Posted on 12/26/2011 6:08:22 PM PST by rzman21
“The Catholic, on the other hand, holds that the immediate or direct rule of faith is the teaching of the Church; the Church in turn takes her teaching from the divine Revelation – both the written Word, called Sacred Scripture, and the oral or unwritten Word, known as “Tradition.” The teaching authority or “Magisterium” of the Catholic Church (headed by the Pope), although not itself a source of divine Revelation, nevertheless has a God-given mission to interpret and teach both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Tradition are the sources of Christian doctrine, the Christian’s remote or indirect rule of faith”
You can read that however you want. The Church recieves it’s teaching from scripture AND Tradition. As Jesus intended, and guided by the Holy Spirit he promised.
you are correct, the written Word will not contradict the oral Word and vice versa. this was one of the standards the Church used in setting the canon, did the book in question teach anything that opposed or contradicted the Apostolic Faith handed down from the Apostles.
care to give an instance where you see a contradiction?
the Baptist will point to infant baptism. The Church has always taught that the Apostles baptized infants, but to the Baptist, the Scriptures teach something called “believers baptism”
the Seventh Day Adventist will point to worshipping on Sunday as violating the 4th commandment, yet the Apostolic Tradition is well established that the Church from the beginning did not keep the 7th day Sabbath.
It’s a tough job but somebody has to do it. The hardest part is figuring out what an idiomatic expression in Language A means in Language B ~ which may require changing the discussion of the cultural base behind each language to come up with something useful.
>>My point exactly.
It’s a tough job but somebody has to do it. The hardest part is figuring out what an idiomatic expression in Language A means in Language B ~ which may require changing the discussion of the cultural base behind each language to come up with something useful.
>>My point exactly.
one Lord one faith one baptism wrote:
“read the NT and give me one example of when the Holy Spirit saved anyone without using the Church.”
Well, Acts 9:3ff comes to mind. However, that is hardly the point. Since Christ commanded that the Church “make disciples” of all nations, it is very plain (yes, there’s that word again) that ordinarily (a very important point) it is His will to make disciples by person to person contact, that is, by a believer or some group of believers bringing God’s saving truth (the Gospel) to an unbeliever who then believes.
However, what you want to do - apparently - is alter the “means of grace” from God’s word and sacraments to the church. That is not acceptable, for the reason that it is not in agreement with the Scriptures themselves. Yes, indeed, faith comes by hearing, which of necessity means human voices, but that which is spoken is the key. God’s word and His sacraments are just that, His. They accomplish His will. They do what they say. Man is the conveyor of God’s word and sacrament, that is true. But the key is word and sacrament, which must and do conform to the plain meaning of the Scriptures. In other words, for example - and this will upset many Protestants - baptism is not a mere symbol of something, no, baptism is God’s working in water and the word applied through sinful humans to adopt as His child the one who is baptized. What is to follow is instruction in God’s word that the baptized continue in the things which Christ commanded, per Matthew 28:18ff. ... one of which is: The Lord’s Supper, which is not a mere symbol of Christ’s body; but it is what His word plainly (there is that word again) says, “This is My body, given for the forgiveness of your sins.” Etc.
one Lord one faith one baptism, don’t confuse the means with the subjects.
Standing ovation.
Exactly. Just as Jesus and the Apostles preached it.
The Church was always about mankind, right from the beginning, as they relate to God.
You can say that again.
This patently false on it's face ! The WORD of G-d had been around for over 1500 years.
That is patently false. Christianity has been around for nearly 2000 years. You may peddle your papers to those gullible enough to believe in them.
Acts 9:3 is not a good example at all. if you read further, the Lord sent Ananias ( the Church ) to Saul and in 22:16 he tells Saul to be baptized and wash away his sins.
even in Acts 8 where the eunuch is reading the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit sends Philip ( the Church ) to him to explain what he is reading to him, proclaim Jesus Christ to him and finally baptize him.
-apparently- you want to make the Church something less than the Body of Christ on earth. it is the Church that Jesus gave His authority to to teach and baptize. the Church is a type of sacrament as it the instrument the Holy Spirit uses to preach the Word and administer the sacraments.
your constant use of the “plain meaning of Scripture” would get heated arguements from Baptists for example and many other Protestants when discussing baptism and the Lords Supper. ( Lutherans are very close to Catholics in these areas, i know, my wife is Lutheran. sometimes if i close my eyes, i think i am at a Catholic Mass when i attend services with her ) but the very existence of so many denominations and sects shows your “plain” meaning aint so “plain” to a lot of folk.
Jesus prayed in John 17 that His followers be one, so the world would believe He was sent by the Father. Paul tells us in Ephesians there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.
may all Christians pray about the implications of this truth.
You remind me of Petronski, he was blazingly ignorant.
That is high praise indeed, sir. Please accept it as a token that you are a true Christian apologist against the pagan and Judaizing hordes.
The god in the Reformation mirror says otherwise.
Very good question. I'll be interested in the gyrations.
thanks ( i think, LOL! )
seriously, Nevadan if you research what you think Catholics “add” like adhering to the sacraments, you will find this is what the Church has believed for 2,000 years.
for example, Peter in Acts 2:38 tells us to be baptized for the remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit.
was Peter “adding” the sacraments or is it possible the sacraments are the means of grace established by God?
read the Church Fathers some time, you will be amazed at what the Church has believed for 2,000 years.
Christianity did not start in the 16th century.
Where’s the anti-Lutheran polemics on FR, considering they also believe in the sacraments, real presence, confession, Mary as Theotokos, etc.?
I learned these concepts when I was a Lutheran.
“They are, in essence, the meaning of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, or “Scripture alone,” which alleges that the Bible – as interpreted by the individual believer – is the only source of religious authority and is the Christian’s sole rule of faith or criterion regarding what is to be believed.”
Seems like they aren’t giving protestants credit for listening to the input of the Holy Spirit.
Surprisingly enough I didn’t see Bourdain there.
“Exactly. Just as Jesus and the Apostles preached it.”
Perhaps Latin would be better so there is no translation. ooops
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.