I’d like to point out that Augustine didfeel bound by ecumenical councils such as Nicaea, (not Nice but Nicaea—notice the difference) and had no qualms in interpreting Scripture to find within it things that Protestants find both pleasing and repugnant, such as original sin and baptism of infants.

I’ll stick to my favorite question:  Where did this Book come from?

If not Roman Catholic, then they are an “off brand”.  Need not say more.

Thanks for this article, Mark. It helped me a lot.

The take-home message for me is this: when somebody tries to prove a particular point from a short excerpt from another’s writings, one must go back and discover the historical context within which it was written and un-earth the particulars of what is being written about.

In this light, the mistakes that the protestant made are:
- he didn’t understand the context of St. Augustine’s statement (i.e. trying to find an alternative route given the disagreement between two local synods)
- he didn’t understand that a local synod does not carry the doctrinal weight of an ecumenical council

With these two misunderstandings in place, it is not surprising that he took St. Augustine’s statement to be a broad-sweeping dismissal of the authority of councils. Either that, or he is very dishonest.

I would add another point to Mark’s analysis. If the protestant had taken the time to read that quote more carefully, he would have noticed that St. Augustine is saying “you are not bound by the one, and I am not bound by the other.” He is NOT saying “we are not bound by any of them.” Thus, this is clearly not a universal statement to be applied to councils in general. In fact, St. Augustine is admitting indirectly that he is bound by his own local synod.

I don’t recall Augustine being infallible… do you?  Next, he was not always a faithful Catholic, but developed into one.  We have to ask first when in his life was this said, and more importantly, is that an accurate quote of his at all?  Protestants must take things out of context and distort their meanings in order to remain Protestant. 

Please keep in mind, the Bible records teachings of “Scriptura”, but not once is “Sola Scriptura” either expressed or even implied.  In fact, “sola scriptura” is anti-Scriptural.

Yes, David.  I echo your question.  Protestants always want to confuse us by ignoring the fact that the Holy Bible was compiled, under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by the Catholic Church.  It came way, way, after the Holy Inauguration of the Catholic Church by the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost.  Protestants will never accept that the Teachings of the Church before the Holy Bible was compiled are Spirit-inspired Teachings and are the authentic Inspired Truth.  So our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always been, and will always be anchored on the Three Pillars : The Scriptures, The Tradition and the Magisterium. We should never expect Protestant Fundamentalists to accept this Truth.  Nevertheless, their refusal to accept the Truth does not in any way hurt it. God is Truth and Jesus Christ is the Way the Truth and the Life and His Church remains Holy as God is Holy.

Michael Kocian- what is your definition of Sola Scriptura? This is important because protestants who believe this do not think its anti-Scriptural.

Mary42- the reason many protestants don’t accept many teachings of the Roman Catholic church is because they are not apostolic. The apostles never taught the Marian doctrines, praying to the saints nor a celibate church leadership. These doctrines are not found in the Scripture.

The fundamental premise of this article, namely that “Nice” (aka Nicaea) is a local council, is wrong.  See the more detailed discussion here:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/nicaea-was-local-council-arianism-not.html

-TurretinFan

Proto1, what do you understand by Christ Statement to St. Peter : “I give you the Keys of Heaven…...”?. This is the Apostolic Teaching Authority by the Successors of Peter, the Third Pillar of our Faith - The Magisterium. I have never ceased to marvel at why Protestants reject the Marian Doctrine, yet it is Biblical.  How did St. Elizabeth respond to the Virgin Mary’s greetings when she visited her immediately after the Awesome Message of Angel Gabriel (Luke 1:43)?  “How does this happen to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?” The Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God.  Yet Protestants still reject this title. Providentially, the Anglicans - on their very own - after studying the Synoptic Gospel,e.g (Luke 1:39-56) - have accepted the Marian Doctrine as proclaimed and taught by the Catholic Church.  On the question of prayers to, and through the Saints to God, Jesus Christ Himself stated that God is the God of the Living not of the Dead. Our One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church comprises Three Groups: The Church Militant (that is us on the journey to our Eternal Home), The Church Suffering (the Holy Souls in Purgatory on their way to Heaven) and the Church Triumphant (the Saints already in Heaven). We, the Church Militant, pray for ourselves directly to Jesus Christ, to God the Father, to God the Holy Spirit and invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary Mother of God and the Saints already in Heaven. Their prayers are powerful because they are already in Heaven. We also pray for the Church Suffering, the souls in Purgatory. All these Doctrines are covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Canon Law. On the subject of celibacy for the Clergy, I need not put down my belief.  Jesus Christ Himself has recommended this for those whom the Holy Spirit calls to “toil in God’s Vineyard”. It is a Divine Grace bestowed on them to enable them to offer their Celibacy as a Divine Gift to the Heavenly Father.  Jesus did state that not everyone is predisposed to accept this sublime Divine Gift. Proto1, your refusal to accept the Faith of the Catholic Church as revealed by the Holy Spirit who subsists in the Church shall not invalidate these Divinely Revealed Teachings, contained in the Tradition of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church and the various Catholic Church Councils.  They are authentic Revealed Divine Truths from God.

The Church is Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth. There are many people today that say “why.do I have to follow the Church”. Or “we have the Bible” we don’t need anything else. I’m sorry, but it should be obvious for anyone who calls him or herself Christian - that Christ rose from the dead and is Alive, he founded a Universal Church and the Bible came from the Catholic Church. He prayed for Us all to be One, he prayed for Simon, the first Peter, and gave him the Authority on earth. The first Steward given the keys to the Kingdom. Our Lord and Savior can neither deceive or be deceived, and neither can His Church. He Promised to lead Her into all Truth.. Shouldn’t this be obvious ?

Mary42 - let’s focus on some of the details of the Marian doctrines. How is it that Mary is supposedly without sin or kept from sin when there is not one reference to this in the entire NT? Jesus nor His apostles never taught such a thing and if anyone would have known this they would have it.

David- why would you say the church cannot be decieved when already in Rev 2:12-16 we already see a church holding to false teachings and being rebuke by Christ Himself. If the Roman Catholic church cannot be decieved why was it acknowledged during the reformation that the Catholic church recognized a need for reform? Reform implies that something is wrong and needs to be corrected.

Apparently “Council of Nice” in the passage from Augustine does indeed refer to Nicaea I, the First Ecumenical Council, and not to a local synod. The “Council of Ariminum” (Rimini) was a regional council that upheld language that allowed for Arianism.

The point still stands, though. Augustine’s interlocutor won’t accept a citation of Nicaea as authoritative, just as Augustine doesn’t accept Ariminum’s pronouncements. Augustine thus drops back a step and attempts to demonstrate the Nicene faith directly from Scripture. He never deprecates conciliar authority in general, though, just recognizes that it won’t carry weight in this argument. Even the most committed sola Scriptura Protestant wouldn’t baldly assert Biblical authority in an argument with an atheist, as he’d get nowhere. He first has to back up and demonstrate the reliability of Scripture itself using historical and literary evidence that the atheist accepts. This is a similar situation.

Also, Wikipedia tells me that the cop-out language used by the Council of Ariminum stated that the Father and Son were related “according to the Scriptures,” without specifying whether They were of the same or merely similar substance. That means that, if Augustine can demonstrate that Scripture upholds the Nicene position, even the heretical council (that his opponent recognizes as authoritative) will suddenly be on his side!

Deadstop:

Augustine goes a little beyond that.  Recall that he wrote: “I am not bound by the authority of Ariminum, and you are not bound by that of Nicaea.” 

Augustine says that Nicaea is not binding on Maximinus.  If ecumenical councils are only binding on people who accept them, then how is that different from Sola Scriptura, in your opinion?

Try cashing it out.  Are the “Old Catholics” bound by Vatican I?  In general, are the teachings of The Church binding or are they non-binding unless people accept them?

-TurretinFan

Proto1,
I’m not going to answer the suggestion that the Pope is the Anti-Christ, that’s just silly. If you mean to beat the Church over the head, please do so with a non-Catholic Book.  Simon received the keys from Christ himself. Come on…
On Reform, yes, the Church was in need of reform then, and is now. Understand the Church is made up of sinners, me, you, and everyone else. But what the Church Teaches is TRUTH.
On how it is that I believe that the Church cannot deceive or be deceived. I believe (beyond what my senses tell me) that Jesus Christ, the same Jesus Christ that walked the streets of Jerusalem 2000 years ago, is on earth; Truly Present, mind, soul, body and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist. It is HE. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. The darkness is error, darkness of mind. If you’re looking for a contemporary example, take contraception, before 1930 all Christian Churches taught that contraception was sinful, now only the Catholic Church, and those in close communion with Her do so and it is now painfully obvious the damage contraception has caused, and continues to cause. That was not the case when Humane Vitae was published. The successor of Peter is not the anti-Christ; he is the teacher of the whole human race.

I too have had conversations with non-catholics including even Jehova Witnesses and when I bring up the fact that the Bible came FROM the Catholic Church they just don’t seem to know or care.  Logic doesn’t figure in to peoples belief systems.  I have had some mind boggling conversations with other Christians and they seem to think that reading the bible is all that is really necessary to being a Christian.  So when I mention all that logical stuff like when the printing press was invented etc…. I get blank looks…

God bless you, David. Your response you have given to Proto1 is a true Witness to the Holiness of our Catholic Church.  Sadly, no matter who tries to convince Proto1, he can never accept the DIVINE TRUTH staring him in the face. But, Hey, didn’t Jesus face the same rejection and ridicule from the Pharisees throughout His Teaching Ministry? And He stated, if they persecuted Me, they will persecute you, too.  No wonder Proto1 can blantantly call the Vicar of Christ on Earth the anti-Christ. So was Jesus Christ Himself was called Belzebub by those who rejected His Teachings, His Divinity as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity - God-made-Man - and the Messiah saying He was driving out evil spirits by the power of Satan. Proto1 also ignores the fact that Jesus Christ, while promising to send the Apostles the “Helper” - the Holy Spirit - He stated when The Holy Spirit comes, He would remind them of all that He had taught them. From Pentecost to this Day, the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church in Her Teachings and ensures Her Teachings shall always be the REVEALED TRUTH OF GOD WHO CAN NEITHER DECEIVE NOR BE DECEIVED. Thus, the Catholic Church Divine Teachings on Faith and Morals (as you rightly point out about abortion) has never changed throughout these 2000 Years and will never change.

Mary42 don’t be a crashing gong. Proto1, as Sassy said, Our Lord wants us to think.

David, I am not a crashing gong but an old devoted and faithful Cradle Catholic. What I need to ask Proto1 is this.  Can he explain how the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity could be born of a Virgin who had the stain of Original Sin?.  The Church’s teaching on the Immaculate Conception is a Church Dogma, Divinely Revealed, which is supported by sheer common sense.  That is : For God to become Man, and Genesis predicts, a virgin without the stain of Satan’s deception would bear a Son. And Isaiah tells us the same and adds the Son’s name would be Emmanuel - that is God-with-Us.

David- I’m not making the claim that the pope is the anti-Christ. I’m not arguing that. What I am arguing against is the claim that your church has not erred. Its history showed that it has. The inquisitions is one such example. Even the papacy through the centuries has not been immune from evil and error. Note this from church history: ” The Great Western Schism—which began in 1378, when the French cardinals, claiming that the election of Pope Urban VI was invalid, elected Clement VII as Pope—led to two, and eventually three, rival lines of claimants to the papacy: the Roman line, the Avignon line (Clement VII took up residence in Avignon, France), and the Pisan line.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope

Now if Christ had promised that His church could not err in matters of faith and morals then how do you explain these 2 examples since they do indeed involve faith and morals? Certainly the Holy Spirit was not part of this.

Mary42- you ask how “the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity could be born of a Virgin who had the stain of Original Sin?” That should not be a problem since man inherits original sin through the father and not the mother. See Romans 5:12-14. Now you also have to ask yourself if the power of sin is greater than the power of God. Jesus Himself lived among sinners all His life and never sinned.
You also would know that Mary herself acknowledges her sin because of her recognition of God as her Savior in Luke 1:47. If she did not see herself as a sinner then this verse would be a contradiction of her state.

Mary42- you ask how “the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity could be born of a Virgin who had the stain of Original Sin?”  How could the Blessed Virgin be born of a married woman who had the stain of Original Sin? If it is not problematic for Mary to be immaculately conceived of woman who is not immaculate, why would it be problematic for Jesus to be immaculately conceived of a woman who is not immaculate?

TurretinFan—good point. I had not thought of that.

Proto1,
You’re asking very good questions.
First, I must point out that it’s not my Church, it’s His. As earlier, the Church is made up of sinners, me, you and everyone else. As such, the Church, its’ human members, have sinned. But, the Church is not a mere human organization; it is also a Divine Organization. We hear His Voice, in His Church. It wouldn’t make sense for Him to provide us with an infallible Book and a fallible interpreter.

Human nature, yuck what a mess, we all have a “wounded human nature”, we are all, all, naturally: lustful, envious, gluttonous, and the list goes on….. (Beside Christ Who is God&Man;) Mary is the only exception of having been born without a wounded human nature, Jesus was and is her Savior, but she gained the benefits of His dying on the Cross before He died, Full of Grace, and she had a, what a weak expression, a SPECIAL vocation. We honor Mary, because our Lord did, and continues to do so.

As for the Successors of Peter, yes, there have been bad examples. However instead of weakening my faith, it strengthens it, because even though there were bad examples, the Church Stands. And, yes there was a time of Papal confusion, when there were three men who claimed to be the Successor of Peter, but obviously there must have been, really, only one. And the Church Stands. The Inquisition was a bad time, but if you study it, you will find that there was primarily a Secular motivation (Monarch envy), and if it wasn’t for the intervention of the Church, it would have been worse.

Now, what do I mean by “The Church Stands”. It Stands because it has not waivered in 2000 years, it has not “recanted” a Teaching and it has not “reversed” a Teaching. IT is the only organization on earth that can make that claim. And that is because it not merely a human organization. Understand that some Teachings such as the immorality of Usury, are now better understood, HE did say that the Holy Spirit would lead us… A fair collection of interest on a loan is now understood to be OK, but a credit card company charging 20 percent interest to people in trouble is still gravely immoral, and it is Usury. And understand that some Disciplines, such as eating fish on Friday, have changed.
I believe in the Church because I have faith in Christ, it’s His Church, not mine, and I am, Thank God, part of it.
If there is a Teaching you are struggling with, let me know.
David

David- I am struggling with a lot that the Roman Catholic church teaches. For example you make the statement “It wouldn’t make sense for Him to provide us with an infallible Book and a fallible interpreter.” I have no problem with the Bible being the infallible inerrant Word of God. The problem is that the Roman Catholic church is not an infallible interpreter. We know this because there is no such thing in the Roman Catholic church as an infallible interpretation of the Scriptures. I have asked countless Catholics to tell me what the infallible interpretation of a particular verse-passage of Scripture is and where can it be found and no one knows where this infallible interpretation of a particular passage is to be found. For example: what is the official-infallible interpretation of Romans 5:1?  Where would you go as a catholic to find the official-infallible interpretation of this verse?

David- you also claim that Mary-“gained the benefits of His dying on the Cross before He died, Full of Grace, and she had a, what a weak expression, a SPECIAL vocation.” The problem there is not a hint of this in the NT. Jesus nor His apostles in their writings ever mention this. “Full of grace”  does not mean without sin or sinless all of life. Here is what the phrase means in a Greek lexicon of the NT-“Full of grace
??????? charitó?; contracted charitó?, fut. charitó?s?, from cháris (5485), grace. To grace, highly honor or greatly favor. In the NT spoken only of the divine favor, as to the virgin Mary in Luke 1:28, kecharit?mén?, the perf. pass. part. sing. fem. The verb charitó? declares the virgin Mary to be highly favored, approved of God to conceive the Son of God through the Holy Spirit. The only other use of charitó? is in Eph. 1:6 where believers are said to be “accepted in the beloved,” i.e., objects of grace.” 
Zodhiates, S. (2000, c1992, c1993). The complete word study dictionary : New Testament (electronic ed.) (G5486). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers

Stephen in Acts 6:8 is said to be “full of grace and power”. Should we understand that he also was sinless all his life?

I understand that the Roman Catholic church has never ““recanted” a Teaching and it has not “reversed” a Teaching.” How could she when she considers herself infallible? Even when she has been shown errors in her teaching by the Scripture she refuses to correct her errors on the claim she is infallible.
Surely this must trouble you when you encounter contradictory statements made by your church.

Proto1,
There is no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church, there is the Church and it is Universal, the Successor of Peter is in Rome, but it’s not “a roman thing”. It’s simply the Church, and it is Catholic (Universal). It was first called Catholic around 100 AD.

Did an angel ever say “HAIL Stephen Full of Grace”? From Whom did Christ receive HIS human Body from? Am I to Not believe the Church He Founded? Didn’t the NT come from Church? From Whom do you get Your Authority? 

I understand that the Scriptures are not explicit in defining Mary’s Immaculate Conception, but this Teaching did not just drop out of the sky. It was taught by the early Fathers of the Church, and for centuries, before being solemnly defined.

You should realize that the devil hates Mary, he hates that fact that she is the Mother of God, he hates her for being “the woman clothed with the Son”, and he hates that fact that she is honored, he certainly does not want people to be believe that she was and is, in fact, Immaculate. He must have hated her all her life on earth, all her life, immense hatred, and she must have suffered. We might be able to say, someday, “if it wasn’t for Proto1”, but Mary, Truly, “If it wasn’t for Her…”

Regarding your question about me being troubled. No I’m not, and never will be, at least not anymore. I’ve been around the block enough to know that Christ was, and is, God, He did found a Church, and the Church gave us the NT, the Sacraments, He is in His Church, and the Church is a Sure Guide. 
Enough of this, “it’s not in Scripture” stuff. Can you find anything that the Church Taught and then either “reversed or recanted” in the last 2000 years? ANY contradiction with the last 2000 years?  I have absolutely no Anxiety about your ability to find anything of the sort, no Anxiety, even though I don’t know everything, who does?

But I know something. I KNOW Christ in the Eucharist. HE preserved and continues to preserves the Church from Error. I know this for certain, and no one can take that away from me.  You should “believe in Him whom He has sent” JOHN 6.

David- your church has erred in the inquisitions and understanding of Scripture.  There are contradictions in your church. Take salvation.
““We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
Scripture nowhere says this. This contradicts what Scripture says that salvation is only to be gained in Christ alone. Ephesians 2:8-9.
Both of these statements cannot be right. Agreed?

The full text says:
“This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven” etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”

Obedience to Christ; Is obedience to the Vicar of Christ.
Why should I be obedient to you, where did you get Your Authority?

David- where did Peter himself teach that he was the supreme vicar of Christ? Where did he demand obedience to himself and that obedience is the same you are to give to Christ?

These are the kinds of questions that Catholics need to ask of their church and demand it be proven by Scripture. This is important because all that we have from the apostles are their writings and nothing else. If it cannot be grounded in Scripture then its the teachings of men.
You are not called to be obedient to me but to Christ and all that we know of Christ is found only in Scripture. Obey the Scripture and you are obeying Christ. Obey your leaders when they are teaching Christ.

Proto1,
Christ commissioned Simon-Peter to be the head of the Visible Church on earth. “you are rock and on this rock I Will Build My Church”. HE did not say you go build your church, and HE didn’t say you will build. HE Said I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. Christ is the the Head of the Church, but the visible head is Peter. In Loyalty to Christ, I am loyal to Peter. Ok?

Proto1,
I just found your question on where do I go to find what the Church teaches on a given verse. Scripture is, we agree I’m sure, The Word of God, who is a Person. That Person cannot be put in a box. There are good Bible study guides such as those at Ignatius.com But I would start with the Compendium of the Catechism and I would also read the writings of the Saints and Early Fathers. Saint Theresa of Avala comes to mind. Every document the Church’s Magisterium produces will draw from the Scripture, inexhaustible it is.

One last comment.
Scripture alone, is a teaching of men. And a fairly recent one, that has produced church after church, i.e., division and more division..the opposite of Christ’s Will. Division is a mark of the devil: to divide, to decieve, to defile, to destroy..
Where does it say in Scripture - Scripture Alone, and Nothing else?

David- did Jesus say that He would build His church on the person of Peter or on the confession that Jesus was the Christ of God? Let’s assume it was the person of Peter. Is Peter as a person presented as a rock in the gospels? No. Not even close. Paul even rebukes him for holding to error. Peter, nor is any man the kind of material that could support the church and resist the gates of hell in their person. The only One who fits that description is the Lord Jesus.
We also know that Peter in Acts or his letters does he refer to himself as the supreme head of the church. Again, there is no such reference to Peter as such.
As for loyalty to Christ involving loyalty to Peter i.e. the pope goes far beyond what the Scriptures teach. Without such support from Scripture you can’t say your view is based on apostolic teaching.

David- in regards to “Scripture alone, is a teaching of men” is probably one of the most misunderstood doctrine by Catholics. Would you agree that the Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God?

Was Simon named Peter before or after his confession that Jesus was the Christ? Peter means “rock”. Simon-Peter did falter, but Christ instructs him to “feed His sheep” after he Rises from the dead. Christ knew that the Holy Spirit would strengthen Peter later. It was understood that Peter was the chief Apostle. Do you think a church where everyone has their own conflicting interpretation of Scripture. Can survive. Peter is there to Teach (feed the sheep) and decide where there is a conflicting problem, the Bishops in communion with him. Peter “enjoys” the charism of infallibility as part of that role in the Church. Who do you have?

Someone just responded to the entry you subscribed to at:
Blogs

The title of the entry is:
A Question about Sola Scriptura

You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/a-question-about-sola-scriptura/

““Scripture alone, is a teaching of men” is probably
one of the most misunderstood doctrine by Catholics.”
Doctrine? I think it’s an observation. Do you have a Doctrine?

” Scriptures are the only inspired-inerrant Word of God?”
I believe the Bible is inerrant, if you include the books Luther took out. But I don’t think either you or I are inerrant in interpretation. That’s not to say we can’t read it and profit from it, but we can’t draw conclusions apart from the Church, nor would we want to, there is nothing likable about error. I do believe that Humanae Vitae was, definitely, definitely, inspired by The Holy Spirit.

To stop receiving notifications for this comment, click here:
http://www.ncregister.com/?ACT=2&id=88526

David- Do you search the Scriptures to determine if your church is teaching what the apostles taught? I suspect not otherwise you would not have claimed that Peter was infallible nor did he or any apostle teach papal succession. If Peter was infallible then Paul would not have rebuked him for holding to error.
It is true that Peter was to feed the sheep. However, other apostles also had the same responsibility. If anything we see Peter as an apostle to the Jews while Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Both played equal and crucial parts in the advancement of the gospel.
Another question for you: what must a Catholic do to be saved?

Holy Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Magisterium are One.
I’ll answer your other questions, but first, what Denomination Are you?

David - I’m protestant evangelical sola scriptura. How can you claim the Catholic church is one with Scripture when it teaches doctrines that are either contrary to Scripture (such as Mary’s sinlessness, indulgences and celibate leadership to name a few)or were never taught by the apostles and therefore not apostolic?

“David on Friday, Aug 12, 2011 7:12 PM (EDT):
One last comment.
Scripture alone, is a teaching of men. And a fairly recent one, that has produced church after church, i.e., division and more division..the opposite of Christ’s Will. Division is a mark of the devil: to divide, to decieve, to defile, to destroy..
Where does it say in Scripture - Scripture Alone, and Nothing else?”

If you look at the causes of the Protestant Reformation you will see that it was the Catholic church itself was the catalyst for the split. There was much error and corruption in the church at the time. The church refused to repent of its sin and corruption and actually tried to destroy the reformers and propagation of the Scripture to the common man.

There is nothing in Scripture that says “Scripture Alone, and Nothing else.”

Since there is nothing in Scripture that says “Scripture Alone, and Nothing else.”
Who or what, causes you to believe, that Sola Scripture, is God’s Will?

David- to answer your question on Sola Scriptura has to do with the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Only the Scriptures are inspired-inerrant Word of God. There is no equal to them in the church. Do you consider Catholic teachings or traditions equal to Scripture? If so, on what basis?

Didn’t Scripture come from Holy Tradition and the Magisterium?

II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE

One common source. . .

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.“40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41

. . . two distinct modes of transmission

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.“42

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.“43

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.“44

The Magisterium of the Church

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.“47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.“48

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me”,49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

So Holy Tradition is what the gospel writers wrote down. What does this phrase mean-“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.“43

Does this mean that the successors of the apostles will only teach what is in Scripture and was taught by the apostles themselves?

If the Magisterium teaches only what has been handed on to it, how would you justify such doctrines as indulgences, purgatory and praying to Mary if the apostles never taught such doctrines or practices?

Proto1,
Per your question:
“Does this mean that the successors of the apostles will only teach what is in Scripture and was taught by the apostles themselves?”
The answer is, yes. God is not divided, but Three Persons, One God. The Bishops, as Successors to the Apostles are the Apostles of today. There have been Judas’s and there have been Saints. Do you think EVERTHING was written down in the Gospels? Didn’t you read in the Gospels, that everything was not written down? Isn’t it written “that if a man will not even listen to the Church…”??

“If the Magisterium teaches only what has been handed on to it, how would you justify such doctrines as indulgences, purgatory and praying to Mary if the apostles never taught such doctrines or practices?”

Praying for the dead is in Scripture, (and if praying for, then these persons must not yet have attained Heaven). Purgatory is like taking a hot shower, very hot, before entering heaven. People in Purgatory don’t want to enter heaven until they’re cleaned up, they want to suffer, and you should think of Purgatory as the Mercy of God, in Justice we would deserve worse. Being a “snow covered dung heap” is not part of Sacred Scripture, or enough in God’s Eyes. We must “be made perfect as our Heavenly Father is Perfect.” People in Purgatory can be thought of as, in the doorway of Heaven, they are assured heaven, some not until the last pennies are paid.

To Pray means to Ask, Pray Tell you don’t know this, I was thinking of asking you to pray for me, but I will ask The Virgin Mother of God to pray for us both. Who is closer to God than His Mother, get it?
We don’t worship Mary, we honor her. She deserves the highest honor of all the Saints.

Indulgences were abused by some, I know, however the principle revolves around a gift FROM the Treasury of the Church, it may sound to be too good to be true, but it is.

There are so called “Catholic” policians today, even some priests and religious who are “pro-choice”, in their own words “I want to do my will over God’s Will.” For that they are in league with Satan. What is Abortion but the will of a Murderer from the Beginning.. There were “Catholic” persons abusing Indulgences, but was it the Teaching of the Church, or the majority of Bishops?
Keep in mind that the devil is at war with the Church, the more a person is active in the Church, the more important he or she is, the more Satan will try to decieve them, destroy them, defile them..cause scandal, and kill the souls of many -who allow themselves to be killed..

“People in Purgatory don’t want to enter heaven until they’re cleaned up, they want to suffer, and you should think of Purgatory as the Mercy of God, in Justice we would deserve worse.”

That’s not the traditional view of Purgatory.  The traditional view of Purgatory is that people in Purgatory don’t want to be there, that Purgatory is auto-expiation of sin in accordance with Justice (not Mercy), and that you can reduce their suffering through things like giving alms and offering up the sacrifices of the masses, not to mention prayers.

Where did you get the idea that those in Purgatory want to suffer and that Purgatory represents Mercy?

-TurretinFan

Mercy and Justice.
Mere reason suggests there must be a Purgatory. So many people seem to be good, but not so greatly good that they should be fit for heaven at once. Again, not nearly all are so evil as to deserve hell. So there should be a means of purification and paying the debt of temporal punishment for those not fit for hell, nor for heaven at once. (Of course Luther would say we can sin all we want and still go to heaven at once, if only we believe it is all covered by Christ’s merits: Epistle 501 to Melanchthon).

C.S. Lewis in his book, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer: “Our souls demand purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know.’ ‘Even so, sir.’”

David- why the necessity of purgatory if the death of Christ paid for our sins in full (Col 2:13-14) and His blood cleanses us from all sin (I John 1:7)?

St. Paul speaks of a cleansing fire.

Catechism
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

David- the Catechism’ statement on purgatory is not based on Scripture. Fire does not cleanse anyone of sin. Only the blood of Christ can.  Fire has to do with testing the quality of a man’ work and material that he used in building the kingdom. See I Cor 3:9-15. Note that there is no mention of sin in this passage.

Pronto1,
Where does it say in Scripture that we’re only to follow Scripture? Where did Scripture come from? Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior founded a Church and the gates of hell have not and will not prevail against it. Scripture without an Authoritative Church would be and has been an easy thing for the devil it prevail against - to deceive, to divide…
Can’t you see that?

David- There is no such verse in Scripture that we are to follow only Scripture just as there is no verse that says we are to follow every thing a church leader says down through the centuries either.
What makes you think the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Roman Catholic church?

The church is divided because Rome refuses to put itself under the authority of Scripture alone and live by its dictates. Take church leadership. The Scripture teaches that leaders are to be married with children (I Timothy 3) while your church forbids men who are married with children to lead.

It seems that this thread has moved away from primary focus of the original post itself (i.e. Augustine on councils, creeds and Scripture). I would like to return to an earlier post by TurretinFan:

>>on Tuesday, Aug 9, 2011 12:27 PM (EDT):
The fundamental premise of this article, namely that “Nice” (aka Nicaea) is a local council, is wrong. See the more detailed discussion here: http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/nicaea-was-local-council-arianism-not.html
-TurretinFan>>

Though TurretinFan begins his diatribe by stating the obvious (i.e. that neither Nicaea nor Ariminum were “local” councils), the rest of his post is significantly flawed. I share some of my musings on this in the following threads:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/08/turretinfan-vs-mark-shea-inaccuracies.html

htmlhttp://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/08/turretinfan-vs-mark-shea-inaccuracies_16.html

David

(The verse says “married with one wife”. Most men were married then, and Paul is emphasizing men chosen as Bishops “then” should be married to only one wife, but not necessarily be married(!), and they should manage their household well. He is drawing on many analogies here. Priestly celibacy is a Discipline of the church, not a Teaching. It is a precious thing before God to go beyond what is necessary and give up something very dear. And celibacy enables a man to better focus on his priesthood, and witness to the Kingdom of God.)

Pronto1:  The real question is whether the Catholic Church is “the church of the Living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).  Ask whether the church which calls itself Universal is in fact the church of the Living God. How would we know?
This is the first time I have engaged in a debate of this sort, and I’ve realized that they are generally unproductive and miss the point. The point really isn’t over Scripture alone. The point is whether Jesus Christ is Really Present in the Holy Eucharist. (John 6) 

Ask Him Pronto, Ask Him to show you if He is Really there. I will be doing the same, and I will do so in His Presence.

TurretinFan: Your website reminds me of the movie “Holes”. You may dig, and your children’s children may dig for a thousand years, and you may never find it.

David- do you deny your church disqualifies married men from church leadership i.e. bishops because they are married? If a church claims to be the church of the living God then it must follow what Scripture teaches and not nullify it. Agreed?
How can John 6 be about the Lord’ supper when the gospel of John never references this event at the supper? Notice also in John 6 that Jesus promised those who ate His flesh etc were granted eternal life. In supper accounts Jesus never promises eternal life to those who eat the Lord’ supper. These are serious discrepancies between the 2 accounts.

David, thank you and may God bless you.  You are witnessing to Jesus Christ’s Truth so humbly and so Spirit-inspired eloquence on behalf of all of us.  But, sadly, Proto1 will never, ever hear that Truth. Let me refer Proto1 to this and resign from this sterile argument with him by this Holy Quotation: “Those who have ears but will not hear: Those who have eyes but will never see”. The God-Man who stated these words also stated :“He who hears you, hears Me and the One who sent Me. He who does not hear you, does not hear Me or the One Who sent Me”. Let us just pray for the Proto1s of this world. But the most hurting denial to me is his refusal to accept - or at least respect - our Unwavering Faith and Belief, Adoration, Worship and Reverence we unceasingly offer to Jesus Christ, Present in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament in all the Tabernacles and Adoration Chapels in the World.  The Apex and the Centre of the Entire Salvation Mystery for the humankind which is accomplished every Minute in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass all over God’s Earth. The Very Jesus Christ Who walked on this Earth 2000 years ago and Whom I receive with utmost reverence and humility daily in Holy Communion.

Thank you Mary. 
Proto, Christ is truly Present on earth in the Eucharist. If you find Him there, you will understand everything. I will be Asking for you.

David, be assured in about 43 minutes from now, I will take Proto1 before Jesus in the Adoration Chapel as I keep Him company during the 3.00 O’clock Holy Hour given to us by Him through St. Faustina in 1931.  As an Eucharistic Apostle of the Divine Mercy, we proclaim the Message of God’s Mercy to our Parishes in the Archdioceses and Dioceses in our country, Kenya. I will certainly pray one Divine Mercy Chaplet for Proto1 and all who are crucifying Jesus and His Holy Church because they do now know what they are doing.

David-Mary42—thank you for your prayers but don’t substitute it for a good discussion. When Jesus faced opposition He did not retreat to prayer but engaged them in discussion and debate. If you think what you believe is true then you should be able to defend it or otherwise its really not worth believing.
In regards to “Christ is truly Present on earth in the Eucharist” then you have to know that is not what the apostles taught. Outside of the gospels, Paul is the only one who mentions the Lord’ supper in I cor 11:23-34 and he makes no mention of Christ literally-physically being in the bread and wine. If Jesus were literally-physically present in the bread-wine then that would mean that the bread-wine was God. Now we know that is not true since the bread-wine do not have any characteristics of deity. Also if this were true it would mean Jesus has another nature besides being human and divine.

Pronto1,

Read this as proof in Scripture, then “come and see”:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

The Catholic (i.e. Universal) Church has Taught, and never wavered from it’s teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist for over two thousand years. That’s four hundred years before the canon of scripture, fifteen hundred years before Luther. Two thousand years before us.

Mary and I have never met, I live in Massachusetts (USA), and she lives in Kenya. Don’t you think it’s odd that we could be saying the EXACT same thing.
Jesus Christ the God-man who walked the streets of Nazareth is on earth!

David—When Jesus said He was the vine did He mean He was a literal vine? When He said He was the door, was He a literal door? Of course not. When He took the bread and broke it He said this was His body. How could He be speaking literally here if He still had a body of human flesh before them? Were there 2 bodies of Jesus then present?  Is there any indication from the disciples they understood Jesus to be having 2 bodies? The answer to these questions is no. Jesus is speaking metaphorically. This makes the best sense not only because of the problems with the literal sense but also with His words to remember what this bread and wine represent.

David, we shall get nowhere with Proto1, just as Jesus got nowhere with the High Priests, the Pharisees and the Scribes.  In the end He called them snakes and sons of snakes.  Why??? Because since they knew the Scriptures thoroughly well, and knew Jesus was truly the Messiah foretold by the Prophets, they still rejected Him. You and I, David know that Jesus is living among us just as He said : “I shall be with you until the end of Time”. During the Last Supper, He instituted the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Apex of God’s Salvation Mystery, and bestowed the Power of continuing this Miracle daily on our Altars, until He comes again on the Last Day. The concluding physical action of the institution of this Sacrament of our Redemption, was accomplished on the following Day when He died on the Cross.(See the Video “The Fourth Cup”). We need not waste time trying to convince Proto1 because he will never accept this Truth.  Remember Jesus also said : “Do not throw pearls to the pigs”. We know without any doubt that when we are in Adoration or during Benediction, we are kneeling before Jesus Christ Himself - our God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity - and when we receive Holy Communion, we know He is physically united with us in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. The Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is not only THE ULTIMATE ACT OF FAITH, but He has ensured we are never in doubt about the reality of This Holy Sacrament.

Proto1,
The Jews knew that He was speaking literally. Jn 6:52 “How can this man give us his Flesh to eat?” On other occasions when our Lord spoke of Himself as a Jn 10:9 “door” or a Jn 15:1 “vine,” nobody said, “How can this man be made of wood?” or “How can this man be a plant?” They recognized these as metaphors. But when Jesus insisted, Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.” The Jews who heard this said, Jn 6:60 “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” They remembered God’s command to Noah and all mankind, Gn 9:4 “Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.” God spoke more forcefully to His chosen people. Lv 17:10 “I will set my face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people.” It was only after Christ’s redemptive sacrifice and the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment that the Apostles saw the full meaning of our Father’s next words. Lv 17:11 “For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.” In the Old Covenant our Father in heaven had commanded His children not to eat the blood of animals because we are not to participate in the life of animals. Animals, having no immortal souls, are lower than man in the order of created nature. However, in the New and Everlasting Covenant we consume the Blood of Christ to participate in Christ’s eternal life.

Proto1,
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 “This is My Body.” 26:27 “This is My Blood…” Mark: 14:22 “This is My Body.” 14:24 “This is My Blood…” Luke: 22:19 “This is My Body.” 22:20 “This … is the New Covenant in My Blood.” Jesus’ next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 “I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

After His resurrection, Jesus walked with two disciples to Emmaus. When they arrived, He celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for them; Lk 24:30 “While He was at table with them, He took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.”

Proto1,
The apostles celebrated the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Acts 2:46 “Day by day, attending the Temple together and breaking bread in their homes…”

The Apostles were visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer shawl with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). Long after Jesus ascended to the Father, Peter protested that he had never in his life eaten anything unkosher. Acts 10:14 When these Jewish Apostles remembered Christ’s command, Lk 22:19 “Do this in remembrance of Me,” they added it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, and then went to their homes to celebrate the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood. To this very day, the Introductory Rite and Liturgy of the Word come directly from Jewish synagogue worship. The Liturgy of the Eucharist comes directly from the Apostles’ breaking bread in their homes.

At Troas, Paul spoke all night, but he made sure to receive the Holy Eucharist. Acts 20:7 “On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the morrow; and he prolonged his speech until midnight.” Acts 20:11 “And when Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed.”

On the Adriatic Sea, at dawn, Paul celebrated Mass for 276 people. Acts 27:35 “...he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves.”

Mary42- you claim-“we shall get nowhere with Proto1, just as Jesus got nowhere with the High Priests, the Pharisees and the Scribes.  In the end He called them snakes and sons of snakes.  Why??? Because since they knew the Scriptures thoroughly well, and knew Jesus was truly the Messiah foretold by the Prophets, they still rejected Him.”
If you knew the Scriptures well you would have known that some Pharisees did come to faith in Christ. I suspect you are fearful of examining your faith since you do not want to defend it but to call me names. That’s the easy way out. If you think you have the truth then you should be able to give an account for it.

David- If the Jews in John 6 understood Jesus to be speaking literally then that would mean Jesus was promoting cannibalism. That’s what eating flesh means. We also know from other Scriptures that eating something physical like bread does not help someone gain eternal life. It is only faith in Christ that one gains eternal life. In fact in every last supper account Jesus never mentions eternal life. He never mentions that by eating the bread and drinking the wine will someone gain eternal life.

Proto1,
Yes, It does take faith, it takes alot of faith. By the Last Supper, Jesus had already Said spoke on HIS BODY and BLOOD as THE MEANS to Eternal Life.

In John 6, Jesus did not say to them, “I didn’t mean it, guys. I was just kind of, you know, using hyperbole or metaphor.” No. He actually intensifies the scandal. He actually raises the obstacle even higher. “He said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood,’ which Leviticus condemns, the drinking of blood, ‘unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him.’”

At the Last Supper, Luke 22, verse 15, our Lord says, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you.” So we are assured that the Last Supper in the Upper Room was a Passover meal. In Mark 14, verses 22 through 26, we hear the words of institution, “And as they were eating He took bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them and said, ‘Take, this is my body.’ And He took a cup and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them and they drank all of it and He said to them, ‘This is my blood of the New Covenant which is poured out for many. Truly I say to you, I shall not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.’”

What happens when you differentiate and separate body and blood? You signify death. When your body and your blood are separated, death begins. That’s obvious. So Jesus is symbolically and actually beginning the sacrifice. St. Augustine said that Our Lord held himself in his own hands and commenced the sacrifice of the New Covenant Passover as He was transforming the old. Calvary really began in the Old Testament Passover being celebrated in the Upper Room, when the Eucharist was instituted and the Passover Eucharist of the New Covenant really isn’t over until Calvary, when He says, “It is finished.”

My dear Proto1, forgive me for having to disappoint you.  I do know the Scriptures.  I know Nichodemus was a Pharisee and a follower of Jesus.  He, in fact, was there when Jesus was taken to Anna, Caiphas to Pilate, to Herod and back to Pilate. Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee, too, and he was a staunch follower of Christ such that he it was, who gave up his Tomb for Jesus to be buried. He it is who went to Pilate to claim the Body of Jesus for burial.  He, too, was the owner of the Building with the Upper Room where Christ and His Apostles had the Last Supper. It was in one of his many properties in the City, where Our Lady and the holy women who ministered to Jesus during His Public Ministry lived. And, certainly St. Paul was a dyed-in-the wool Pharisee, a very proud Jew and a zealous persecutor of Christ’s Church. Remember he witnessed and gleefully approved the matrydom of Stephen.  But God had great plans for him as we all know. David and I, and all the other Respondents on this and other Catholic Websites are just humbly fulfilling our duty to which Jesus Christ has called us of defending Him, The Way, The Truth and The Life and His Holy Church from the present-day persecutors and crucifiers.  It is because He has - not only confirmed us in our Faith - but, unworthy as we are, He has equivocably proved to us - again and again - His Presence among us in the Blessed Sacrament which we receive daily to remain in Sanctifying Grace and nourish our souls.  It is Jesus Christ Himself Whom we adore with utmost reverence and love and Whom we strive to obey as He commanded us to Love God with all our hearts, with all our minds, with all our strength and love our neighbours as ourselves. It is in obedience to His Command that we strive to live our Faith in action - always and everywhere - through the Sacraments He left us - as we perform our Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. His command that we obey the Commandments of His Father is what we strive to fulfill every day with the help of His Grace and Mercy.  May He touch your heart and soul and open your eyes as He did with St. Paul so that you may respect those who have contrary opinion to yours and who are Parts of His Mystical Body.

Mary, I think Proto is more like Thomas.

You are right, David.  But at least, after Jesus appeared to the Apostles for the second time - in his presence - Thomas was the first to truly believe the Divinity of Jesus with his emphatic declaration : “My Lord and My God”. Proto1 needs lots and lots of prayers.  I sincerely sypathise with him.

As Father Hardon once said being Catholic and believing in the Real Presence takes faith twice over. Not only are we called to believe that Jesus Christ was the Incarnation of the Living God, but also He comes to us veiled in a piece of Bread. Hidden to those who do not seek him there.

Exuse me I should have said “being Catholic means believing”
(there are a lot of Catholics, who call themselves Catholic, but they don’t believe, or they know but have not realized. Maybe Proto had the misfortune of meeting someone like that.)

Mary42- did Jesus ever appear in the Eucharist? Did He ever tell His disciples after He rose from the dead that He also had the nature of bread and wine?

God does not have the nature of bread and wine. Don’t be silly.

If Jesus is literally bread-wine how can you say He does not have the nature of bread and wine?

The appearance and property of the bread and wine does not change.  But we do believe that it does change to His Body and Blood, while retaining these outward appearances.  Behold the test of unshakeable faith.

The appearance of bread and wine remain.

“You ought to know what you have received, what you are going to receive, and what you ought to receive daily. That Bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. The chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
St Augustine-“Sermons”, [227, 21]

Lea S-David—how do you know that you are not being decieved when it is claimed-“The appearance and property of the bread and wine does not change.”?

The Didache - 2nd century: “Let no one eat and drink of your Eucharist but those baptized in the name of the Lord; to this, too the saying of the Lord is applicable: ‘Do not give to dogs what is sacred’”. -Ch. 9:5

“On the Lord’s own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure. However, no one quarreling with his brother may join your meeting until they are reconciled; your sacrifice must not be defiled. For here we have the saying of the Lord: ‘In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice; for I am a mighty King, says the Lord; and my name spreads terror among the nations.’” -Ch 14

David:

You may want to reconsider your citation of Augustine’s Sermon 227:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-227-and.html

I think if you read it more carefully, you’ll find that Augustine is being metaphorical.

-TurretinFan

How do we know we are not deceived?
Are you kidding?

David—Not kidding. You are being told something has changed in the bread and yet no change is being detected by any senses. If someone were to use this explanation in some other area of life would you believe it?

“He who made you men, for your sakes was Himself made man; to ensure your adoption as many sons into an everlasting inheritance, the blood of the Only-Begotten has been shed for you. If in your own reckoning you have held yourselves cheap because of your earthly frailty, now assess yourselves by the price paid for you; meditate, as you should, upon what you eat, what you drink, to what you answer ‘Amen’”.

St Augustine-“Second Discourse on Psalm 32”. Ch. 4. circa

Proto1:
In human terms, we have the Church, the examples of all the Saints, we have the Holy Tradition of the Church spanning 20 centuries. And we have Scripture.
But of all, we recognize Him.

David- what does your answer have to do with my question?

Ok Proto, What would it take to Believe?

David-evidence of a change in the bread-wine would be a start. What would it take for you to disbelieve?

David- when Jesus did a miracle was there evidence to the senses that it happened?

“How do you know that you are not being decieved when it is claimed-‘The appearance and property of the bread and wine does not change.’”

Whoa!  Holy cow!  I can’t believe that in 2,000 years NO ONE EVER THOUGHT OF THAT!!  Thanks to your wisdom, Proto1, the eyes of Catholics have finally been opened. 

Okay, that was mean.  I will review your question more seriously, with the help of the following:

“David-evidence of a change in the bread-wine would be a start. What would it take for you to disbelieve?
David- when Jesus did a miracle was there evidence to the senses that it happened?”

For a strong believer in Scripture such as yourself it’s surprising that you don’t take Christ’s words “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believed” seriously.  Doubting Thomas, anyone?  Since when do Christians demand physical miracles to validate all of their beliefs?  For instance, I’ve never seen Christ with my own eyes but I believe in Him.  I’ve never seen loaves and fishes multiplied a hundredfold but I believe it happened.  In the same vein, we believe in His Real Presence because we take His words at the Last Supper seriously—even though our eyes can not perceive any changes to the bread and wine. 

Most of the time, that is.  There are a few exceptions.

Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Lanciano

Proto,
Faith is needed, but there have been many Eucharistic miracles.
Not every miracle Christ performed, and continues to perform, has direct physical evidence.

The devil(s) try’s to mess me up where I ignore him, but I cannot disbelieve. I’ve been through too much for too long.

Lea- I to admit that Catholics are creative when they argue for the Real Presence. Your comment “For a strong believer in Scripture such as yourself it’s surprising that you don’t take Christ’s words “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believed” seriously.  Doubting Thomas, anyone?”
Couple of things here. This passage is not about the Real Presence. Secondly, what did Jesus do to change Thomas’ doubt to belief? Answer: He gave Him physical evidence that he could touch and see.
When the loaves and fishes were multiplied people saw the result of the miracle by eating the fish and bread.
Now you know full well you cannot give such evidence for Christ literally being in the bread.
This is not about some supposed miracle in a communion host but the grounds for which your church claims that Jesus is literally present in the bread and wine.

In the year 750, at Lanciano in the Abruzzo region of Italy, above the place where the Church dedicated to St.
Francis of Assisi stands today, a Eucharistic Miracle took place whose precious Relics are still preserved today,
and which it is possible to visit. The various chronicles of the time recount how in the year 750, a priest was
celebrating Holy Mass. At the exact moment of the Consecration, he was tormented by strong doubts as to
whether the Body and Blood of Jesus were truly present in the consecrated Host. He had just finished the
Consecration when he noticed that the Host had been transformed into Flesh and the Wine into Blood. The
priest, filled with regret for having doubted, began to weep and beg pardon from God. In the chronicles, the
testimony of numerous members of the faithful who witnessed the Miracle, are also recorded. In 1970, analysis
of the Relics confirmed that the Host transformed into Flesh is true Flesh, consisting of striated muscle tissue of
the myocardium (part of the heart) and that the Wine transformed into Blood is true Blood of the blood type
AB, which is the same as that found on the Shroud of Turin.

Pronto1:
Why do you believe in Scripture?
There is no physical evidence.

Why do you think Christ chose to perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes right the discourse in John 6?
What does your church -teach on that?

I think this guy had something to do with the Scriptures:

“If Christ did not want to dismiss the Jews without food in the desert for fear that they would collapse on the way, it was to teach us that it is dangerous to try to get to heaven without the Bread of Heaven.”

- St. Jerome

The Scriptures are the record of what happened. The evidence for them is the manuscripts and what the writers of them were reliable in what they wrote. We have confirmation for their truthfulness outside of Scripture.
Not sure what you mean by your last question. Can you clarify?

“Couple of things here. This passage is not about the Real Presence.”

Come now, h does that change anything about these words of Christ’s?  That is a definite quibble.

“Secondly, what did Jesus do to change Thomas’ doubt to belief? Answer: He gave Him physical evidence that he could touch and see.”

Yes, your argument’s similarity with Thomas’s insistence on physical evidence is indeed what I was going for.  Christ was gracious enough to acquiesce to Thomas’s request…lucky guy.  Still, I stress that He adds “blessed are they who have not seen, and yet have believed.”  Thomas was lucky, but most of us are not.  Faith is important.  Again, are we, as Christians, supposed to demand physical evidence for everything we believe?  Would you agree with this idea?  Your demand for seeing bread and wine turn into actual flesh and blood seems to support this.

You’re probably thinking “so those Catholics just say that they ‘have faith’ because they can’t come up with anything better?  Puh.”  Well, keep reading.

“Now you know full well you cannot give such evidence for Christ literally being in the bread.
This is not about some supposed miracle in a communion host but the grounds for which your church claims that Jesus is literally present in the bread and wine.”

We have this faith because of the knowledge of the Gospel accounts of the Last Supper.  We don’t believe Christ’s words are metaphors.  He says “This is My Body,” thus we take Him as His word.  An in-depth look at these Scripture passages was already covered in this thread, so I’m sure you’ve heard of all that quite a few times already. 

If following the words of Scripture as our authority is not good enough, then there have been documented instances where Christ allowed miracles to happen regarding His sacrament.  I gave you an example, the famous Miracle of Lanciano, as one of those times when Christ decided to let other Doubting Thomases experience His Real Presence.  But I seem to have the feeling that you won’t be swayed much by this.

Is that all the evidence?  Haven’t you personally experienced Christ in Scripture?

Second question: what does your church teach on the loaves and fishes?

Third question: what do you think of the miracle I mentioned?
Fourth question: do you know who St. Jerome was?

Thanks Lea. Well said. Maybe I’m being too patient.

Lea- You are mixing apples and oranges with the Real Presence doctrine and Jesus post-resurrection appearances. As I have said before each doctrine must stand on its own. Jesus offers no such evidence for the Real Presence while He did for His resurrection. 
If you take Jesus at His word literally you get cannibalism. The disciples reaction at the supper do not give any indication of this nor that they thought Jesus was now to be known in a peace of bread.
Are you familiar with the passover in the OT?

Proto, you asked how we Catholics can possibly believe that the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood since it retains the appearances of bread and wine.  I pointed out that we have faith in the Real Presence, regardless of appearances, because we trust in the literal words of Christ at the Last Supper.  I supported my argument for faith by reminding you that Christ Himself commends it when He says “Blessed are they who have not seen, and yet believed.”  This is not a mixing of apples and oranges.  There is no need to try and confuse the issue.

You mention cannibalism?  Heavens no.  Christ is true God and true man, a divine person.  His Body is glorified.  He gives Himself to use in the Eucharist sacramentally, as spiritual food.  Believe me, I can see from an outsider’s perspective why this would seem bizarre.  My best friend is an Evangelical Christian with very strong Biblical knowledge who can’t wrap her head around it either.  Think of it this way: when an infant nurses, is he a cannibal?  Of course not. 

“Are you familiar with the passover in the OT?”

Certainly I am familiar with the OT Passover.  I am also familiar with the color of grass!  Ahem.

Now that I have answered your question, I would be pleased if you would return the courtesy by answering mine: Are we, as Christians, supposed to demand physical evidence for everything we believe?

Lea- Jesus is not teaching that He is literally bread-wine. We know this in a number of ways that I have mentioned. The reason I brought up the Passover was because that is what Jesus was mirroring i.e. a meal that signified freedom from bondage. Just as the ancient Jews were going be set free as slaves from the Egyptians so Jesus was going to free man from his bondage to sin. That is why He commands His disciples and all Christians to remember this when they partake of His supper and how He paid for our sins and broke the power of sin by rising from the dead. We also know that night when He spoke these words that He still had a human body and not a body-nature of bread.
The other aspect you have not addressed anywhere is where the power to change the bread into Christ comes from? He does not mention to the disciples how this was to be done. Jesus does not give this power to anyone that is recorded in Scripture.
There is no way we can have physical evidence for all things that we believe. There is no physical evidence for heaven or hell for example. We believe most things on the authority of Christ and His apostles. It is their teachings and the correct exposition of those teachings we are to trust. Paul says it well in 1 Thes 5:21-But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;
We are not just to accept what church leaders teach but are to hold them responsible to correctly teaching the Word of God.

My dear David and Lea and all my Faithful Catholics, as I said earlier you will never, ever get anywhere with the Proto1s of this World. Even if Jesus Christ Himself were to appear Proto1 in Person to-day, he will deny Him to His Face.  Proto1’s crusade and Mission in Life in our Catholic Websites, is to trash everything we, Catholics believe in firmly and unequivocably as the REVEALED DIVINE TRUTH as taught by our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It is to mock Jesus Christ by calling Him a Liar. Thank you, David, for giving him the Luciano Miracle. May he know there are many more, though it is pointless to tell him about them. He will certainly scream at you “LIES, LIES”. Jesus knew we would have Proto1s through the Ages who shall continue to vehemently deny Him all their lives, so He first left us the Shroud of Turin. To reply to your question to me Proto1: “did Jesus ever appear in the Eucharist?”. YES, PROTO1, JESUS DID JUST THAT. Get hold of the Diary of St. Faustina : “Divine Mercy in My Soul” and read it. And certainly, you will have more ammunition to fire against Jesus Christ and His Church. His Message of Divine Mercy will enrage you and throw you into a catatonic fury.  But, that is OK. His words:  “If they persecuted Me they will persecute you, too.” May God bless you, David and Lea for your continued Spirit-inspired defence of our Saviour and His Holy Mystical Body. Jesus is certainly saying to you:  “Be not Afraid”.  My last word to you, Proto1: WE WALK BY FAITH NOT BY SIGHT. God does not have to perform miracles for us to believe in Him.  I know I have an immortal soul, even though no one has ever seen a human soul.  When my beloved husband of 37 and a half years died peacefully in my arms one early morning 17 years ago, I did not see his soul leave his body.  In the same way, Proto1 when I kneel before Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, and when I receive Holy Communion, I do not need to see His face smiling at me from the Holy Host. I KNOW IT IS HE I AM ADORING AND IT IS HE I AM RECEIVING. Only the appearances of bread and wine remain after Consecration BUT JESUS IS TRULY PRESENT IN BOTH SPECIES. THIS IS OUR FAITH, THIS IS OUR GOD-WITH-US.

Proton,
It’s clear you have an ax to grind and are not seriously engaged in the pursuit of the truth.

Mary,
God Bless, take care until I see you in Heaven.
Lea you too.

Goodbye.

David, your words are truly inspired by the Holy Spirit.  Let us continue with humility and fidelity to defend our Saviour and His Holy Mystical Body, whose living Parts we are.

David:

Regarding your appeal to eucharistic miracles, I have posted some comments.  Scripture (Mark 13:20-22) you see, anticipated these very claims:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/response-to-roman-apologetic-comment.html

-TurretinFan

David:

You also asked whether Proto1 knew who Jerome was.  I know who he was.  He was the translator of the Vulgate.  He was also an opponent of the deuterocanonical books, and he should be famous for writing (commenting on Romans 10:3), “God justifies by faith alone.” (Original Latin: “Deus ex sola fide justificat”)

Mary42—you claim that Jesus appeared when you write “To reply to your question to me Proto1: “did Jesus ever appear in the Eucharist?”. YES, PROTO1, JESUS DID JUST THAT. Get hold of the Diary of St. Faustina : “Divine Mercy in My Soul” and read it.” I don’t have time to read it. How did your church determine this was truly Jesus in the Eucharist?

Sorry, Proto1.  I can only respond to your query about St. Faustina’s Diary if you are genuinely looking for the Truth.  But since you certainly are not, your question is irrelevant. However, obeying my Saviour Whom I adore, worship, love and strive daily to serve faithfully - in words, deeds and actions through His Divine Grace - I request that you kindly accept that I am just a humble 73 year-old Cradle Catholic.  I understand my Faith thoroughly well. I FIRMLY BELIEVE ALL THE TRUTHS WHICH THE HOLY CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES BECAUSE THE ALMIGHTY GOD HAS REVEALED THEM, HE WHO CAN NEITHER DECEIVE NOR BE DECEIVED. Be blessed.

Mary42- You remind me of the leaders of some of cults I have dialogued in the past with. They don’ want to discuss their beliefs at any depth and don’t want their followers to do so either. What they do, like you have done is dissuade others from discussing their beliefs and make pronouncements how right they are. The fact is you have not demonstrated that you know the Catholic faith that well. If you did you would have at least attempted to refute some of my points.

Proto: “Lea- Jesus is not teaching that He is literally bread-wine. We know this in a number of ways that I have mentioned. The reason I brought up the Passover was because that is what Jesus was mirroring i.e. a meal that signified freedom from bondage. Just as the ancient Jews were going be set free as slaves from the Egyptians so Jesus was going to free man from his bondage to sin. That is why He commands His disciples and all Christians to remember this when they partake of His supper and how He paid for our sins and broke the power of sin by rising from the dead. We also know that night when He spoke these words that He still had a human body and not a body-nature of bread.”

Your mention of the Passover is timely.  The Passover does, in fact, foreshadow the Eucharist.  At the Passover meal, God commanded the Israelites to eat the flesh of the sacrificed paschal lamb (Exodus 12).  Christ is the Lamb of God, who sacrificed Himself for us on the cross, who said “Take and eat.  This is My Body…this is My Blood.”

“The other aspect you have not addressed anywhere is where the power to change the bread into Christ comes from? He does not mention to the disciples how this was to be done. Jesus does not give this power to anyone that is recorded in Scripture.”

So now we jump to the topic of the priesthood?  Alrighty.  See Jn 8:56; Lk 16:24; Rom 4:1,16-18; 1 Cor 4:14-15; Acts 7:2; 1 Thess 2:11; 1 Jn 2:13-14; 1 Cor 7:7-9; Mt 19:12; Mt 16:18-19; Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32; Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:68-69; Acts 2:14-40; Acts 3:6-7; Acts 10:46-48; 1 Cor 7:32-33, 1 Tim 4:11-12; 1 Cor 12; Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim 2:2; Tit 1:5; Acts 15:6,23; Acts 14:23; 1 Tim 4:14, 5:22; 1 Tim 5:17; Jas 5:13-15.  Christ tells His apostles to “do this in memory of Me,” he names Peter the Rock of the Church, Peter acts as leader of the Apostles, there are numerous places in the Acts and Epistles that refer to the ordained elders of the Church, the sacraments celebrated and miracles performed by them, etc.

“There is no way we can have physical evidence for all things that we believe. There is no physical evidence for heaven or hell for example. We believe most things on the authority of Christ and His apostles. It is their teachings and the correct exposition of those teachings we are to trust. Paul says it well in 1 Thes 5:21-But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; We are not just to accept what church leaders teach but are to hold them responsible to correctly teaching the Word of God.”

So we are on the same page!  For 2,000 years the Church has taken St. Paul’s words very seriously, taking the greatest care that her teachings are correct and true to the teachings of Christ, it’s Founder and Leader.  False teachings were quickly addressed and condemned (heresies, schisms, etc.).  See the Catechism for further details.

We’ve refuted every one of them, you just don’t want listen.

Mr. Waltz:

I responded to the post to which you linked above, in a new post:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/08/waltz-nicaea-and-shea.html

Thanks for your comments, and I hope you enjoy!

-TurretinFan

Lea S- The background for the Lord’s supper is the Passover because it gives us the understanding what Christ was about to do. Its not about believing that Jesus is a piece of bread that we are to worship. Not sure what all those passages of Scripture have to do with the power of a priest to change the bread into the actual body of Christ. If you know Scripture there is no mention of Jesus instructing His disciples how to do this. The other thing to know that the office of a priest is not mentioned in the NT as an office at all. Its just not there.
If your church takes the writings of Paul seriously why do they go against his teaching where he describes the qualifications of a leader as being one who is married with children? (See I Tim 3) We both know that a catholic married man with children is disqualified by your church from being a bishop for example because he is married. Your church does not follow the Scripture on this.

I already answered these questions.

Lea, Don’t waste you time, Proto is just causing trouble.

David- you are right. When Catholic doctrines and practices are compared to the Word of God there will be trouble for Catholics.

It’s getting late for that.

“on this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

“Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception. “

David -are the priest scandals evidence that the gates of hell have prevailed against the Catholic church?

Great question Proto1, I’m glad you asked that.
The answer is No, and here’s why:

Jesus never said that everyone in the Church would be saved and he also mentions that there will be scandals. It is the Teaching of the Church’s Magistrium that is His Voice on earth. Ironically people ignore the Church’s Teaching on contraception today and point to the scandals, yet the scandals are in part due to people ignoring the Church’s Teaching.

1. Contraception enabled the sexual de(r)evolution. 2.Contraception was at the heart of all “dissent” in the Church. 3.This dissent entered the seminaries. 4.Many priests succumbed to dissent. 5.homosexuality. 6.between 70 to 90 percent of the scandal was pederasty. (2 percent of the priests). 7.many bishops succumbed to “keeping dissenters in play” and not teaching as pastors.

What I’m trying to say dear Proto is that dissent over contraception was the main cause, along with a unchaste contracepting society brought on by contraception for the priest scandals.

If we would have Listened to Christ in the first place,  none of these scandals and all the havoc we see in our sexually dysfunctional society, would have happen. It would not have happened.

What the devil “hopes?” he can do now is silence the One remaining Voice on earth, because of the scandals.
But you know what, the devil will not succeed, and deep down even he “knows” that, he knows what awaits, the devil is just trying to drag others in to hell. Woe to those through whom scandal comes…

“The background for the Lord’s supper is the Passover because it gives us the understanding what Christ was about to do.”

Which was to institute His sacrament of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, the night before His crucifixion.  We’re on the same page again!

“Not sure what all those passages of Scripture have to do with the power of a priest to change the bread into the actual body of Christ. If you know Scripture there is no mention of Jesus instructing His disciples how to do this. The other thing to know that the office of a priest is not mentioned in the NT as an office at all. Its just not there.

You obviously didn’t bother to look up all of the verses I gave you.  And I gave you quite a bit. 

“If your church takes the writings of Paul seriously why do they go against his teaching where he describes the qualifications of a leader as being one who is married with children? (See I Tim 3) We both know that a catholic married man with children is disqualified by your church from being a bishop for example because he is married. SYour church does not follow the Scripture on this.”

It’s really odd that you would try to argue this—St. Paul himself did not follow it either then, for he was unmarried.  Your interpretations of 1 Tim 3 are incorrect.  In this passage, St. Paul is saying that if a bishop is married he must be married to only one wife—not that he absolutely needs to be married!  And as long as we’re on the subject, you being someone who knows Scripture well can no doubt can recite word for word the verses where Paul recommends celibacy as a worthy practice. 

Celibacy actually isn’t a doctrine by the way, but an accepted and worthy practice for Catholic priests.

David: “Lea, Don’t waste your time, Proto is just causing trouble.”

This certainly seems true, but no worries, I rarely turn down an opportunity to practice apologetics!

Lea- Instead of taking a shot gun approach with Scripture by giving me all kinds of Scripture to look up why don’t you give me your best verse-passage that supports the idea of an office of a celibate priest. That way we can deal with it there as a start.
Paul’ martial status has noting to do with the qualifications of church leadership. In fact we don’t know whether he was married or not. I suspect he was since from a number of passages he seems to know a bit about it. In I Cor 9:5- it certainly looks like he was married as was Peter-“Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”

Where Paul does recommend celibacy its not in the context of church leadership. You write-“Celibacy actually isn’t a doctrine by the way, but an accepted and worthy practice for Catholic priests.” is far more than this. It is a requirement for church leadership such as a bishop. The celibacy rule of the Catholic church is a denial of the command from Scripture that the men are to be married with children. See I Tim 3

Glad you are willing to discuss this. I know there are Catholics here who don’t want you to. I commend you for this.

We already went over this! Celibacy is a Discipline. And as St. Paul would agree a good one. There are married Catholic priests you know….
Proto1, you are following the doctrines of men either in your own head or another man made contraption.

What makes you think the apostle Paul was just making a suggestion that you can either follow or not follow? The 1 Timothy 3 passage is a command because he is writing in the power and authority of an apostle.
It is true there are some catholic priests that are married and these are the exceptions to the rule. Did not these men convert from other traditions?

Dear Proto:
Paul was saying that if a man was married, he should be married to only one wife (not more than one that was fairly common). Paul speaks very highly of celibacy elsewhere. Only one Apostle, Peter - had the authority to “bind and loose” and “never prevail” meant Succession. Yes, Anglican priests returning, if married, are ordained priests. Celibacy is a DISCIPLINE.

Can you see how many churches who have accepted contraception, have accepted abortion and homosexual acts?

Dear Proto, also on Celibacy:
By His own example, Jesus calls men to the prieshood to enter into single-hearted service to God. Christ, the eternal high priest, shows that perfect participation in His priesthood includes living “as eunuchs” for the kingdom of God and He exhorted His disciples to do the same: “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12).

And: “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life” (Lk. 18:29-30).

Can you see how many churches who have accepted contraception, have accepted abortion and homosexual acts? Can you also see that where virginity is not esteemed, neither is marriage?

Oh, my Jesus Christ,give me patience….Proto1, this is regrettable by any standards:

““You remind me of the leaders of some of cults I have dialogued in the past with. They don’ want to discuss their beliefs at any depth and don’t want their followers to do so either.””

No.1: The Catholic Church IS NOT A CULT. No.2: I am not ignorant of my Faith which I have lived for - thank You Lord for Your Grace and Mercy - 73 years. No.3: David, Lea and I, and all the other Faithful Catholics on our Catholic Websites, have been faithfully refuting your errors with FACTS but you have stubbornly ignored us.  No.4. I am always ready, always and everywhere, to humbly and explicitly explain My Faith, and why I believe the Teachings and Leadership of my Church ( To-day’s 21st Sunday 1st Reading and the Gospel refers) and discuss with those who are GENUINELY seeking the Truth. Sadly Proto1 - and for very obvious reasons - YOU ARE NOT SEEKING THE TRUTH. YOU ARE INSTEAD ON A MISSION TO VICIOUSLY AND MALICIOUSLY TRASH CHRIST’S ONE, HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH; FULL STOP!!!!! A futile endeavour, as David has already told you.

My question: Proto1, which Master are you working for??? You need not answer. God knows and has heard you loud and clear. Good bye

Hi Mary,
Don’t let the Proto get you upset. Cult is not really a bad word, it just has a bad connotation of late. That’s where we get the word cult-ure. In the past all cultures had at it’s center the worship of God or gods (because they did not understand). Lately man has been worshipping other gods, like money and sex, but that doesn’t really work, and won’t work in the long run. Think of how the Catholic “Cult” has influenced the “Cult-ure” of mankind over the last 2000 years. What other cult can claim that? It’s not even remotely close. 

Proto, I would like an answer on my last question. I feel as though we are about to make a real breakthrough here. The Gospel is alive you know, what ever happened then, is happening now. The Gospel is not an old stale book that you pull down from the shelf. What is happening now in regard to contraception, abortion, the acceptance of homosexual acts? Where is the Lampstand and the Light?

cult? ?[kuhlt] 
1. A particular system of religious worship.
2. An instance of great veneration of a Person.
3. The object of such devotion.
4. A group or sect bound together by veneration of a Person.

cul·ture noun \?k?l-ch?r\

Definition of CULTURE
1: cultivation, tillage.
2: the act of developing the intellectual and moral faculties especially by education
3: expert care and training
4a : enlightenment and excellence of taste acquired by intellectual and aesthetic training b : acquaintance with and taste in fine arts, humanities, and broad aspects of science as distinguished from vocational and technical skills
5a : the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life} shared by people in a place or time <southern culture>

Proto,
One more thing, don’t bring up this “cult” thing againg. We both venerate the Scriptures as the Word of God. Christianity as a whole can be described as a cult-.

Answer my last question. If you are intellectually honest, you’ll answer it.
Thanks, David

David, the “cults” Proto1 refers to are the abominable ones which are legion particularly in this side of the World.  They are the imported derivatives from the American Pentecostals and Evangelicals Movements.  Most of them are satanic though they are attracting droves of misguided and gullible young generations by using names like “Jesus is Alive Ministries”, “The Apostolic Reformed Catholic Church”, “Winners Ministries” and such like weird titles. With their “gospel” of miracles and prosperity ‘theology’ they are causing catastrophic havoc in families and ruined millions of our young people many of whom are suffering from mental illnesses/demonic enslavement. During the Golden Jubilee of the Association of the Members of the Episcopal Conference of Eastern Africa (AMECEA) Celebrations at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa in July this year, our Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops stated that the greatest challenge the Catholic Church and the Eastern African Countries are facing at present is the deeply entrenched Devil Worship disguised as Christian Denominations and Cults.

David - You write-“By His own example, Jesus calls men to the prieshood to enter into single-hearted service to God. Christ, the eternal high priest, shows that perfect participation in His priesthood includes living “as eunuchs” for the kingdom of God and He exhorted His disciples to do the same: “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt. 19:12).”
Where did Jesus ever make it a requirement for those who would follow Him and serve Him that that they had to be single? Its already been shown that some of the apostles were married. We know Peter was and he as one of the main leaders of the church. Again, where does He or any apostle say that “perfect participation in His priesthood includes living “as eunuchs”?

Where does the Scripture command that people can’t use contraception?  It does not follow that because a person or church that allows for contraception means that they will all be for homosexuality and abortion. There are complex reasons why these things happen.

Thanks Mary,
I did not know that.

Proto,
See the sin of Onan in Scripture. And then, you’re right, Sola Scripture is inadequate…....

David—Here is the passage on Onan and what he did. Genesis 38
” 6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. 7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life. 8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. 10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.”

What does this have to do with contraception?

Proto1,
Are you sure you have never heard of this before? Or is this another ploy to play dumb as a fox?

“The biblical penalty for not giving your brother’s widow children was public humiliation, not death (Deut. 25:7–10). But Onan received death as punishment for his crime. This means his crime was more than simply not fulfilling the duty of a brother-in-law. He lost his life because he violated natural law, as Jewish and Christian commentators have always understood. For this reason, certain forms of contraception have historically been known as “Onanism,” after the man who practiced it, just as homosexuality has historically been known as “Sodomy,” after the men of Sodom, who practiced that vice (cf. Gen. 19).”

This is nothing new. Before 1930 ALL Christian Churches taught against contraception, today only the Catholic Church Stands. Ironicly the Gospel reading for today was: “On this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH AND THE GATES OF HELL WILL NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT.

God cannot change, God’s Law likewise cannot change.

How is it that all other Christian Churches changed the law to fit the ‘times’?

David is correct on all counts.

Hey folks, May be the U.S. much better off staying with Syria’s Assad?