What the RCC endorses

[BobRyan]

These three sections of the Catechism (emphasis added by me) would tend to show that Walter knows what he is talking about.

Except for a few details.

1. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood"

does the RCC teach that it "remains wine" and "is not turned into blood"???

We all know that they do teach that it becomes real blood but in some "odd" sort of way that can't be detected in actual science and observation.

2. They claim to be confecting the "body AND Divinity" of Christ in the mass. -- that goes wayyy beyond praise and thanksgiving.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

One day I woke up (the Holy Spirit woke me up!), I started to read the bible and compare scripture to what my Baptist church taught me. I joined the Church that compiled the New Testament. Now I'm Catholic. So there we go!

Don't you think it would be helpful to list a few Bible doctrines where you did the comparison and found the RCC to be valid in your sola scrptura test - and the Baptist church to fail the test of sola scriptura that you claim to have conducted?

I say this because without fail every time the sola scriptura test idea comes up on Catholic boards such as "ChristianForums" the unanimous response among both RCC Catholics and EO Catholics is to condemn it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

1. From this passage we learn that Peter recognized Paul's epistles as Scripture, and yet not all of them, for Paul wrote many epistles (at least four to Corinth alone), all of which were not inspired. The apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit as to inspiration.
2. We also know that Peter knew of other scriptures that were inspired. This isn't necessarily a reference to the OT, but very well could be a reference to other NT epistles.

At the beginning of this same chapter he writes:
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2 Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:[/FONT]
--This is the purpose of the epistle he writes. Keep in mind:
1. the words of the OT Prophets,
2. the commands of the apostles of the Lord.
--These two groups: the Prophets and the Apostles are our foundation. They are the authors of the Word of God. As the Prophets wrote the OT, the Apostles wrote the NT. The Holy Spirit guided them into "all truth;" "bringing into remembrance all things which Christ had spoken unto them."

[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.[/FONT]
--The RCC has a private interpretation through its Magesterium and Catechism. No one can go against the interpretation of the Catechism. What is written is written. Any thing contradictory to that is anathema. That is what is meant by a "private interpretation."

We are encouraged to study the Bible on our own.
[FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/FONT]

But back to 1Pet.1:21. The OT was not written according to the RCC. No, it was written by holy men of God--the prophets of the OT, and the Apostles of the NT, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The RCC is omitted from this process.

[FONT=&quot]2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:[/FONT]
--Their inspiration is from God, not from the RCC.

[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.[/FONT]
--When it says to "contend for 'The Faith' Once delivered to the saints," it is speaking of that body of faith contained in the NT. Jude was one of the last books to be written--ca. 70 A.D. The faith had been well established. It had been established in the epistles of the Apostles. Jude was a half brother of Jesus. He was born of Joseph and Mary.
He was the brother of James, also the half brother of Jesus.

[FONT=&quot]Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.[/FONT]

Well before any council the early church had the scriptures. They were to contend for the faith contained in those scriptures. The early church knew what those scriptures were. How did they know? The apostles themselves taught them. The apostles knew which of their writings were inspired and which were not.

 

[Zenas]

Well that's appalling.

But what can you expect from an apostate church that believes Christ is re-sacrificed week after week...

"For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering. . . .". Malachi 1:11

 

[Zenas]

Except for a few details.

1. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood"

does the RCC teach that it "remains wine" and "is not turned into blood"???

We all know that they do teach that it becomes real blood but in some "odd" sort of way that can't be detected in actual science and observation.

2. They claim to be confecting the "body AND Divinity" of Christ in the mass. -- that goes wayyy beyond praise and thanksgiving.

in Christ,

Bob

1. The accidents of the bread and wine remain unchanged. The substance, however, becomes the body and blood of Christ. Bob, you need to take a refresher course in philosophy.

2. Yes it does go way beyond praise and thanksgiving and that is intentional.

 

[BobRyan]

Take a physics course and tell me when you get to the part about "Accidents" in the study of matter - even the RCC admits that an electron microscope is not going to see anything but the elements expected with bread and wine. But for the sake of the argument - the RCC is going to still insist that it is the real body and blood of Christ that has been "confected" with the bread or "affected" with the cup and the "powers" of the priest to "Confect the body and divinity of Christ" will be "retained" even if he is excommunicated from the RCC.

I notice that you do not dispute this point.

 

[BobRyan]

Of course to be fair - I have not given a sola scriptura argument against it , I simply state what is being claimed.

 

[Zenas]

[[FONT=&quot]2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.[/FONT]
--The RCC has a private interpretation through its Magesterium and Catechism. No one can go against the interpretation of the Catechism. What is written is written. Any thing contradictory to that is anathema. That is what is meant by a "private interpretation."

No. “Private interpretation” is that interpretation given to scripture by you and me. Like you quoted above, the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth. When Jesus revealed this to them, He was speaking to eleven men behind closed doors. This was a private meeting, not a public sermon. The Holy Spirit guides the apostles, and likewise their successors. Remember, Jesus said, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

These apostles constituted the first church, which was absolutely and undeniably the Catholic Church. When we read scripture, we see that they neither sought nor listened to the opinions of those who were not apostles. They were very dictatorial—in a benevolent way of course. And they handed this authority down to others to speak for the church when they were gone. E.g., Timothy, Titus and Mark. So when the Magisterium speaks, it is speaking by authority of the apostles, who received their authority from Christ.

We are encouraged to study the Bible on our own.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But back to 1Pet.1:21. The OT was not written according to the RCC. No, it was written by holy men of God--the prophets of the OT, and the Apostles of the NT, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The RCC is omitted from this process.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible was written “according to the RCC.” However, every word of the N.T. was written by Catholics.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
--Their inspiration is from God, not from the RCC.

Of course it is. Does anyone really believe otherwise?

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Yes, this is commonly called the deposit of faith.

--When it says to "contend for 'The Faith' Once delivered to the saints," it is speaking of that body of faith contained in the NT.

And you know this how?

Jude was one of the last books to be written--ca. 70 A.D. The faith had been well established. It had been established in the epistles of the Apostles. Jude was a half brother of Jesus. He was born of Joseph and Mary. He was the brother of James, also the half brother of Jesus.

Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Galatians 1:19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

Well before any council the early church had the scriptures. They were to contend for the faith contained in those scriptures. The early church knew what those scriptures were. How did they know? The apostles themselves taught them. The apostles knew which of their writings were inspired and which were not.

Jude did not say we are to contend for the faith contained in the scriptures. He said we are to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. The faith was mostly delivered by the preaching of the apostles. Only nine men (ten if Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul) wrote the N.T. We have not a single written word from James son of Zebedee, Andrew, Phillip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas, or Matthias. Are we to assume that because these men wrote no scripture they didn’t spread the gospel, that they were not inspired? Remember, Jesus said to go forth and preach the gospel. He gave no instructions about writing books.

Is scripture inspired? Of course it is. Is it useful? Certainly. Is it the sole source of teaching concerning faith and morals? No indeed.

 

[Zenas]

Take a physics course and tell me when you get to the part about "Accidents" in the study of matter - even the RCC admits that an electron microscope is not going to see anything but the elements expected with bread and wine. But for the sake of the argument - the RCC is going to still insist that it is the real body and blood of Christ that has been "confected" with the bread or "affected" with the cup and the "powers" of the priest to "Confect the body and divinity of Christ" will be "retained" even if he is excommunicated from the RCC.

I notice that you do not dispute this point.

The miracles of Christ are not subject to the laws or physics. Neither can they be fathomed by men.

 

[BobRyan]

The miracles of Christ are not subject to the laws or physics. Neither can they be fathomed by men.

Well you are missing a key detail.

When Lazarus was raised from the dead -- he did not remain in the tomb as a dead corpse with all family and friends told to "imagine" some spiritual "accident" way in which Lazarus was really alive - even though to all physical observation he is not raised from the dead at all. That is not the sort of "resurrection miracle" that Christ was doing.

I think we all know that.

Same goes for the resurrection of Christ and His bodily ascension into heaven.

The works and miracles of Christ were "real" -- the blind really see, the leper really healed an not this silly stuff about "well they remain blind but their accidents can see" ...

I think we all know that.

The RCC claim about 'confecting the body and divinity of Christ' that only results in the 'same ol bread and wine' -- is the sort of non-event miracle that might have passed during the dark ages - but has a lot more light of day to face in the modern age to be taken seriously.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Zenas]

Well you are missing a key detail.

When Lazarus was raised from the dead -- he did not remain in the tomb as a dead corpse with all family and friends told to "imagine" some spiritual "accident" way in which Lazarus was really alive - even though to all physical observation he is not raised from the dead at all. That is not the sort of "resurrection miracle" that Christ was doing.

I think we all know that.

Same goes for the resurrection of Christ and His bodily ascension into heaven.

The works and miracles of Christ were "real" -- the blind really see, the leper really healed an not this silly stuff about "well they remain blind but their accidents can see" ...

I think we all know that.

The RCC claim about 'confecting the body and divinity of Christ' that only results in the 'same ol bread and wine' -- is the sort of non-event miracle that might have passed during the dark ages - but has a lot more light of day to face in the modern age to be taken seriously.


in Christ,

Bob

So basically a miracle isn’t a miracle unless it is verifiable. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. “Private interpretation” is that interpretation given to scripture by you and me. Like you quoted above, the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth. When Jesus revealed this to them, He was speaking to eleven men behind closed doors. This was a private meeting, not a public sermon. The Holy Spirit guides the apostles, and likewise their successors. Remember, Jesus said, “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

These apostles constituted the first church, which was absolutely and undeniably the Catholic Church. When we read scripture, we see that they neither sought nor listened to the opinions of those who were not apostles. They were very dictatorial—in a benevolent way of course. And they handed this authority down to others to speak for the church when they were gone. E.g., Timothy, Titus and Mark. So when the Magisterium speaks, it is speaking by authority of the apostles, who received their authority from Christ.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that the Bible was written “according to the RCC.” However, every word of the N.T. was written by Catholics.

Of course it is. Does anyone really believe otherwise?

Yes, this is commonly called the deposit of faith.

And you know this how?

Jude did not say we are to contend for the faith contained in the scriptures. He said we are to contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints. The faith was mostly delivered by the preaching of the apostles. Only nine men (ten if Hebrews wasn’t written by Paul) wrote the N.T. We have not a single written word from James son of Zebedee, Andrew, Phillip, Thomas, Bartholomew, James son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas, or Matthias. Are we to assume that because these men wrote no scripture they didn’t spread the gospel, that they were not inspired? Remember, Jesus said to go forth and preach the gospel. He gave no instructions about writing books.

Is scripture inspired? Of course it is. Is it useful? Certainly. Is it the sole source of teaching concerning faith and morals? No indeed.

The Early church was NOT the Church of Rome, as that took centuries to come to pass, and the real church of christ was built upon jesus and His Apostles, and the scriptures that were being used and circulated before then ever was a real catholic church though, and the scriptures are the ONLY inspired and inffalible source of all doctrines and practices!

 

[Zenas]

The Early church was NOT the Church of Rome, as that took centuries to come to pass, and the real church of christ was built upon jesus and His Apostles, and the scriptures that were being used and circulated before then ever was a real catholic church though, and the scriptures are the ONLY inspired and inffalible source of all doctrines and practices!

What source do you get that from?

 

[PreachTony]

What source do you get that from?

How about this source?

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

or

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

and

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[Yeshua1]

How about this source?

or

and

Also adding to that, when Jesus told the Pharisees they made the word of God to be nullified by their taking the vain teachings of man, regarding whether a man can give what he has dedicated to the lord to assist his own parents out!