining a scripture to another guy".
He didn't abandon the terminology, He confirmed the idea by using a like term, so there would be no confusion
Accoridng to you, Jesus introduced tremendous confusion. Nicodemus calls natural birth birth of the womb. Christ refers (you think) to the natural birth as birth of water. But in the next verse He is back calling it birth of the flesh. That, when water is how John performed his baptism of rebirth.
Wasn't it you who said that the Baptisms of John the Baptist didn't have the same effect as they do today?
That is correct, but the two are related and the johannine baptism had established the connection between baptism as a ritual, second birth, and water, by the time the conversation with Nicodemus is taking place.
The Church does not means just priests, it also includes the written word. I take decisions in my life, I am sure, in a very similar way you do: I ask advice, value advice of my priest and other clergy past and present, including Father Matthew, Father Luke, Father Mark, Father John, Father Peter, Father Paul... I also pray to God or to Mary or to saints, like I explained before, and that prayer sets me in the right frame of mind to take the decision I often am the only one qualified to take.
A Christian is sealed by his baptism; his works will be judged according to the Christian law. Of course his works lead him to sin and repentance many times; but sealed he remains, as whatever he does he is a Christian.
Likewise, confirmation and Holy Orders supply seals specific to their particular charisms.
You are confusing the seal with the state of grace. It is not the same thing.
I suppose the debate will go on forever. I cannot get beyond the notion that I am responsible, that there exists within me some moral accountability for my choices. If, I have experienced an infusion of grace than surely, I must be obliged, somehow, to honor and participate in this giftedness. Indeed, it would seem if I have been called, if I have seen the light than perhaps, Pelagius may have been right. I am responsible to live the new life that I have been shown. If I falter, the fault is mine not God's.
Pelagius was not right. It is true that we freely cooperate with grace and are judged by our works, but it is also true, contra Pelagius, that grace is the sole engine that makes our choices for the good possible.
Where I would differ with my friend annalex is in saying it is grace only (sola gratia) by which we are saved. That is, only through and by God's total grace do we come to know Him and persevere. We do nothing to cooperate or effect our salvation as much as we would like to think we do.
If you are truly in Christ you will never falter to a point of total rejection simply because Christ will substain you. He is the Shepherd that guard His sheep even from ourselves. For this we praise Him.
Today there are precious few Reformed Protestants. Reformers believe that God saves people through His grace alone. Most Protestants hold a Catholic version of man's free will requiring man to "cooperate" or to have "faith". It this latter instance, many have rejected the notion of sola gratia.
Versus Trent that stated it was forbidden to read or own the Bible. There was a power grab alright but I don't think you can blame Luther.
"He is the Shepherd that guard His sheep even from ourselves."
Out of curiosity, where is this in scripture?
Very well. I hope this "tractette" will be of help. As you can see, some items regarding original sin have already been declared dogmatic, but others have not.
Original sin is that transgression of Adam against the command of God. Through sin, he lost sanctifying grace and provoked the anger of God. As a result, our first parents become subject to death and to the dominion of the devil. According to Gen 3:16, God imposed suffering and death as a punishment for sin. This is NOT a doctrine of St. Augustine, although he, as in many of his writings, is the master synthesizer of Catholic faith.
Original sin was directly denied by the Pelagians who taught three things:
1. Sin of Adam is transmitted to posterity not by inheritance but by imitation.
2. Death, suffering and concupiscence are not punishment for sin, but a natural condition of man.
3. The baptism of children is administered, not for the remission of sins, but as a sign of acceptance by the Church to enable men to reach the Kingdom of Heaven.
St. Augustine combated this Pelagian heresy by citing many earlier Church Fathers. It was condemned at the Synods of Mileve 416, Carthage, 418, Orange 529, and in later times at Trent, 1546.
Now, vs. the Pelagians:
1. “Adam’s sin is transmitted to his posterity, not by imitation, but by descent” (de Fide). Adam’s sin was not merely for himself alone. He not only transmitted to his posterity sin and death, but also the GUILT of SIN. Sin dwells in every human being and is removed by the merits of the Redemption of Jesus Christ, which normally is bestowed by the Sacrament of Baptism.
2. The classic proof is found at Romans 5:12 ”Therefore, in the manner which sin entered into the world by one man, and because of sin, death; and so death passed upon all men in the one in whom all sinned”. Death is distinguished from sin and is represented by the consequences of sin. Concupiscence is not meant, because sin, according to v 18, is removed by the grace of Christ’s Redemption, while evil desires (concupiscence) remains as experience shows.
The proof from Tradition: St. Augustine vs. the Pelagian Bishop Julian of Eclanum said “It is not I who have invented original sin, which the Catholic faith holds from of old, but you, who deny it, you are without doubt a new heretic”. In “Against Julianum, he quotes St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Reticius of Autun, Olympius, St. Hilary, St. Ambrose, Innocent I, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. John Crysostom, St. Basil, and St. Jerome as witnesses of Catholic teaching. Many assertions of the Greek Fathers who insist on personal responsibility for sin are to be understood as being in opposition to Gnostic-Manichaean dualism and to Origenistic pre-existentialism (the former which St. Augustine also combated).
3. Irrefutable proof of the conviction of the primitive Church as to the reality of original sin is the old Christian practice of baptizing children “for the remission of sins” – St. Cyprian.
The above has been declared dogma by the Catholic Church at Trent, but also by her continuous tradition. However, there remains some discussion that has not been positively and dogmatically declared…
1. “Original sin consists of the deprivation of grace caused by the free act of sin committed by the head of the race.” This is not “de fide”, but “sentential communis” – or “common teaching”, a teaching generally accepted by theologians but NOT dogmatic.
2. The positive solution on the nature of original sin was noted at the Council of Trent – the death of the soul by the absence of grace (not being present) and supernatural life. In Baptism, this sanctifying grace, the requirement for the supernatural life, is infused into the baptized. It follows from this that original sin is a condition of being deprived of grace. This flows from the Pauline contrast between the sin proceeding from Adam and justice proceeding from Christ :
“For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” Rom 5:19
Certainly, there is room for discussion with our Orthodox brothers, since the Council of Trent did not close the door to ALL nuances on the subject of original sin. As our previous discussions have shown, (on the definitions of Energy and uncreated grace), there is certainly room for analyzing our respective traditions on what exactly IS sanctifying grace.
Source is "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", Dr. Ott and The Sources of Catholic Dogma", Denzinger
Regards
"If every local Orthodox church is free to formulate their own local doctrinal position, as has been stated, you could have far more than 33,000 different "Churches" each running around saying all sorts of things."
Harley, no local Orthodox Church, if you mean at the parish level, gets to decide dogma for itself. Only an Ecumenical Council can do that. Where did you get this idea? "Doctrine" is a somewhat different matter, but we really don't "decide" these issues. We look to the past to see what was dome before us and conform to that. Our local councils have made doctrinal proclamations but they usually (but not always) are more in the nature of disciplinary matters.
Try a read of this; it will explain alot:
http://www.frederica.com/writings/orthodox-controversies.html
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.