Why are the sacraments so important to Catholics?

[Doubting Thomas]

More on the "Vetus Latina" from Fact-index.com:

'There was no single "Vetus Latina" Bible; there are, instead, a collection of Biblical manuscript texts that bear witness to Latin translations of Biblical passages that preceded Jerome's. To these witnesses of previous translations, many scholars frequently add translations of Biblical passages that appear in the works of the Latin Fathers. As such, many the Vetus Latina "versions" were generally not promulgated in their own right as translations of the Bible to be used in the whole Church; rather, many of the texts that form parts of the Vetus Latina were prepared on an ad hoc basis for the local use of Christian communities, or to illuminate another Christian discourse or sermon. There are some Old Latin texts that seem to have aspired to greater stature or currency; several manuscripts of Old Latin Gospels exist, containing the four canonical Gospels; the several manuscripts that contain them differ substantially from one another. Other Biblical passages, however, are extant only in excerpts or fragments.'

Here's a cite with some useful info, including the various manuscripts of the Old Latin, when they are dated, and which NT books they contained: vetuslatina.org

 

[DHK]

More on the "Vetus Latina" from Fact-index.com:

'There was no single "Vetus Latina" Bible; there are, instead, a collection of Biblical manuscript texts that bear witness to Latin translations of Biblical passages that preceded Jerome's.

This is not difficult to figure out. The fact is that Jerome had a complete Bible with the entire canon of the New Testament. It doesn't matter what our opinion is of the Latin Vulgate. That is only a red herring. The question is where did the Vulgate come from? Reliable historians such as Thomas Armitage (a 19th century historian who never even heard of any such KJVO debate established that Jerome translated his Vulgate from the Itala--also a completed New Testament with all the books such as we have. It was a translation just as the Vulgate is a translation. This is not only the testimony of Armitage but of others as well. It points to the Itala as an early translation, as is the Peshitta. Again, the early churches knew, well before the coucil of Carthage what the inspired books of the New Testament were, and were using them in their translations of the Bible. Biblical history makes this point very clear.
DHK

 

[Doubting Thomas]

But the point is that there was no one complete (27 book NT) Old Latin bible by the end of the 2nd century like you seem to claim. There were various Old Latin translations of several books--an epistle here, some gospels there--but not one complete set since there was no agreement even in the West (where the Old Latin "bibles" were used) as to the exact contents of the NT. Sure, there was general agreement as to what belonged, especially regarding the gospels and Pauls epistles, but several of the general epistles remained in dispute although translations of these works existed in various places (just not universally in one uniform volume yet). The fact remains that the first list that completely matches our 27 book canon wasn't until AD 367 when these books were listed in the Festal letter of Athanasius. It was 15 years after that when Pope Damasus reiterated this list and commissioned Jerome to make a new standard Latin translation (which came to be known as the Vulgate). Within a few decades after this were the counsels of Carthage and Hippo which likewise confirmed the same 27 book NT, and the rest is history. So the existence of various Old Latin manuscripts early on does nothing to counter the fact that two important church counsels at the turn of the 4th/5th century--along with a letter by an influential and orthodox Alexandrian patriarch and an edict by a Roman pope--were basicallly responsible for finally fixing the boundaries of the canon for the rest of us (except the Ethiopians who include more books in their NT, and the Church of the East which uses a few less). These facts can be found in any standard text on the canon such as that by FF Bruce.

 

[Eliyahu]

I don't think True Christians lived without the Bible canon until 367 AD.
What Nicean Council or any council confirmed was not a new creation of Bible criteria at all, but the confirmation and acceptance of the existing Bible canon.
I do not date back Old Latin to 150AD only, it could have been in Europe earlier in Latin language.

Romans 16:
7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me

There were Christian believers in Rome before Paul was converted ( maybe around or before 35 AD). Christianity spread much faster than we can imagine today.
Paul himself confess this:

Romans 15:
19 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ.


Illurycm means Yugoslavia. If you have ever travelled to Europe, you will realize that it takes only 2-3 days by horse-riding from Yugo to Alps or Germany. I believe the Gospel has reached Alps and Germany before 70 AD.
We already notice that there is a Christian monument in China, dating back to 86AD. Chinese history is very clear around that time.


Early Christians were not so lazy as the today's Christians and I am sure they copied the Bibles often and spread it. When Satan realized that his persecution couldnot root out Christian truth, he spread the false gospels, and established the clergy systems, forced the people believe that only Clergy can interpret the Bible, only clergy can perform the ceremonies and rituals, so-called Sacraments, etc. and said that Bible was defined by Roman Catholic etc.

But the True Christians owe nothing to the Whorish Roman Catholic at all.
It is Roman Catholic that deviated from Christianity, since Roman Catholic is too much different from the Christianity mentioned in Bible, to be called Christian. Roman Catholic worked against Bible all the time, as they prohibited Bible in 1229. Satan has worked behind Roman Catholic throughout the history.

Are Ankh Cross, Pope's tripold hat, from Bible truth ?

What about the black gowns of the Catholic Priests?

Read Zephaniah 1:4.

4 I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests;

Chemarims wore black gowns when they worshipped Idols of Baal!
Chemarims ( Idol Worshipping Priests)n are in Roman Catholics !
They need more sacraments, to pretend to be holy!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Former catholic here...and here is what i undestand from my up bringing.
The sacraments are so important for catholics because that is where their hopes of salvation come from.
Here is the kicker though, there are 7 sacraments and the vast majority, if not all, will only meet 6 of them since 2 of the 7 are marriage and priesthood (not compatible in catholic life).

That is also why there is so much emphasis on baptism and the communion...this is the 2 times they "experience" Christ's through his death and resurrection.

There is my thoughts, any other questions, just drop me a line.

be God's!

GE:
Thanks! I appreciate cincerely!
Water baptism was - no longer is - a sign of Apostleship, I hold.
The baptism of Jesus Christ is said to be with fire (of affliction, tribulation and refinement) and spirit (which may also be written 'Spirit' - the help and strength to bear the fire). This baprtism is for everyone who believes in Christ, and without which no one shall see or enter the Kingdom of Christ and heaven. It is a very earthly and a very spiritual thing. It is experienced all one's life. It really strengthens in the Faith because it exercises in the Faith.
Once converted into water-baptism it became another form and object of Roman Catholic idolatry.

 

[Matt Black]

I don't think True Christians lived without the Bible canon until 367 AD.

And your hisotrical evidence for this is?

What Nicean Council or any council confirmed was not a new creation of Bible criteria at all, but the confirmation and acceptance of the existing Bible canon.

Nicaea I said nothing about the canon; that was settled by three later councils - two at Carthage and one at Hippo. The fact that you have got that fairly basic fact wrong casts doubt on everything else you assert.

Early Christians were not so lazy as the today's Christians and I am sure they copied the Bibles often and spread it. When Satan realized that his persecution couldnot root out Christian truth, he spread the false gospels, and established the clergy systems, forced the people believe that only Clergy can interpret the Bible, only clergy can perform the ceremonies and rituals, so-called Sacraments, etc. and said that Bible was defined by Roman Catholic etc.

But the True Christians owe nothing to the Whorish Roman Catholic at all.
It is Roman Catholic that deviated from Christianity, since Roman Catholic is too much different from the Christianity mentioned in Bible, to be called Christian. Roman Catholic worked against Bible all the time, as they prohibited Bible in 1229. Satan has worked behind Roman Catholic throughout the history.

Are Ankh Cross, Pope's tripold hat, from Bible truth ?

What about the black gowns of the Catholic Priests?

Read Zephaniah 1:4.

4 I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests;

Chemarims wore black gowns when they worshipped Idols of Baal!
Chemarims ( Idol Worshipping Priests)n are in Roman Catholics !
They need more sacraments, to pretend to be holy!

Yeah, right. Whatever.

 

[DHK]

The fact that you have got that fairly basic fact wrong casts doubt on everything else you assert.

Is this logical fallacy used by every Catholic and/or pro-Catholic person?
Do you mean to assert that if I just make one splling mistake then all the facts I have presented beforehand are automatically dismissed. Quite judgemental there aren't you?
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

Er...I think you and I both know that it was a little bit more than a spelling mistake. If someone purports to be an authority of some kind on church history - which Eliyahu would have us believe he is - then you would expect them to get their historical facts right; failure to do so casts doubt on their claim to be at least a quasi-expert on church history.

 

[DHK]

Er...I think you and I both know that it was a little bit more than a spelling mistake. If someone purports to be an authority of some kind on church history - which Eliyahu would have us believe he is - then you would expect them to get their historical facts right; failure to do so casts doubt on their claim to be at least a quasi-expert on church history.

DT uses the date of 367 AD without reference to a specific council. The point being made is that the Bible-believing churches before the councils that were convened in the latter half of the fourth century and on into the fifth century had no bearing on the canon of the New Testament, as it was already in use by the early churches of the first three centuries.
In Northern Italy and South-eastern France the Itala was being used by the Waldenses.
In Syria the Peshitta was being used by the Syrians. Both of these books were translations going back to 150 AD.
A missionary by the name of Ulfilas went to the Germanic Tribes, and there made a translation of the Bible which we know now as Gothic. That was in 350 AD, still before many of your councils. The early churches knew what books were in the New Testament, and had Bibles that contained the books of the New Testament. To say that first list containing all "27 books" was in 367 AD is wrong. What many, if not most, textual critics fail to do is study the early translations. They, for some reason, discard them as evidence. They concentrate their efforts solely on the Greek MSS which are still extant. That is not a good method, nor the only method textual criticism. There are other ways of finding out who used the 27 books of the New Testament, and that is in other translations of the Bible.
DHK

 

[Matt Black]

The Goths became Arians which scarcely amounts to an endorsement of Ulfilas. DT correctly states the first historically reliable list of the 27 NT books as being in 367; no, it wasn't in connection with a Council but, as he points out, was in a letter of Athanasius, Arius' great opponent. That MS is accepted as being genuine - if you want your assertion to be accepted, please produce evidence of MSS dating to the mid-2nd century for the Vetus Itala containing all 27 books of the NT

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Matt Black said,
"DT correctly states the first historically reliable list of the 27 NT books as being in 367".

GE:
DHK also approved, if I'm not mistaken. So may we accept the fact? I don't see why not.

Then the question arises, would not these 27 books have been in use long before and accepted as exclusive collection?

 

[Matt Black]

It is likely, but the only evidential reference we have to that is the Council of Laodicea (363) which makes reference to all 27 NT books. Prior to that, we have conjecture and speculation; it is likely, as I have said, that all or most of the NT books were in circulation and accepted for at least a century before that. Prior to that, the problem is not so much one of circulation but of acceptance: the Muratonian Canon (c.170-185) has most of the 27 NT books but not all, omitting for example Hebrews, and the inclusion of Revelation and James was in doubt for a long time (arguably in the case of James until the 16th century with Luther's 'Epistle of Straw'!).

A Protestant perspective on the NT Canon can be found here

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Yes no; that sounds alright to me ...

I have done a bit of my own 'text criticism' in a way. E.g. another look the old 'issue' of sources - very amateurish though I believe holding water nevertheless. I say the Gospels - or their writers/compilers very well knew of one another --- successively and collectively until the last (John) was completed. It may sound like old news; yet my emphasis fell on the resurrection and appearances stories specifically, where all of a sudden 'critics' seem to have forgotten their own theses, and portray the writers as isolated individuals not knowing of one another, everyone writing the one and same single story of the resurrection appearance.
But that just in passing.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Just by the buy, but with direct bearing on your question why the sacraments - especially the 'Eucharist' - are so important to RCs.

 

[stanleyg]

All religions practice sacraments of some sort. Whereas, it is imperative to study the history of religion. If we were to discover the reason why any religion practices its rituals, then it may explain why Catholics perform sacraments.

I recommend each Christian to study the Thirteenth Chapter of First Kings. It discusses the mechanics of how a man of God from Judah was duped by a false prophet in Bethel to enter his house to eat bread and drink water.

As we are aware, many false prophets have gone into the world. Each lures unsuspecting victims into his or her house to eat bread and drink water. The difference is that the water has been transformed into wine. Recall the first miracle that Jesus had performed. He did it to prepare us for our Last Days.

Jesus had foreseen that the Pharisees and Sadducees would learn what had transpired at his Last Supper. He also knew that they would bring him before Pilate to demand his crucifixion. Likewise, he knew that Rome would capitalize from his death by raising his body in effigy on the cross. Further, he knew that the Roman bishop would rise to power by instituting sacraments to recruit Christians to join the Catholic Church. Its doctrine is to worship the Mother Mary over Jesus.

Luke20
[46] Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;

John19
saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment

Rev2
[13] I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

Rev17
[8] The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Amen!

 

[DHK]

All religions practice sacraments of some sort. Whereas, it is imperative to study the history of religion. If we were to discover the reason why any religion practices its rituals, then it may explain why Catholics perform sacraments.

I disagree, and this is at the heart of the matter--one of the basic differences between the RCC and Baptists.
Baptists do not believe in sacraments. Sacraments are a means of grace. We have all "the means of grace" we need in Christ alone. All else is superstition. In other words those who believe that they receive something special or holy, some type of grace at baptism, Communion, or any other religious rite are being duped. They believe as the Hindu believes. As the Ganges River washes away the sins of the Hindu so the waters of infant baptism washes away the sins of the Catholic. That is an example of a sacrament--one of the seven of the Catholic Church

The Baptist churches have two ordinances. An ordinance is a command. Commands do not impart grace. They are there to be kept and obeyed. The commands (ordinances) are the Lord's Table and baptism (immersion of the believer after he trusts Christ as Savior). There are no sacraments found in the Bible. You may talk of religion all you want. I have a relationship, not a religion.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

I disagree, and this is at the heart of the matter--one of the basic differences between the RCC and Baptists.
Baptists do not believe in sacraments. Sacraments are a means of grace. We have all "the means of grace" we need in Christ alone. All else is superstition. In other words those who believe that they receive something special or holy, some type of grace at baptism, Communion, or any other religious rite are being duped. They believe as the Hindu believes. As the Ganges River washes away the sins of the Hindu so the waters of infant baptism washes away the sins of the Catholic. That is an example of a sacrament--one of the seven of the Catholic Church

The Baptist churches have two ordinances. An ordinance is a command. Commands do not impart grace. They are there to be kept and obeyed. The commands (ordinances) are the Lord's Table and baptism (immersion of the believer after he trusts Christ as Savior). There are no sacraments found in the Bible. You may talk of religion all you want. I have a relationship, not a religion.

A few points ---

This is actually one of the differences between Baptists & almost all other Christian denominations -- not just the RCC. Almost all other denominations have sacraments not ordinances.

"Means of grace" does not mean anything to replace Christ and His atonement. Nor is it superstition.

Regarding your statement about religion, James said this -- "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is: to visit the orphans and widows in their trouble and to keep oneself unspotted from the world." I guess James thought religion was OK.

 

[Chemnitz]

The Baptist churches have two ordinances. An ordinance is a command. Commands do not impart grace. They are there to be kept and obeyed. The commands (ordinances) are the Lord's Table and baptism (immersion of the believer after he trusts Christ as Savior). There are no sacraments found in the Bible. You may talk of religion all you want. I have a relationship, not a religion.

What I find interesting is the Baptist who claim by faith alone have turned expressions of the Gospel into laws, for that is what ordinance means. It seems that they are guilty of the same mistake as the Roman Catholics, changing God's grace into a law. They have just gone about it in a different manner. In their efforts to shuck all things Roman and find something new in the Bible they have changed themselves into a religion of works. They look for God to work in an immediate or direct sense but according to Scriptural accounts God does not work that way except in the rare cases with the men who were his prophets. Yet, even in the case of Isaiah God works through the means of an angel and an object in order to cleanse Isaiah's lips. Nearly all of the instances of conversion recorded in Acts ties it too preaching the Gospel, the atoning for sins through the death and ressurrection, which at least in Lutheran understanding is a means of Grace.
Yet for all of their efforts to shuck the mantra of works righteousness the Baptists have ended up right where they claim they do not want to be, works righteousness. For by renaming baptism and Holy communion ordinances they have changed them into laws to be obeyed. The sad part is they are not even consistant with their beliefs, because they make them optional ordinances. However, if they were to be consistant with what has already been revealed by God concerning Law they have to say that requirement, hence all of the churches which require baptism for membership. Here they become even more two faced. They say it optional so they can attempt to preserve their attachment to faith alone so they say one can be saved and not baptized, yet at the same time the believe that all who are members of their church who had to be baptized if you recall are saved. This position then cast doubt onto all the people who have not been baptized so they can only wonder are they saved.

To continue along these lines Baptists are forced into another realm of works righteousness when they attempt to answer the crux de theologimina, "why some and not others." They will say that the answer is because conversion requires a decision on the part of the person. A person must decide/make/give their to Christ. Whether or not they realize this they do this because they know if God works in the immediate since as they desire to have happen so they can get rid of those inconvienent things such as Baptism and Holy Communion, God can not be resisted. However, they cannot abide by this thought because it suggests that we are forced to do something, but God has made it evident that he will not force us. Therefore, to answer "why some not others" they say it is because man must make a choice. Making a decision, however, is a human work so once again they have fallen into the trap of works righteousness.

This Baptist concept of ordinance is thankfully out of line with the Scriptural revelation concerning Baptism and Holy Communion. An honest study of Scripture reveals that God tends to work with his people through means starting all the way back at the beginning after the fall of Adam and Eve. Some of the best examples are the priestly sacrificial system in which God promises that upon the shedding of an animals blood by the intermediary, the priest, God will forgive the people of their sins. The prophets attest to this when they condemn the priests and the people for turning the system into an act of works righteousness and making the sacrifices an ordinance rather than a gift of grace. This sacrificial system ended with the ultimate sacrifice, but God's desire to continue to work through means did not. He continues to this day to work through means to connect His people with the events and merits of the cross and resurrection. These means are not special in and of themselves. They are special because of God's promise. Minus God's promise they are nothing more than water, bread, and wine. However, because God has made a promise it is in that promise we as Christians find our faith created and sustained.

 

[Claudia_T]

To me it seems like the Catholics think sacraments somehow just make them holy by the act of performing them.

On the other hand... many Protestants miss the idea that doing things like Baptism is supposed to symbolize a change in the life... either way it is a superficial Religion. So Satan is happy with either one.

Romans Chapter 6 tells us that.


Some think doing the works makes them holy, others think they dont have to do anything. Both miss the boat of doing good works out of love and loyalty to God and not to try to earn merit.


Claudia

 

[Tom Butler]

What I find interesting is the Baptist who claim by faith alone have turned expressions of the Gospel into laws, for that is what ordinance means. It seems that they are guilty of the same mistake as the Roman Catholics, changing God's grace into a law. They have just gone about it in a different manner. In their efforts to shuck all things Roman and find something new in the Bible they have changed themselves into a religion of works.

I had to read your post twice to be sure you were saying what I thought you were saying. Suffice it to say that it represents a complete misunderstanding of how Baptists view the ordinances.

Implicit in his Great Commission that we baptize believers is the command for believers to be baptized. It's a picture of the gospel and a public testimony of one's conversion. That's it.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he did not specifically command his disciples to observe it. He took it for granted that they would. That's why he simply told them that whenever they observed it, do it to remember Him.

And the shot about Baptists changing to a religion of works, where did that come from? Besides, what's wrong with believers being obedient and doing good works? Is it a works religion because men and women are obedient to God's call to service, God's command to love each other, his instructions on proper worship?

In fact, aren't we Christians commanded to do good works, not to acquire righteousness, but that others may glorify God because of them?

Usually when I think somebody is wrong, I'll couch my disagreement in the gentler, kinder way "well, we just see it differently."

In this case, I'm junking gentler and kinder. You are just flat-out wrong, wrong, wrong.