I agree with that, but if it is the true gospel, then won't it be reflected in scripture whether the person has read it or not directly?
As you have said before, the Gospel message, the core, is not difficult. We argue about verses of Scripture, but these are theological details that probably don't bother most people.
Yes, absolutely.
But really, does a person need to read the entire Bible to understand the Gospel message - love?
No, but a person does need to understand what is at the core of the Bible to know God well enough to accept Him. Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is.
I believe the Church found it necessary to issue a warning to beware of reading the Bible APART from the Church. It still does this today - but encourages us to read the Bible.
OK, fair enough.
The Magesterium are the Bishops who interpret the Bible and the 2000 year history of HOW the Church previously interpreted the Bible (Tradition). They make the teachings of Christ pertinent to OUR problems today, such as stem-cell research.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
FK: I do believe the Apostles did have much authority. I don't believe that supernatural abilities, like forgiving sin, are transferable commodities.
Then Jesus didn't intend for His Church to last beyond the Apostles...
I don't see why that's so. Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Proof texting is not the way of determining a teaching of Christ. I believe that theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next.
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God? This would reject ANY sense of "plain meaning" scripture.
If I use Protestant theology, how can a totally depraved human KNOW that the Spirit of God is "speaking" to that person? The Catholic theology of "wounded man" doesn't help, in this matter. We just DO NOT KNOW! We are told to TEST the Spirit. But test it against WHAT? Our own opinions? Other interpretations that we came up with before? No, we are to test it against the teachings given to us by the Church. I find it difficult, myself, to determine what is God's will in my specific life.
We can know because the Spirit is resident, indwelling. Therefore, we are no longer "totally depraved". Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit, but He keeps working in us for life. That's why I'm always open to learning better teachings. The Spirit will bring me along on His time schedule, not mine.
Our test would be against the Bible first, as the Spirit leads us.
Say Calvinism vs. Arminianism. The idea of man and free will. We BOTH know that there is Scripture that point to BOTH points of view. These two groups will NEVER agree because they only see their own proof texts and they disregard the other's. Without a Church to say "man has free will in a secondary sense. Man does cooperate with God and is expected to bend himself, with God's help, to God", how is a third person supposed to KNOW?
Well, first of all I would say that Catholics can disregard proof texts with the best of them! :)
The third person is led by the Spirit, just as I am. I would agree that the third person wouldn't have a prayer of coming up with the RCC view by just reading the Bible himself. :) I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one. It was on His timetable, not mine. Perhaps there was other maturing I had to do first before I was ready to accept it. (I can't know for sure.)
You seem to have a difficult time understanding my point - that we do not KNOW that the Spirit is speaking a specific doctrine into our heads!
Maybe I am having difficulty. :) We can know by the faith God gave us, and His promises to us in scripture. If I hear any doctrine from the satanic church I immediately reject it. If I hear any doctrine that admits openly practicing homosexuals as Bishops, like from the "Protestant" Episcopalians I also immediately reject that. The Spirit has led me to understand that teaching does not point to God, so I reject it. I'm not perfect, and I don't claim to have everything right. So, I have the rest of my life for the Spirit to continue to teach and lead me.
FK: "...Bible contains everything we need to know from God."
If you add "...when properly interpreted", then it makes more sense.
I can agree to that.
All I need to say is "Eucharist".
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
God bless
"I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?"
The Eucharist is the center of The Church on earth for communities of The Church. Try to read the Eucharistic theology of +Ignatius of Antioch (all of it is available on line) and you will come to understand why The Church, whether Latin Rite or Orthodox view the Eucharist as having a central position in theosis.
So, now you are saying that man accepts God on his own accord? I wish you would make up your mind.
Of course, we make mistakes in receiving the message of the Spirit, but He keeps working in us for life
Oy! What happened to predestination!? Do you or don't you do as God wills (your own theology says you do)?
I think it has been clearly stated here that once saved you cannot sin because you are on God's tractor beam, and He doesn't make mistakes. Your theological cousins on the predestination side of the divide say that Judas was simply doing God's will. Then so must satan! If God allows it, it is good.
So, if you make a "mistake" (which is an oxymoron in your theology) how do you know it's not God's will? It has to be God's will, right?! God wants you to make a "mistake." Simple. Then it's not a mistake.
Otherwise you are thwarting God's power, to paraphrase you own words. I think you are beginning to trip over your own home-made theology.
The "Gospel" is an oral proclamation first. Certainly, it is recorded in Scripture, but I don't see the necessity to say that the Scriptures have encapsulated ALL of the Apostolic Teachings in clear format. Much of the Christian teachings through history were given by a person's knowledge of Christianity, not by necessarily reading a book, but by one's actions and the proclamation - that Jesus is Lord and is Risen!
Acceptance is only meaningful if we understand at least the basics of what Christianity is
History has proven that men can know God WITHOUT the Bible in hand, true? Now, we probably are arguing a moot, meaningless point - the Bible IS available to many people. But even in third world countries were illiteracy is high, we see Christianity IS expanding. I believe that even in the case of Protestant Evangelists, they are able to spread the Good News more by their actions, by being a light of Christ, rather than reading about some 2000 year old Jews. It is one's witness that brings people to the Bible, not vice versus.
Maybe I have been misinterpreting what "tradition" is all along. I pinged you to a post a little while before this one on this topic. I have been thinking that tradition is extra-Biblical, not automatically wrong, but not in the Bible.
We divide Tradition into two components: Apostolic, and Ecclesiastical. The latter is changeable. Things that the Church instituted to promote piety or virtue, etc. Things such as Fasting on Friday during Lent. That is not set in stone, but we obey it because the Church has given it to us as a means of advancing our sanctification. The former, Apostolic, are Traditions that are not EXPLICITLY in the Scriptures - but are NOT EXCLUDED by Scriptures, either. They ARE written and expounded on, but not within the Scriptures. Latter Christians witness to their source - the Apostles.
A good example of this is infant Baptism. It is not EXPLICITLY mentioned in Scriptures. One COULD see it - Christ said do not keep the children away from Him, the Scriptures say that whole families were baptised. By Scripture ALONE, the issue is unclear, is it not? However, by looking to the first few generations of Christian writers, we DO see that THEY considered the practice as holy, pious, and taught by the Apostles! Thus, we have an Apostolic Tradition, a teaching of the Apostles that is not clearly laid out in Scripture, but was considered EQUAL to Scripture by the first Christians.
Why can't the Church, theoretically, flourish under either of our views? What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
We believe that Christ passed along a power ONLY to the Apostles - the power to bind and loosen, the power to forgive sins, and the power to confect the Eucharist. As in the Old Testamant, they passed this power (the Spirit) through the visible laying of hands. Thus, a visible sign was given that others could see - an authority was given, a power, to another to continue Christ's Church. We believe that such things, called sacraments, are visible signs of God's graces that continue to come to us. Christ continues His ministry of men here on earth through the successors of the Apostles, the men whom they had laid hands upon. If Christ had intended for all men to have such power, He would have given it to them. We follow what we see in Scriptures, not what our democratic society tells us that we should do (let women be priests, etc.)
What, God can't handle forgiving sin Himself? :)
Of course, but why did He give men the power to forgive sins in the first place in John's Gospel? Note, this is AFTER the Resurrection! The Sacraments (Reconciliation in this case) was given to men so that we could SEE God's work within us. We are body and soul, made that way by God, so we are more effectively worshiping God and following Him when we give our entire selves to Him and when He blesses us through the material world (as well as the spiritual world).
Do you mean chronologically, or in importance? If the latter, then the interpretations of men, even God aided, supersede the inerrant word of God?
As I said, theologically speaking, the Traditions of the Apostles came first, the Scriptures came next. God gave His Gospel orally first. The Apostles gave it to others orally first. The Scriptures didn't come until AT LEAST ten years later, if we believe that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40's. Thus, the first ten years at least saw Christianity spread without any Gospel writings, any Epistles, etc. Later, when these same men of God wrote letters and the narratives of the Gospels, they naturally taught the SAME thing that they taught orally earlier to others. Thus, the oral teachings preceded the written ones, and the written ones did not overturn the oral ones. Nor does it say anywhere that oral teachings are encapsulated completely within the Scriptures. This is a Protestant assumption that is proven incorrect based on the writings of the first Christians.
I believe the Spirit has led me to make the advancement from the Arminian view to the Calvinist one.
Then who was leading you to the Arminian view 2 months ago? How do you know that the "Spirit" won't lead you to another view next month? See, there can only be ONE Truth, and you cannot KNOW it in this manner! I find this means of determining proper doctrine as totally dependent on one's current opinion, a subjective matter, rather than an objective one coming from outside of one's self. As a Catholic, if I take on the opinion that there is no Purgatory, and I want to remain a faithful Catholic, understanding that Christ established a Church and protects it, then I MUST submit my opinion to Christ's, and put aside that non-belief of Purgatory. I begin to read WHY the Church defends Purgatory. But I don't make things up and then try to prove them with bits of Scripture, tossing out verses that don't match.
I'm really starting to get the idea that there is something about the Eucharist's importance to Catholics that I don't understand. If it is, why is it different from the importance of other sacraments?
Well, hold on, here is your chance to learn, as I am preparing to give a class on just that subject this Thursday. The Eucharist is THE source of our Christian walk. Christ comes to us and abides within us in visible form. From this abiding, we believe that Christ sanctifies us in a most perfect manner - when we are open to receiving Him. Yes, the Eucharist is of primary importance to us.
Brother in Christ