by Loving the Ride » Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:21 pm
> You'll have to clarify. Are you saying that divisions about the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation are not divisions on doctrine?
I am pointing out that there can not be "division" until there is an officially declared Doctrine. Until that point, it is just a matter of people having different opinions. As long as opinion does not contrast Doctrine, it is fine to have a different opinion. For example, the Church has no Doctrine against Charismatic prayer. In fact, there may be more Charismatics within the Catholic Church than there are in the Pentecostal church. Catholics have different opinions, but never have different Dogmas or Doctrines. As we see in Acts 15:19, when there is disagreement, debate follows, then the head of the Church (e.g. Peter) declares the Doctrine. This is how God set up the Catholic Church. God (the Holy Spirit) uses whoever is in the Chair of Peter to make an infallible decision. One set, Doctrine never changes. If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
> ... debate is not a change. That's correct ...
I am glad that you agree that debate is not change! In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic. We also believe that God created the Universe, so life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture. I'm not sure if you know it, but most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics, so we face life-and-death decisions on a daily basis. When can you pull the plug? When do you save the Mother's life versus the Baby? Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties. Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation ? If so, why do so many "Sola Scriptura" factions have different opinions on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, women clergy, etcetera?
> but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is. You've brought up disagreements, random opinions, various church misteps, etc. If you still think the Church is divided on Doctrine, can you give me a definition of what you think Doctrine is ? The Catholic Church is 100% in sync with Scripture, and if you are patient, I can show you that fact in every case. Catholic Doctrine and Scripture have the very same author: The Holy Spirit , because we do things the way Christ told us to. Honor the Chair of Peter (Matthew 16:18-19).
Since text does not interpret itself, I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation. Every "Sola Scriptura" faction has it's own interpretation, and I think our enemy enjoys that.
Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language? Each word has several meanings, and context. To understand it, you ultimately had to be there, know the author, history and context. That is another reason I can only ever believe an Apostolic Church. They revere the knowledge and traditions that are necessary to understand scripture.
To understand what I am saying about the inadequacy of language, please look at this one sentence that linguists use: "“I saw the man on the hill with a telescope”.
Notice that the ambiguity allows for at least 5 different interpretations:
1. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
2. I saw the man. I was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
3. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
4. I saw the man. I was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
5. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I saw him using a telescope.
> He [God]] set up an infallible way for people to remain united. Which is...?
The Chair of Peter. Jesus called it His Rock and His foundation for building His Church, and I don't know how He could be more clear. That's one visible church, not thousands of factions each coming up with their own interpretations. I know you have a different interpretation of what rocks and churches are. I can show you why that is errant, but I want to make sure you are clear on Doctrinology first.
> possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you
I thought you understood the concept of Doctrine versus random opinions. Do we need to go over that again? The Church is a Hospital for sinners, so you'll find all kinds of opinions and miseducation amongst 1.2 billion members. The official Doctrine of the Catholic Church on Mary is summarized in the Catechism link that I provided to you.
> "The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist." This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
Jesus said the Bread becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm? At the last supper, they ate the bread. If you study the Old testament, you'll see that follows the eating of the manna, and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died. It is a way that God connects with His physical world.
Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers, and how they practiced the same Mass that Catholics do today?
Justin Martyr 148:155 A.D.: ""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."
Irenaus of Lyons 180 A.D.: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Ignatias of Antioch 80 -110 A.D.: ""I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.""
1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.""
1st Corintians 11:23-27: ""For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D. ""The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. "
> You'll have to clarify. Are you saying that divisions about the Trinity, the Bible, and salvation are not divisions on doctrine?
I am pointing out that there can not be "division" until there is an officially declared Doctrine. Until that point, it is just a matter of people having different opinions. As long as opinion does not contrast Doctrine, it is fine to have a different opinion. For example, the Church has no Doctrine against Charismatic prayer. In fact, there may be more Charismatics within the Catholic Church than there are in the Pentecostal church. Catholics have different opinions, but never have different Dogmas or Doctrines. As we see in Acts 15:19, when there is disagreement, debate follows, then the head of the Church (e.g. Peter) declares the Doctrine. This is how God set up the Catholic Church. God (the Holy Spirit) uses whoever is in the Chair of Peter to make an infallible decision. One set, Doctrine never changes. If someone refutes the declared Doctrine, they are no longer in communion with God's Church.
> ... debate is not a change. That's correct ...
I am glad that you agree that debate is not change! In case you don't know this, the Catholic Church teaches that Holy scripture is the Word of God. Every letter. If you refute that, then you can't be Catholic. We also believe that God created the Universe, so life itself is something that God gives us as a guide. We need everything from God to make the tough decisions. If you are using only one thing, then you are disregarding the rest of God's creation. For example, we need to know Greek history to interpret some scripture. We need to know geography to understand other scripture. The Language and Geographic information itself is not defined in scripture. I'm not sure if you know it, but most Hospitals in the USA are run by Catholics, so we face life-and-death decisions on a daily basis. When can you pull the plug? When do you save the Mother's life versus the Baby? Scripture does not directly address each situation, so we need to look to God's creation, scripture and logic with such difficulties. Do you think that Scripture provides the answer to every situation ? If so, why do so many "Sola Scriptura" factions have different opinions on Birth Control, Contraception, Divorce, women clergy, etcetera?
> but the Catholic Church has settled on some unscriptural doctrines as the conclusion to the debate, and given the choice, I stick with Scripture.
No offense, but so far, you've demonstrated that you don't know what Doctrine is. You've brought up disagreements, random opinions, various church misteps, etc. If you still think the Church is divided on Doctrine, can you give me a definition of what you think Doctrine is ? The Catholic Church is 100% in sync with Scripture, and if you are patient, I can show you that fact in every case. Catholic Doctrine and Scripture have the very same author: The Holy Spirit , because we do things the way Christ told us to. Honor the Chair of Peter (Matthew 16:18-19).
Since text does not interpret itself, I hope that you realize that you are saying that you stick with your own interpretation. Every "Sola Scriptura" faction has it's own interpretation, and I think our enemy enjoys that.
Are you familiar with the inadequacy of language? Each word has several meanings, and context. To understand it, you ultimately had to be there, know the author, history and context. That is another reason I can only ever believe an Apostolic Church. They revere the knowledge and traditions that are necessary to understand scripture.
To understand what I am saying about the inadequacy of language, please look at this one sentence that linguists use: "“I saw the man on the hill with a telescope”.
Notice that the ambiguity allows for at least 5 different interpretations:
1. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
2. I saw the man. I was on the hill. I was using a telescope.
3. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
4. I saw the man. I was on the hill. The hill had a telescope.
5. I saw the man. The man was on the hill. I saw him using a telescope.
> He [God]] set up an infallible way for people to remain united. Which is...?
The Chair of Peter. Jesus called it H[b]is Rock and His foundation for building His Church[/b], and I don't know how He could be more clear. That's one visible church, not thousands of factions each coming up with their own interpretations. I know you have a different interpretation of what rocks and churches are. I can show you why that is errant, but I want to make sure you are clear on Doctrinology first.
> possibly you'll claim that you only venerate her, not worship her. Many Catholics would disagree with you
I thought you understood the concept of Doctrine versus random opinions. Do we need to go over that again? The Church is a Hospital for sinners, so you'll find all kinds of opinions and miseducation amongst 1.2 billion members. The official Doctrine of the Catholic Church on Mary is summarized in the Catechism link that I provided to you.
> "The Church has always taught and practiced the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist." This is simply not true. It was always symbolic. The night that Jesus was betrayed, no one took a bite out of his arm. He instituted a symbolic remembrance.
Jesus said the [b]Bread[/b] becomes His body, so why did you talk about biting His arm? At the last supper, they ate the bread. If you study the Old testament, you'll see that follows the eating of the manna, and the eating of the Lamb on passover. Those who didn't eat the Lamb died. It is a way that God connects with His physical world.
Have you studied any of the disciples or Church fathers, and how they practiced the same Mass that Catholics do today?
Justin Martyr 148:155 A.D.: ""This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God's Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus."
"God has therefore announced in advance that all the sacrifices offered in His name, which Jesus Christ offered, that is, in the Eucharist of the Bread and of the Chalice, which are offered by us Christians in every part of the world, are pleasing to Him."
Irenaus of Lyons 180 A.D.: [Christ] has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own Blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own Body, from which he gives increase to our bodies."
Ignatias of Antioch 80 -110 A.D.: ""I have no taste for the food that perishes nor for the pleasures of this life. I want the Bread of God which is the Flesh of Christ, who was the seed of David; and for drink I desire His Blood which is love that cannot be destroyed.""
1st Corinthians 10:16-17 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.""
1st Corintians 11:23-27: ""For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, 'This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.' In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.' For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Clement of Alexandria 200 A.D. ""The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. "