Three Words Catholics Do Not Understand

Proclaiming the Gospel ^ | March 18,2015 | Mike Gendron

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “Yes, they can try and fail, as all who have tried to keep the Law have failed.” <<

.
You make Yeshua and John liars with that statement.

Yeshua said his yoke is easy, and his burden light.

John said that those that do not keep his commandments do not know him, and that his commandments are not grievous.

.

[daniel1212]

The Church lays Her authority first on Christ as She is His Bride.

And upon what basis did the Lord establish His oral Truth claims, tradition or Scripture as being the standard as the transcendent wholly inspired body of Truth

Just as He opened the eyes of the Apostles on the Road to Emmaus, He taught the Apostles how to understand Scripture in light of the Gospel. This is the Deposit of Faith (Big "T" Tradition).

Wrong, as it was not tradition that the Lord invoked in substantiating His claims to them by Scripture, and it was not tradition that He opened their understanding to, but Scripture.

That some, and only some of Scripture contained words and truths which were first said orally does not constitute a transcendent standard for Truth due to its very amorphous form. Instead, what was preached was subject to testing by Scripture as supreme, but the veracity of what it Rome claims tradition says is based upon the premise of her own veracity.

She can assert nothing contradicts Scripture, but she holds herself as the authority on what Scripture consists of and means, and thus makes herself an autocratic authority.

For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

However, just like the Apostles needed explanation to see what had been hidden in the Old Testament since the dawn of time, so the Church has endeavored to explain through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit what is written for unity of faith through unity of understanding.

Which is not contrast to Westminster, which affirms the magisterial office, but which does not require it to be possess perpetual infallibility (if conditional), nor was this ever seen or necessary in Scripture for its authority, or function.

I think the first question I would ask you is, what is the basis for your assurance of truth?

For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

[Resettozero]

John said that those that do not keep his commandments do not know him, and that his commandments are not grievous.

John was speaking of those commandments Jesus gave us, His disciples. Do you remember what they are? Wasn't the Law of Moses or the religious leaders.

Jesus fulfilled the Law and the Prophets perfectly. My life is not my own and is hidden in Christ. Same for every Christian throughout this Church era.

[af_vet_1981]

There are several passages in the scriptures concerning prayers for the dead, which I may post as well, but these passages are commonly overlooked, and since the case is irrefutable that the Jews have commonly and persistently prayed for the dead, I am responding with passages in the Old Testament, sans Second Maccabbees, that can be read in support of this ancient custom.

And this is the blessing, wherewith Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said, The Lord came from Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from mount Paran, and he came with ten thousands of saints: from his right hand went a fiery law for them. Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words. Moses commanded us a law, even the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob. And he was king in Jeshurun, when the heads of the people and the tribes of Israel were gathered together. Let Reuben live, and not die; and let not his men be few. And this is the blessing of Judah: and he said, Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people: let his hands be sufficient for him; and be thou an help to him from his enemies. And of Levi he said, Let thy Thummim and thy Urim be with thy holy one, whom thou didst prove at Massah, and with whom thou didst strive at the waters of Meribah; Who said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him; neither did he acknowledge his brethren, nor knew his own children: for they have observed thy word, and kept thy covenant. They shall teach Jacob thy judgments, and Israel thy law: they shall put incense before thee, and whole burnt sacrifice upon thine altar. Bless, Lord, his substance, and accept the work of his hands; smite through the loins of them that rise against him, and of them that hate him, that they rise not again. And of Benjamin he said, The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by him; and the Lord shall cover him all the day long, and he shall dwell between his shoulders. And of Joseph he said, Blessed of the Lord be his land, for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, And for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, And for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, And for the precious things of the earth and fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush: let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph, and upon the top of the head of him that was separated from his brethren. His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh. And of Zebulun he said, Rejoice, Zebulun, in thy going out; and, Issachar, in thy tents. They shall call the people unto the mountain; there they shall offer sacrifices of righteousness: for they shall suck of the abundance of the seas, and of treasures hid in the sand. And of Gad he said, Blessed be he that enlargeth Gad: he dwelleth as a lion, and teareth the arm with the crown of the head. And he provided the first part for himself, because there, in a portion of the lawgiver, was he seated; and he came with the heads of the people, he executed the justice of the Lord, and his judgments with Israel. And of Dan he said, Dan is a lion's whelp: he shall leap from Bashan. And of Naphtali he said, O Naphtali, satisfied with favour, and full with the blessing of the Lord: possess thou the west and the south. And of Asher he said, Let Asher be blessed with children; let him be acceptable to his brethren, and let him dip his foot in oil. Thy shoes shall be iron and brass; and as thy days, so shall thy strength be. There is none like unto the God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy help, and in his excellency on the sky. The eternal God is thy refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms: and he shall thrust out the enemy from before thee; and shall say, Destroy them. Israel then shall dwell in safety alone: the fountain of Jacob shall be upon a land of corn and wine; also his heavens shall drop down dew. Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency! and thine enemies shall be found liars unto thee; and thou shalt tread upon their high places.

But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled my soul with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother: I bowed down heavily, as one that mourneth for his mother.

And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.
Deuteronomy, Catholic chapter thirty three, in its entirety,
Psalms, Catholic chapter thirty five, Protestant verses thirteen to fourteen,
Second Samuel Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses thirteen to twenty three,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

1. If you look at the blessings for the children Israel, there are tribal references and yet there are also personal references to the actual sons of Jacob. All of them were dead at this time.
2. Notice Moses asking, ie., praying that Reuben, who was already dead, should live and not die. His subsequent prayer that "and let not his men be few" is a clearly reference to the tribe. Nothwithstanding Reuben conspiring to sell his brother into slavery, he is also mentioned in Jacob's prophecy as having defiled his father's bed, both sins into death.
3. If you look at Judah, "Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him unto his people" can also be read to apply to Judah himself. Judah also had a couple of deadly sins mentioned in the text of Genesis.
4. In the psalm, there is a reference to prayer and fasting as if one were mourning for one's mother, even though David was praying for wicked enemies who were sick, yet still alive. However, mourning for a mother, and any prayers, would be for the dead.
5. The reference to Second Samuel is unusual, but worth considering as the David's son was killed by the word of the LORD to punish David and the child died before he could be circumcised. So David prays for the child, fasting and mourning. After the child dies, David goes into the tabernacle and worships, including prayer of course. When he comes out he says that he will go to the child (when David dies).

[Resettozero]

Wow. Back to the dead.

[D-fendr]

I've given up being interested

No problem. Just for future reference: When you reply to my post, I take it as you being interested.

[D-fendr]

Don’t see “the Torah is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” in that prooftext. Of course that could well be your interpretation...

[D-fendr]

Nopers, not doubting God. As I said: my argument is that sola scriptura fails.

[Flying Circus]

In a time when polygamy was common St. Paul was saying that bishops should not have more than one wife. To interpret it that they MUST have a wife would be contradictory Jesus’ words in Matthew 17 and Paul’s own words in 1 Corinthians 7. Also Jesus was never married, and, for at least a part of his ministry, neither was Paul so by the more restrictive reading neither would be eligible to be a bishop and as Bishops are inheritors of the Apostles, so Paul would have to rank as a bishop- an inherent contradiction to the interpretation.

[Resettozero]

JUST A COTTON-PICKIN’ MINUTE!

You cut off my quote in such a way that it says I’m not interested in anything you post! That is deceptive and misleading!

I don’t take commands from you about how to post on FR or how to interpret your possible reactions to my posts.

(Insert your own deserved epithet here.)

[Resettozero]

...my argument is that sola scriptura fails.

And your argument, as proven many times previously on FR, historically fails, fails, and will continue to fail.

You love your Roman Catholicism. No doubt in my mind.

I love The Lord Jesus Christ and the Church He founded infinitely more than you can begin to love your sect's made-up fantasies of a comfortable yet very often disproved religion! I owe Him my eternal life. I owe Rome NOTHING!.

[RnMomof7]

The church that Jesus founded.

Nope.. NT church had no mass, no priests, no vestments, no "tabernacle, no monstrance no statues, no "holy water", no confessionals, no prayer to the dead, no "sign of the cross,No mariology ,no purgatory,no 7 sacraments

The NT church looked more like my church than Rome

[WVKayaker]

Wow. Back to the dead.

Well, it was post 404!

[daniel1212]

That's why even the Catholic Church itself has to admit that some of it's teachings have no basis is scripture.

You mean like the life stories of Anna and Mary? The Bible isn't their story...

No, like the Assumption, which while having a precedent, is lacking any record in Scripture or promise, and is even lacking in early testimony from tradition, while her crowning before the Lord's return is contrary to what Scripture teaches.

Instead, Rome claims it can "remember" that which lacks evidence, while the basis for the veracity of this binding doctrine rests upon the specious premise of the ensured infallibility of Rome.

The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine),

Ratzinger writes (emp. mine), Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word.” [invisibly but per Rome's say so, via amorphous oral tradition]- J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), pp. 58-59.

The so called "tradition" of the Catholic Church trumps scripture.

Again you spout a lie, despite all evidence to the contrary. The Church has never relegated Scripture to second place

Rather, it is you who again is misrepresenting, if ignorantly, what Rome really holds to, for she claims that Scripture only consists of and means what she officially teaches in any conflict. Likewise this is claimed of history and tradition.

As no less an authority than Manning asserted in the face of contrary claims,

"It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28

"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

However, Scripture requires the Church as teacher to fully understand it (Acts 8:26-40, 2 Peter 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20, 1 Tim 3:15).

More careless or ignorant prooftexting, as you are not simply supporting believers explaining Scripture, but must support an an infallible magisterium. However, Acts 8:26-40 at best simply lends support to the teaching office, which the Scribes and Pharisees once sat in, (Mt. 23:2) though here it only shows a deacon explaining Isaiah 53. But which does not extrapolate into the church fully understanding Scripture, while Paul said "now we see through a glass, darkly," (1Co. 13:12) unlike when the perfect revelation of Christ shall appear. (1Jn. 3:2)

And 2 Peter 3:16 simply censures the unlearned who wrest Scriptures, as RCs example in trying to support traditions of men, but it does not mean the magisterium fully understands Scripture, or that the rest are unlearned. In fact, Rome has infallibly defined very few texts, or even provided an official commentary.

Perhaps you would have us follow the commentary it has sanctioned for decades in the NAB Bible?

, 2 Peter 1:20

Next we come to the classic proof text against "private interpretation, but which is not about understanding Scripture at all, but refers to how prophecy was penned.

For rather than being the result if the insight of the mind of men, Peter states of prophecy,

Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. (1 Peter 1:10-11)

While prophecy can refer to Scripture as a whole, the point is that writing the wholly inspired word is not the same thing as understanding it. Do you even think the words Rome teaches from oral tradition, and infallible papal teaching is wholly inspired of God?

1 Tim 3:15

Finally we come to that old often-invoked mainstay of RCs, but how does "church living God, pillar and ground the truth" translate into the church fully understanding Scripture or being the supreme and infallible authority? Versus the church upholding the truth it is rooted in, and belongs to? Which came first, Scripture, by which the church established its Truth claims, or the church, by which complimentary conflative writings were progressively added to Scripture? As was done in the past, without any infallible mag. .

[daniel1212]

The Bible itself declares it is not a catechism of all things (John 21:25).

I forgot that one, which is another straw man, as SS does not hold or require it is a "catechism of all things," and neither does Rome for herself!

But in the words of such authors as Herman Bavinck (1854-1921), SS holds,

that the truth, the knowledge of which is necessary to everyone for salvation, though not spelled out with equal clarity on every page of Scripture, is nevertheless presented throughout all of Scripture in such simple and intelligible form that a person concerned about the salvation of his or her soul can easily, by personal reading and study, learn to know that truth from Scripture without the assistance and guidance of the church... - Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, Vol. 1, Prolegomena (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), p. 477 .

And yet even this pertains to complete canon and a normative state, as while a Ethiopian eunuch-type soul today can read a text such as Acts 10:36-43 and become regenerated as a child of God, by His grace, yet those who cannot comprehend much may need outside help, and which SS is not opposed to. Nor to the Lord's leading and illumination.

Westminster itself affirms, and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. That “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.” — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

It also does not mean souls cannot be saved without having Bibles, as even a SS preacher could orally preach Scriptural truths in circumstances without one, and enjoin these to be kept, under the premise that they are taught in Scripture.

Nor does it exclude magisterial authority, which even fallible civil authorities have, but not as possessing perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere taught nor necessary in Scripture. As Westminster affirms,

"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

You can a post of mine here for more on this.

[daniel1212]

Excuse me. This is questioning your faith. I don't mean it so sound like anything nefarious. You don't recognize the authority of the Church to govern the faithful. As a Catholic, it should be incumbent upon you to learn what you are missing.

And so now we see the real basis for RC doctrine, for while they may attempt to provide a semblance of Scriptural substantiation for their traditions, when that is refuted then the recourse in so many words is to "the church have you the Bible, therefore you cannot be right, and you need to submit to it," a logic which has a quite interesting end when followed.

While to a Cath comes the retort, "You don't recognize the authority of the Church to govern the faithful." Translated, a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906. Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4783 | View Replies

So should TBEL be a good cultist and get in line or seek to like be like a Berean?

[editor-surveyor]

.
You have to open your eyes first, then actually read the scriptures.

A deep desire not to see is very blinding.

Since Torah is what is being fulfilled, it is all of the doctrine; there is nothing else.

Find in scripture where anything else but Torah is presented as doctrine.

The rest is just commentary about presentation of Torah. That includes the great prophets, and all of the NT epistles.
.

[Resettozero]

Find in scripture where anything else but Torah is presented as doctrine.

The rest is just commentary about presentation of Torah. That includes the great prophets, and all of the NT epistles.

The rest? The parts about Jesus of Nazareth too? All Torah all the time is what He taught?

[Regal]

You are in my prayers.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Yeshua presents all of the commandments of Torah

He fulfilled only the spring feasts, and the prophecies of them. 80% of prophecy remains to be fulfilled.

John makes it clear that Torah is the key to the life that Yeshua modeled for us to live.

1John 2:

[1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
[3] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
[4] He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
[5] But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
[6] He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
[7] Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
[8] Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth.

1John 3:

[4] Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.
[5] And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.
[6] Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.
[7] Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

.
How can we walk as he walked unless we keep his Torah as he did?