The Meaning of 1 Timothy 4:1-5
#21
(09-28-2018, 12:08 AM)crotalus97 Wrote: Placing faith in men other than Christ this is.  

Not at all.

Christ never wrote anything, so to know about Him we need to trust others.

The very fact that we trust a tax collector named Matthew, or a man whose father lent some guys a room for a Passover Supper named Mark, or a Doctor named Luke, or an old man exiled to an island named John, means to even know about Christ we're putting faith in men.

How do we know that these four accounts are "The Word of God"? How do we know that they are even written by those four people? How do we know they accurately present Christ? Is not the Bible the account of several men? What assures us that the Bible is true? What assure us that it is from God?

We have to have some standard that is objective by which to judge that. Our own personal opinions are not objective. The consensus of many is also not. It have to be some authority that can speak for God and tell us that these accounts are true and accurate and inspired.

Also consider that St Matthew's Gospel, generally considered the first, is probably not composed until around AD 50. Was there no Christian Faith between Christ's death and AD 50? Consider that the last of the books was written around AD 100. There was no Bible until then. The Faith is Christ was communicated by oral tradition : "Faith comes from hearing." (Rm 10.17). Christians were trusting men before they could trust Scripture, and even then were trusting men by trusting Scripture, when those men told them that this Scripture was the Word of God and to be believed.

We do have Faith in Christ, but that Faith is taught to us, just as Christ wanted, by the men He sent.
[-] The following 5 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102, Justin Alphonsus, karl, LaudeturIesus, SaintSebastian
Reply
#22
I am making it a point to pray for the intercession of St. Timothy throughout the upcoming synod on youth. St. Timothy seems to be the perfect intercessor for this event for several reasons:
1) first of all, St. Timothy is mentioned in several books of the New Testament, and at times is listed as a co-author with St. Paul, but it seems that we rarely call on his intercession!
2) St. Timothy was a young man at the time St. Paul wrote to him and therefore seems the logical choice for prayer
3) St. Timothy was tasked by St. Paul to be on the lookout for false leaders and false teachings, which will probably be plenty during the youth synod
4) St. Timothy himself was a bishop and therefore even lends greater knowledge and assistance in guiding this synod
5) Lastly, St. Timothy is the patron saint of intestinal disorders, and the synod on youth will be sure to give many of us a stomach ache on many occasions

St. Timothy, pray for us!
[-] The following 3 users Like LionHippo's post:
  • Dominicus, LaudeturIesus, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#23
Look into the Peshitta Bible. Letters were written in Aramaic in Christ's lifetime.
Reply
#24
(09-27-2018, 01:04 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(09-26-2018, 11:43 PM)crotalus97 Wrote: You are basically saying that the Church has the authority to determine and interpret the Bible.

Yes. The Church is the only authority.

That is part of the Christian Faith.

(09-26-2018, 11:43 PM)crotalus97 Wrote: Are you also saying that the pope is the representative of Christ and is infallible?

Yes. That is Biblical and also part of the Christian Faith.

The Christian Faith is the Catholic Faith. Full Stop.

Any other sect departs from the true teaching of Christ as can be shown from the Scripture, History and Tradition.

Recall that this is a Catholic forum. From the Rules :


If what you write is true then why is the U.S Roman Catholic Church (The only true Christian Faith) now honoring baptisms from some other protestant denominations?   why the change now?   

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/2...75915.html
Reply
#25
(10-06-2018, 11:50 AM)crotalus97 Wrote: If what you write is true then why is the U.S Roman Catholic Church (The only true Christian Faith) now honoring baptisms from some other protestant denominations?   why the change now?

There's no change. Baptisms by heretics - or even unbelievers - has always been valid, since the real minister of the sacraments is Christ. As long as there's proper matter (water), form (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), and the intent to do what the Church does, it's valid. The reason for that is because baptism is so important that God allows anyone to do it. That's why the Creed says "I believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins", and why Protestants are heretics, not non-Christians.

Just because there wasn't any formal agreement before doesn't mean that the Church didn't recognise non-Catholic baptisms. It often assumed invalidity and did a conditional baptism, which is really the better practice, even if it's not as "nice".
[-] The following 3 users Like Paul's post:
  • jovan66102, LaudeturIesus, MagisterMusicae
Reply
#26
(10-06-2018, 11:50 AM)crotalus97 Wrote: If what you write is true then why is the U.S Roman Catholic Church (The only true Christian Faith) now honoring baptisms from some other protestant denominations?   why the change now?   

To echo what Paul wrote, the Catholic Church has always recognized that if a person (be they Catholic, Heretic, Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, Atheist) pours water of the head of a person who desires Baptism (or at least is not old enough to refuse), and while doing so intends to do what the Church does by that ceremony, and while pouring that water says "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". Then the person has been Baptized.

Anyone can administer Baptism.

The only question is was water used, were the words correct, and was the intention correct.

Mormons, for instance, do not have a valid Baptism because their theology teaches that God the Father and God the Son are two separate gods among other oddities, so they are not Baptizing in the name of the Trinity.

Anglicans and the groups mentiond in the HuffPo article probably do, because in most cases it's all correct. Still, an investigation is worthwhile to be sure that the formula was correct, since certain minister have been known to ad lib.

Previously there was an investigation and if there was no certainty, conditional Baptism was given ("If you are not already Baptized, then I Baptized you in then name ..."). The U.S. Bishop are now saying that we should presume validity in the case of these groups. That's all.
Reply
#27
(10-07-2018, 05:21 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: HuffPo 

Such a reliable source for Catholic news! Of course, it's probably more reliable then the National Catholic Fishwrap! LOL
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#28
Please look it up in a 1940's or earlier Baltimore Catechism
Reply
#29
(10-07-2018, 08:28 PM)greatdame Wrote: Please look it up in a 1940's or earlier Baltimore Catechism

Huh

Why would that be any more accurate than the answers given here?
Reply
#30
Firstly, greetings to you Crotalus97, and to the members of the Holy Mother Church observing this discussion, happy Feast Day of St Edward The Confessor. May your day be fruitful and bring you closer to Christ Our King and Our God, and may the saints in heaven continue to intercede for us before the Triune God.

(09-26-2018, 11:43 PM)crotalus97 Wrote: You are basically saying that the Church has the authority to determine and interpret the Bible.

Are you also saying that the pope is the representative of Christ and is infallible?

Yes, the Church has the authority to determine and interpret the Bible. Many of the early Christian cannons, especially in regards to the New Testament came from the Church. The current New Testament cannon we have today comes directly from a man called St. Athanasius, honored as a defender of Orthodoxy against the heretical teachings of Arianism. He was a bishop of Alexandria, , and it's important to note that Luther, and Calvin held him and the Church Fathers in high esteem. Moreover, in the Catholic Council of Carthage overseen by Saints like Augustine of Hippo, who is also especially held in high esteem by Luther and Calvin, the Old Testament cannon(save for the books Protestants removed) were declared as the only valid books by the Western Church under the Bishop of Rome. I really do encourage you to look into the development of New Testament cannon in the Early Christian Church before the end of Roman Persecution proclaimed under the Edict of Milan in 312 A.D

Now, it's important first to recognize one thing: there was a visible Church in the Apostolic age when the Apostles lived. It was not an indivisible church full of different denominations with different beliefs, there was a clear Church, with a clear structure. This is well evidenced in Acts 15 where the Apostles assembled for an Apostolic Council to determine that circumcision does not need to be followed for new Gentile followers who followed the one true Catholic, Christian faith.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus establishes a Rock in which a Church was built. While I acknowledge the Greek in petros means pebble, the Aramaic transliteration of Peter in Greek, Cephas, means a literal stone, and St. Paul calls Peter Cephas in the Book of Galatians. Jesus also in the Holy Gospel of St. John had Simon change his name to Peter(John 1:42)

It's also important to talk about Peter in the New Testament, and in the Gospels. In nearly every list where all 12 Apostles are mentioned, who is mentioned first? Peter. Who is the one that lead the Council in Jerusalem to remove circumcision? Peter(not James who used Peter's experience in Acts 10 to support his position). Who is the one that first baptizes Christians after Pentecost? Peter.

Our Lord in John 21:15-17 entrusts Peter his entire flock. Some will say this is him making Peter confess because he denied him 3 times, but the Apostles were not there when Jesus was crucified as well, so they had left him in his critical moment. Just a brief introduction of the Textus Receptus, it is the Greek New Testament that was published by a Catholic Priest, Erasmus. The Textus Receptus also is used for the King James Bible, a famous Protestant translation. I'm using an updated version published in 1850(I think).

The Greek word when Jesus says "Feed my sheep", or "Tend to my sheep", etc is Ποίμαινε (Poimaine) which means I shephard, I tend, or Rule. Koine Greek as a language is more sophisticated as English, and I don't want to be technical, but this is the correct usage, as evidenced by the lexicon here(https://biblehub.com/greek/poimaine_4165.htm) This verb is also used in Revelation 12:5, and Revelation 2:27 in talking about Jesus ruling the world.



(09-28-2018, 12:08 AM)crotalus97 Wrote: Placing faith in men other than Christ this is.  

Thank you Magister Musicae (and others) for explaining and clarifying your beliefs and those of the Catholic Church.

We don't place men above the faith of Christ. That is why (as Protestants admit) including James White, a Calvinist that the Early Church Fathers are extremely important in understanding the Christian faith and what they teach because it is because of them we see the affirmed truth even before the Council of Nicea that they considered Jesus to be God, celebrated the Eucharist, asked Saints for their intercession in heaven(which is not against the Old and New Testament), considered the deuterocannonical books to be scripture, etc.  The Jews themselves did not believe in sola scriptura, and I'm talking about in the Old Testament. FYI, the Apostles considered the Old Testament scripture, so scripture alone has also to be considered from their time.

Thank you, and may God Bless You.
[-] The following 1 user Likes ChurchMilitant's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)