[
Replying to tam]
Except you will not find the words, "Listen to the Church", being spoken by Him.
Not only do you find those words spoken by Him (who do you think He was saying He who hears you, hears me, whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven him to? " that would be His Church), but it is what the first Christians did after He spoke them that proves they understood His words and from then on went forward with the appointed Apostles, recognizing them as their leaders, listening to them, going to the Church for clarification and following her teachings.
I know, I know, you are above such. You know best and would be one of those who scoff that these ordinary folk can be leaders. Sounds familiar . . .
They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, 'I came down from heaven'?" "John 6:42
The irony of course is groups like yours received what you have come to learn about God through what has been revealed about Him via His Church. LOL!
You would not have the Scripture you do if it wasnt for the Church. You do realize it was a church of men, with a hierarchical structure who compiled and interpreted Scripture, right? Do you think the Bible fell from the sky? You claim to have no religion and yet you have no qualms taking the Bible given to you by my religion. Clearly, at one point you accepted (gasp) Sacred Tradition (which you now seem to scorn).
The whole church (the body of Christ) is guided by Christ, and given holy spirit. Not just some men who "claim" to be the Church.
Why do you keep accusing me of seeing the Church as just men? Im afraid thats your anti-Catholic misappropriation, not mine. But its easy to knock down, so I understand why you keep repeating it. The Church clearly bothers you because like it or not it has always been made up of ordinary, fallible men, just as Christ wanted it. And yet you find this set up inferior to your standards, even though Christ must have disagreed with you and established the Church just as He did.
What good is unity of teaching if the teaching is wrong? Then everyone is just unified in being wrong.
How do you think unity of teaching can occur? Where may I find this unity of teaching you speak of? Are these universal teachings all printed or published somewhere, clearly explained so as to promote this unity?
And let me guess . . . you believe you are getting it right, right? You believe you are understanding perfectly and clearly by the light of Christ You wouldnt be capable of getting it wrong since you proclaim from the mountain tops to be holding everything up to the light. Tell you what . . . Ill put 100 people in a room who just like you believe everything can be tested by the light of Christ and well see how much unity of message you all have. LOL!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps you might consider that many people left the RCC (and other subsequent groups) because they could see that Christ was NOT with those groups. They did just what Christ praised people FOR doing in the above quote. They could see this by their fruit and by their teachings, both of which were not what Christ taught or did.
Perhaps you might consider that many people join the Catholic Church every year. Many even come from similar backgrounds as yourself " those who were taught the evils of organized religion and told to simply be led by the light of Christ. They realized in doing so, Christ points them to His Church. They realized Scripture in fact was not anti-organized religion " In fact, Christ established an earthly, authoritative Church comprised of men as His chosen leaders as evidenced in Scripture. Soon it is difficult for people to ignore this truth and they recognize the flaws in their previous understanding. They recognize that by holding everything up to the light of Christ they see clearly how and why Christ gave us His Church as told us to listen to her.
Many a pre convert has confessed how easy it is to remain on the sidelines pointing out the short comings of the Church. Its easy to knock down a false image one has created about the Church and remain safe in no mans land by claiming to be above organized religion. By not declaring a religion, no one can point out the wrongness of ones beliefs and interpretations. The individual simply continually declares he is discerning what Christ wants and insists Christ is leading him to truth. Yet never really knowing if his own baggage/preconceptions/prejudices/desires are what is actually leading him.
Many sincere truth seekers dont like the uncertainty/doubt that they are getting it right. Most human beings recognize we are easily swayed and are masters at rationalization. The thought that God would not leave us an earthly authoritative voice does not sound like God. History shows He has always used earthly authoritative voices to communicate with us.
Thank you for posting our previous conversations. I didnt really want to repeat everything we have discussed. I made great references in our previous conversation showing all the evidence that Christ established a visible, authoritative, earthly church, told us to listen to her, and promised to remain with her.
Yes, but then they would not be taking the credit for themselves, right? Which is what I said, yes?
No. What you did was imply the Church is taking credit for Christ. The Church is doing what she has been asked to do and what she does is for the glory of Christ. If someone inside or outside the Church is doing anything other that for the glory of God, then he or she would be wrong. Again, you have a misunderstanding of Christs Church. Jesus is not usurping God by declaring that the Father has sent Him and neither is the Church. To honor Jesus is to honor God and to honor Christs Church is to honor Christ.
Do you think His words were meant to be used as a weapon by men to make people listen to and obey them, to gain followers after themselves?
His words are a
weapon. A weapon of truth and yes people are attracted to the truth. Put the truth out there and when people see how beautiful it is, they will follow.
It does not matter if they came on the scene later or if they were on the scene from the start.
If one is interested in truth, it does matter. Christ established His Church over 2000 years ago and promised to remain with her. If you are following a church that was founded in the 1900s, unless you are ready to admit that the gates of hell have prevailed, it cannot be Christs Church.
Because there were indeed false christs and false prophets from the start.
This part is true.
One needs to remain in CHRIST and in HIS word. Or else one is going to be easily misled by those false prophets and false christs.
True again. Youre on a roll.
As for tradition, here is what my Lord had to say about that:
Oh, I know what my Lord has to say about tradition, but are you sure you do?
Here we have Christs appeal to tradition . . .
**************************************
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14"15).
Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). He instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
This oral teaching was accepted by Christians, just as they accepted the written teaching that came to them later.
And how was this to be done? By preaching, by oral instruction: "So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ" (Rom. 10:17). The Church would always be the living teacher
Paul tells Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). Here we see the first few links in the chain of apostolic tradition that has been passed down intact from the apostles to our own day. Paul instructed Timothy to pass on the oral teachings (traditions) that he had received from the apostle. He was to give these to men who would be able to teach others, thus perpetuating the chain. Paul gave this instruction not long before his death (2 Tim. 4:6"8), as a reminder to Timothy of how he should conduct his ministry.
The truth of the faith has been given primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ, form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
The apostle, Paul, praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition which has been written down (Luke 1:1"4). Whats more, Paul does not quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians "through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be distinguished from human traditions or customs.
Consider Matthew 15:6"9, which Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often use to defend their position: "So by these traditions of yours you have made Gods laws ineffectual. You hypocrites, it was a true prophecy that Isaiah made of you, when he said, This people does me honor with its lips, but its heart is far from me. Their worship is in vain, for the doctrines they teach are the commandments of men." Look closely at what Jesus said.
He was not condemning all traditions. He condemned only those that made Gods word void. In this case, it was a matter of the Pharisees feigning the dedication of their goods to the Temple so they could avoid using them to support their aged parents. By doing this, they dodged the commandment to "Honor your father and your mother" (Ex. 20:12).
Elsewhere, Jesus instructed his followers to abide by traditions that are not contrary to Gods commandments. "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2"3).
What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/scripture-and-tradition
And just because someone put the word 'sacred' in front of the word 'tradition' does not make tradition sacred.
The Bible speaks of different kinds of tradition " a simple reading makes this clear. And the first Christians all understood the sacredness of both Scripture and Tradition. Seeing how they both come from Christ, it is appropriate to label them
sacred.
My Lord emphasized TRUTH, love, mercy, forgiveness, faith... He never emphasized tradition
WRONG! This is what Im talking about. Many groups like yours are so trenched in their talking points in attempts to slam organized religion, they are oblivious as to what Scripture actually teaches and says. There is nothing inherently wrong with tradition or service or leadership. But leave it to someone to put negative connotations to suit their purposes on anything.
Im assuming your family has some traditions they practice and carry on. Heck, reading a bed time story to your child is a tradition and a beautiful one at that. Pretty sure Christ does not condemn tradition, but your anti-Catholic colors are showing.
************************
Paul provides even more explicit evidence of Sacred Tradition in his writings. Here are three examples:
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print ... ture-alone
Quote:
So test the inspired expression... against Christ, against love, against what is written (beginning with what Christ taught). Hold all things up against the Light that is Christ
See my comment above. Sincere truth seeking Christians have tested what they feel is being revealed to them and found support/evidence in Scripture to support it. They have tested their belief against love, against Christ, and against what is written. They have held all things up to the Light of Christ and still come to very differing views. This is problematic.
If they have come to different views; they did not each receive their understanding from Christ.
What a convenient answer " not the least bit helpful, but quite convenient to pretty much justify anything anyone would ever want to justify.
But even if the issue is not resolved in that way at that time, but the things that someone believes they learned from Christ is not against anything Christ teaches, and it is not against love, and it is not against what is written (beginning with what Christ has said), then what problem would you have with them?
Truth matters, or do you not believe that? If you have or know the truth wouldnt you want to share that with others and wouldnt it be tragic to not share, even if that meant correcting others?
If I saw someone overboard who was struggling to make it to shore and I could help them, would I instead sit and watch them struggle " justifying that well, theyre making it. They are actually a stronger better swimmer than I am so hopefully theyll eventually make it? Maybe they will and maybe they wont, but if I have a life preserver that could save their life, I ought to throw it at them. Not look the other way and hope they eventually find their way.
What you are suggesting is the sin of indifferentism.
The belief that all religions are equally worthy and profitable to man, and equally pleasing to God
All religions, indeed, may be said to contain some measure of truth; and God may accept the imperfect worship of ignorant sincerity. But it is injurious to God, Who is truth itself, to assert that truth and falsehood are indifferent in His sight.
To say that all these irreconcilable beliefsand cults are equally pleasing to God is to say that the Divine Being has no predilection for truth over error; that the true and the false are alike congenial to His nature.
It would be beyond the scope of this article to develop, or even briefly sketch, the argument contained in the Scriptures and in the history of the Church for the truth that, from the beginning, Christianity was a dogmatic religion with a rule of faith, a rule of conduct, a definite, if not fully developed, system, with promises to be fulfilled for those who adhered to the creed, the discipline, and the system, and with anathemasfor those who rejected them. The exposition and the proof of these facts constitute, in theology, the treatise on the Church. One obvious consideration may be briefly pointed out which lays bare the inconsistency of liberal indifferentism. If, as this theory admits, God did reveal any truth to men, then He surely intended that it should be believed. He can not have meant that men should treat His revelation as of no importance, or that it should signify one thing to you and something entirely different to me, nor can He be indifferent as to whether men interpret it correctly or incorrectly. If He revealed a religion, reason certainly tells us that such a religion must be true, and all others that disagree with it false, and that He desires men to embrace it; otherwise, why should He have given any revelation at all? It is true that in many places the Scriptures are obscure and furnish to those who assume to interpret them by the light of private judgmentalone many occasions of reaching irreconcilable conclusions. This fact, however, proves only the falseness of the Protestant rule of faith. The inference that flows from it is not that all interpretations are equally trustworthy, but that, since God has given us a revelation which is not so clearly or fully expressed in the Scriptures that reason can grasp it with certitude, He must have constituted some authority to teach us what is the burden of revelation.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07759a.htm
Love covers over a multitude of sins, yes? So we would go our way in peace, and leave Christ to correct what needs to be corrected, if indeed one is truly seeking and loving HIM.
The only thing that we can do is share as we have learned from Christ. The rest is not up to us.
This erroneous belief that one cant speak the truth and be loving and supportive is unfounded. Its possible to do both and that is what the Church and I advocate. The Church is there to help and guide. She is constantly waiting for her lost sheep and prodigal sons to return and she waits with open loving arms full of love and mercy. She is not there to enforce rules and a lists of thou shall nots Christ is dying to give us more. He is not satisfied to say, well theyre doing ok. He knows the closer and closer one gets to truth, the happier, more fulfilled, peace and love we will experience. For we shall see Him (beauty and truth and love) for what He is. Thats what He wants and it cannot be found it partial truth or close enoughs.
The RCC, you mean? No, that makes no sense at all. None whatsoever.
<sigh> Yeah, no history of God ever using ordinary, fallible, even sinful men as His appointed leaders.
The fact that the Church has at times screwed up all the more points to her being Christs established Church.
Are you suggesting that Christ said we are to listen to Jewish leaders? Because that is who He was speaking about in your quote above, yes?
Christ has always used fallible men. And yes, at that time Christ was telling His people to listen to those who have been instructed to teach. His teachings are right and good and God entrusted ordinary men to safeguard them. So, dont get hung up on whether John or Joe are living up to the teachings themselves " that is for God to judge. But you, heed their teachings, listen to them, and do as they say, because it is through them that I wish you to hear and know these things.
Perhaps though you are suggesting that this accurately represents YOUR leaders in the RCC. Do you not see what that is saying about them and about who you are following?
Yes, it all points to the glory and power of God. It points to how much we all need God. It points to God being able to do incredible things through us. The flaws of the Church leaders dont negate the truth of Christs Church, rather they confirm it " that Christ can take us sinful nothings and work through us and still protect His Church, remain with her, and guide her in all truth. Thanks be to God.
