Sacraments

[Major]

You've misunderstood. The Catholic Church believes and accepts every single word of the Bible and promotes it all. It has to. In fact, it canonized and compiled the Scriptures into what we today call the Bible. Anyone who believes in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, has to believe in the Holy Spirit's ability to speak to the Catholic bishops that did this in the close of the 2nd century.

What the Church does not condone is Sola Scriptura. We'll get folks who disagree with this here, and at the risk of sparking yet another debate (let's refrain if we can), the Church believes it is a man-made tradition and ought to be rejected.

Yes, I can promise you that some will disagree! Me for one.

If we look back at actual history we can see that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura validated the source of God's truth to the Bible as its source of truth instead of a second hand source – fleshly understanding of the Bible for “church tradition”. The Bible as the source was not second hand information as opposed to the "tradition of mans information created by listening other men and passing on those comments and instruction, instead of listening to God and obeying Him.

The problem of "Tradition" being the basis for doctrine is the fact that it is second hand information. God is seeking those who will listen to Him and obey. When God speaks to us out of His Word, it is a living thing, for God’s words are spirit and are alive. They enter you and they affect the desired change in you. That is why the only way that one can be saved is by listening to and obeying God through the Holy Spirit. It is only God speaking to you and you accepting it that can change a man’s heart. Knowing good from evil does not change a man’s heart and the Word of God says that "when we know the truth we will be set free and then we will be free indeed".

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Yes, I can promise you that some will disagree! Me for one.

If we look back at actual history we can see that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura validated the source of God's truth to the Bible as its source of truth instead of a second hand source – fleshly understanding of the Bible for “church tradition”. The Bible as the source was not second hand information as opposed to the "tradition of mans information created by listening other men and passing on those comments and instruction, instead of listening to God and obeying Him.

The problem of "Tradition" being the basis for doctrine is the fact that it is second hand information. God is seeking those who will listen to Him and obey. When God speaks to us out of His Word, it is a living thing, for God’s words are spirit and are alive. They enter you and they affect the desired change in you. That is why the only way that one can be saved is by listening to and obeying God through the Holy Spirit. It is only God speaking to you and you accepting it that can change a man’s heart. Knowing good from evil does not change a man’s heart and the Word of God says that "when we know the truth we will be set free and then we will be free indeed".

Indeed, and I wouldn't call the Bible a second-hand source, but rather the written source. It is literally God's words spoken through those who wrote the Scriptures.

The Catholic position is that God continues to speak through the successors of those who chose to write, and this is what we call the Church.

 

[TalkJesus]

Help me understand your question. What are you asking?

What will be your response when the Bridegroom comes? Will you turn back because you are not ready yet that you need to go to the Mass or to the confessionals first or will you shout for joy at the sight of your hope bringing you Home by His righteiusness & His faithfulness without the sacraments?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

What will be your response when the Bridegroom comes? Will you turn back because you are not ready yet that you need to go to the Mass or to the confessionals first or will you shout for joy at the sight of your hope bringing you Home by His righteiusness & His faithfulness without the sacraments?

I don't mean this rudely, but the fact that you're asking this means you don't know what the Mass is. You don't know what Confession is. My response would be to follow Him, and that will always be my response.

 

[TalkJesus]

Indeed, and I wouldn't call the Bible a second-hand source, but rather the written source. It is literally God's words spoken through those who wrote the Scriptures.

The Catholic position is that God continues to speak through the successors of those who chose to write, and this is what we call the Church.

Scripture cannot go against scripture as kept in the KJV. So if scripture goes against church traditions, then some of the successors have gone astray in their writings. Indeed, the Church does not agree with all that Augustine, Ambrose, and others have written. The RCC pick and choose from what they want there too.

Time to rely only on the scripture then as kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Scripture cannot go against scripture as kept in the KJV. So if scripture goes against church traditions, then some of the successors have gone astray in their writings. Indeed, the Church does not agree with all that Augustine, Ambrose, and others have written. The RCC pick and choose from what they want there too.

Time to rely only on the scripture then as kept by those that loved Him & His words in the KJV.

Of course Scripture cannot go against Scripture. The Church does not--I repeat--does not contradict Scripture, and vice versa. They literally cannot.

 

[TalkJesus]

I don't mean this rudely, but the fact that you're asking this means you don't know what the Mass is. You don't know what Confession is. My response would be to follow Him, and that will always be my response.

Some Catholics I know has testified that they need to go to Mass even though they do it weekly. One stated it with a sense of urgency that I did not miss.

I read about a Catholic in a newspaper article about how he was demanidng for a priest to come for confessionals before he went into surgery from a horrible car accident. He did not come, but fortunately he survived the surgery. The man shared his fear that God would not have heard his prayers to forgive him. The priest replied that God had heard him and his sins was forgiven.

Some Catholics teach that Jesus is angry with them and so they go to Mary in prayer because Jesus will not say no to Mary.

This is why I get the impression that devout Catholics will draw back when the Bridegroom comes.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

Please start a thread asking Catholics of they believe they are saved now because I am getting different responses, brother.

They might acknowledge that they were born again but this would be at the time of their baptism. It would have nothing to do with a public declaration.

So now you refer to scripture? Okay then.

It isn't a question of DECIDING to use scripture, or to use it when it's convenient to do so. In the early church there are THREE things which are authoritative, one is scripture, another is the magisterium, another is sacred tradition. The three work together in a kind of checks and balances system. But I dislike quoting scripture because very, very little good comes from it, either it becomes a scripture quoting contest where one person tries to out-quote the other, or people bend scriptures to their own purposes. I've seen people use scripture to justify absolutely horrible behavior. Which is why I avoid doing it.

So James was never talking about the faith in Jesus Christ needing works with it for salvation. James was never in conflict with Paul's message as there is only one gospel.

Good example right there, I think you have misinterpreted this quote.

But when the RCC want to dictate the authority of some of their doctrines, then the RCC goes to the scripture. You should find the irony in that.

As I mentioned earlier, the three things work together. Lysander appears to be correct, you should take some time to familiarize yourself with Catholicism.

Recognize one other thing: Respect between differing faiths should be mutual. For example, I never see Catholics going to fundamentalists asking why they waited so long to have their child baptized, but I DO see fundamentalists coming to Catholics asking what the point of baptizing an infant is. That is rude because it does not take into consideration that the two sides baptize for entirely different reasons. What I'm getting at is, a brand of Christianity as new as fundamentalism shouldn't be arrogant in telling a Christian branch as old as the Catholics how things are. A Chevy doesn't tell a Ford that it's not a proper car when the Ford was around longer.

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Some Catholics I know has testified that they need to go to Mass even though they do it weekly. One stated it with a sense of urgency that I did not miss.

I read about a Catholic in a newspaper article about how he was demanidng for a priest to come for confessionals before he went into surgery from a horrible car accident. He did not come, but fortunately he survived the surgery. The man shared his fear that God would not have heard his prayers to forgive him. The priest replied that God had heard him and his sins was forgiven.

Some Catholics teach that Jesus is angry with them and so they go to Mary in prayer because Jesus will not say no to Mary.

This is why I get the impression that devout Catholics will draw back when the Bridegroom comes.

You said a mouthful. Are you focused on what some Catholics say or what Catholicism itself teaches?

Of course--Catholic Christians do their best to go to mass. We make it a priority because worship for us IS a priority, just as it is for non-Catholic Christians too.

BUT it would be bizarre if Christ came and someone said, "Not now, Jesus. I have to go over to my parish to worship you." Clearly the thing to do once we are in front of Jesus is to bow before Him and worship Him.

 

[TalkJesus]

Of course Scripture cannot go against Scripture. The Church does not--I repeat--does not contradict Scripture, and vice versa. They literally cannot.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Doesn't the "Church" use of the sacraments goes against these scripture above?

 

[LysanderShapiro]

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Romans 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

Doesn't the "Church" use of the sacraments goes against these scripture above?

As a Catholic Christian, I say AMEN to all of these passages. None of these contradict Catholic teaching. They align with it. These verses are not just part of Church doctrine, but they are part of Church dogma--these are Catholic beliefs that cannot be altered, removed, added to, or compromised.

 

[TalkJesus]

They might acknowledge that they were born again but this would be at the time of their baptism. It would have nothing to do with a public declaration.

And what does born again mean to you? What has the water baptism accomplished in according to what you believe?

It isn't a question of DECIDING to use scripture, or to use it when it's convenient to do so. In the early church there are THREE things which are authoritative, one is scripture, another is the magisterium, another is sacred tradition. The three work together in a kind of checks and balances system. But I dislike quoting scripture because very, very little good comes from it, either it becomes a scripture quoting contest where one person tries to out-quote the other, or people bend scriptures to their own purposes. I've seen people use scripture to justify absolutely horrible behavior. Which is why I avoid doing it.

You can recognize when an individual is doing it, but not when the RCC does it?

Good example right there, I think you have misinterpreted this quote.

Read James chapter 2 and find out for sure; Don't just "think" I did.

As I mentioned earlier, the three things work together. Lysander appears to be correct, you should take some time to familiarize yourself with Catholicism.

I can read the Catholic catechism just fine, and I see it as going against scripture while creating a system to enslave her members to them: job security, I reckon, but still a rip off of the faith in Jesus Christ.

Recognize one other thing: Respect between differing faiths should be mutual. For example, I never see Catholics going to fundamentalists asking why they waited so long to have their child baptized, but I DO see fundamentalists coming to Catholics asking what the point of baptizing an infant is. That is rude because it does not take into consideration that the two sides baptize for entirely different reasons. What I'm getting at is, a brand of Christianity as new as fundamentalism shouldn't be arrogant in telling a Christian branch as old as the Catholics how things are. A Chevy doesn't tell a Ford that it's not a proper car when the Ford was around longer.

Jesus Christ was here first before the Catholic church was. It is His teachings that reproves their teachings on how we are saved and Whom to go to for life.

 

[TalkJesus]

I don't mean this rudely, but the fact that you're asking this means you don't know what the Mass is. You don't know what Confession is. My response would be to follow Him, and that will always be my response.

Please take time out and lean on Him for His message.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

The RCC points to themselves & their sacraments for life; but scripture only points to Jesus for life. John 5:39-40 Jesus is the door; not the RCC. John 10:1 John 10:7-9 Jesus gives life by coming to Him & believing in Him, not communion; John 6:33-35

 

[LysanderShapiro]

Please take time out and lean on Him for His message.

Luke 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. 25 When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: 26 Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

The RCC points to themselves & their sacraments for life; but scripture only points to Jesus for life. John 5:39-40 Jesus is the door; not the RCC. John 10:1 John 10:7-9 Jesus gives life by coming to Him & believing in Him, not communion; John 6:33-35

TJ, please take time to learn about what the Sacraments are. If you learned about them, you'd come to find that leaning on Jesus is precisely what we do when we participate in the sacraments--especially the Eucharist. In fact, if anyone participates in the sacraments but is refraining from truly leaning on Jesus, then they have missed the point of what they are, just as you seem to misunderstand.

If the Eucharist really isn't Christ, then we as Catholics are idolaters--it means we are bowing to a mere piece of bread, even though we believe we are bowing before Christ.

But if the Eucharist really is Christ, then that means those who smear the Eucharist and refuse to bow before it are smearing and refusing to bow before Christ. It's really one or the other.

 

[PeaceLikeaRiver]

And what does born again mean to you? What has the water baptism accomplished in according to what you believe?

I find the expression distasteful, quite honestly, because the only people I ever hear using it are trying to stand apart from the "unsaved" whom they regard as lesser or disadvantaged. I find it arrogant, especially in light of the fact that it's such a new phenomenon. 100 years ago people didn't walk around calling themselves "saved". To me it's the simple sacrament of the removal of the stain of original sin.

You can recognize when an individual is doing it, but not when the RCC does it?

You'd have to explain further what you mean by this. It sounds like you have a vendetta against the RCC but I'm not quite certain where it comes from. You DO realize the RCC are Christians, right?

Read James chapter 2 and find out for sure; Don't just "think" I did.

I'm quite familiar with the book of James, thanks. I know what it means. We disagree. We should leave it at that.

I can read the Catholic catechism just fine, and I see it as going against scripture while creating a system to enslave her members to them: job security, I reckon, but still a rip off of the faith in Jesus Christ.

Sorry you're so cynical about the early Christians. I am cynical of today's fundamentalists, however, so I suppose it evens out.

Jesus Christ was here first before the Catholic church was. It is His teachings that reproves their teachings on how we are saved and Whom to go to for life.

Once again you're suggesting that the church opposes the teachings of Christ rather than supports them, which I'm sorry, I find absurd and offensive in the extreme.

At this point I will say no more on the subject, I do not wish to cause tension among the admins of the board.

 

[HisManySongs]

There will never be agreement between fundamentalists and Catholics.

Thus ends number 101 in a series.