Hello all, quick question...

[Michelina]

I didn't say he died to establish a debating society. I'm saying that we are all different, so naturally we are going to have different views on things. I really think that we can still be unified in love and that doctrinal differences are much less important than love.

Love is Primary.

Here is the crux of the issue for me. I really can't see myself completely agreeing with someone else on everything in the Bible.

We are all to have one mind - the mind of Christ. The only way to see things is His way. You truly manifest the spirit of Protestantism, nad, and the mind of a Catholic monk named Father M. Luther who had the strange unChristian idea that his interpretation of Scripture was superior to that of the Church established by Jesus.

There will always be differences in doctrine among different people.

That is not God's will. His will is expressed in John 17.

There cannot, however, be any disagreement, I don't think, on Christ's main message--love.

Jesus wants unity of heart and mind on the entirety of His message. He doesn't want less than 100%. Kings tend to be that way. Your being 'captain' of your own ship is not part of the Gospel nor a part of His kingdom. Very undemocratic this King and His Church.

 

[feo]

i Believe That Its Impossible For ANY one of us to Completely Understand The Bible... we *ALL* think we Know What we're Talking About... but i Bet You Anything- when we're in heaven, and we Think About Ourselves in retro; we'll All Have a Good Laugh on How weak our Minds were.

i Believe God Understands... That we're Kinda Stupid- and i Dont Think God Expects us to Completely Comprehend Everything Thats in The Bible... i Dont Believe God Has a NEGATIVE View of The Fact That i Dont Belong to a Specific Denomination....

just my two Cents :S

 

[Michelina]

i Believe That Its Impossible For ANY one of us to Completely Understand The Bible... we *ALL* think we Know What we're Talking About... but i Bet You Anything- when we're in heaven, and we Think About Ourselves in retro; we'll All Have a Good Laugh on How weak our Minds were.

No question about that, feo.

i Believe God Understands... That we're Kinda Stupid- and i Dont Think God Expects us to Completely Comprehend Everything Thats in The Bible... i Dont Believe God Has a NEGATIVE View of The Fact That i Dont Belong to a Specific Denomination....just my two Cents

No problem, feo, so long as you are working hard to find the Church HE established.

Godspeed on your quest!

 

[nadroj1985]

We are all to have one mind - the mind of Christ. The only way to see things is His way. You truly manifest the spirit of Protestantism, nad, and the mind of a Catholic monk named Father M. Luther who had the strange unChristian idea that his interpretation of Scripture was superior to that of the Church established by Jesus.

Here is my main issue I suppose, and I reckon it will be somewhat unpopular here. It's not that I think that my interpretation of Scripture is superior to that of the Church. I am more than willing to submit that if the beliefs you have been stating in here are good for you, then you should keep them. What I am trying to say is that I have different ideas about God and the Bible, and they are good for me. Now I know that you will combat this with the claim that I am taking the bits and pieces of the Bible that I want and leaving what I don't like--in other words that I am pursuing what I want to be true rather than what is true. The thing is, I am trying to be open to the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible, and when I do this I arrive at my own ideas. Can I not be directed by the Holy Spirit when I read? Have I been fooling myself all this time?

In short, I have too much of an idea of a God that wants to interact with me on a personal level to believe that he interacts with everyone in the same way.

 

[nadroj1985]

Well I'm sorry to leave you guys hanging here, but I need to get to bed. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain your beliefs to me--it has given me much to think about. I'll be here again to post tomorrow afternoon probably--until then, may God bless you all!! And remember the words of Jesus: "...whoever is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:50) Trust me, I'm not against you. We're all in this together folks!!

G'night!!

 

[FullyMT]

Here is my main issue I suppose, and I reckon it will be somewhat unpopular here. It's not that I think that my interpretation of Scripture is superior to that of the Church. I am more than willing to submit that if the beliefs you have been stating in here are good for you, then you should keep them. What I am trying to say is that I have different ideas about God and the Bible, and they are good for me. Now I know that you will combat this with the claim that I am taking the bits and pieces of the Bible that I want and leaving what I don't like--in other words that I am pursuing what I want to be true rather than what is true. The thing is, I am trying to be open to the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible, and when I do this I arrive at my own ideas. Can I not be directed by the Holy Spirit when I read? Have I been fooling myself all this time?

In short, I have too much of an idea of a God that wants to interact with me on a personal level to believe that he interacts with everyone in the same way.

Here's the thing though, we can still have a personal relationship with God that is different from other peoples while still believing the same interpretation.
Now, somebody correct me if I am off with this, but there are only 23 verses that have been defined infallibly (taken from http://www.cathinsight.com/apologetics/verses.htm):

(1) Romans 5:12 ("By one man sin entered into this world") refers to original sin.

(2) I Corinthians 4:7 ("What hast thou that thou hast not received") proves divine grace to be a sheer gift of God.

(3) Isaiah 7:14 ("Behold a virgin shall be with child, etc." [sic]) must be regarded as prophetic of a Redeemer to come.

(4) Genesis 3:15 ("I will put enmity between thee and the woman"), and Luke 1:28 ("Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee") contain at least implicitly the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

(5) Philippians 2:6 ("Christ Jesus, being in the form of God, did not prize being equal with God, etc." [sic]) refers to the existence of the person of Christ as the Second Divine Person of the Holy Trinity before He became man in the Incarnation.

(6) Matthew 16:16-19 ("Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church") and John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs . . . Feed my sheep") contain the doctrine of Papal Supremacy.

(7) Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not and do thou . . . confirm thy brethren") must be interpreted as providing a basis for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.

(8) John 3:5 ("Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God") shows the necessity of the Sacrament of Baptism with water.

(9) Luke 22:19 and I Corinthians 11:24, recording our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "Do this for a commemoration of me", indicate the institution of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the apostles being ordained as priests to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass or Holy Eucharist.

(10) Matthew 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; I Corinthians 11:23-29, demand the literal and not merely a symbolical interpretation of our Lord's words at the Last Supper: "This is my body," "This is my blood," so that we must hold they teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist or Blessed Sacrament.

(11) Malachi 1:11 ("From the rising of the sun even to the going down, my name is great among the Gentiles; and in every place there is sacrifice") is a prediction of the Sacrifice of the Mass.

(12) John 6:54-57 ("unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood") does not require Communion in both kinds instead of under the form of bread only.

(13) Matthew 18:18 ("Whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven") and John 20:23 ("Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them") prove the Sacrament of Penance and the power of priests to forgive sins in confession.

(14) James 5:14 ("Is any man sick . . . let him bring in the priests of the Church . . . anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord") teaches the existence of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction.

(15) Deuteronomy 6:5 and Matthew 22:37 ("Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and souls and mind and strength") do not require a love so spiritual and out of this world as to exclude all human emotional feelings and desires based on devotional sentiments.
​

You also can't have one verse, with two different interpretations and claim that both are the Truth. One is obviously not. Which one to trust though, is ultimately the chooser's decision. That decision should be made after much prayer and discernment and shouldn't just be decided upon which one you like the most or which one suits your purposes best (not saying this is the case with you). We trust that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in it's discernment on Sacred Scripture. We know it has the authority to do so because Sacred Scripture says so in Matthew 28: 18-20 as well as Luke 10:16. Also, in many metaphors, Christ assigns the Apostles (the first bishops, Peter being the first pope, or bishop of Rome), to be His shephards to His flock. That would make us their (and thus His) followers. Make sense?
​

 

[Magisterium]

It is important when considering God's word as it relates to Judeo-Christianity, God has always layed the foundation but appointed certain people to maintain authority over it's interpretation. Beginning with Moses, then Joshua, and we see (at the prompting of Jethro) the establishment of a hierarchy for the Authoritative interpretation of God's word as it relates to individual circumstances. In fact, the chair of Moses (Which Christ referrs to in Mt 23), is the position of the supreme teacher in succession from Moses. Additionally, Jesus acknowledges the currupt nature of these people but says:

2 ...The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
3 Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice."

Here we see that this authority is not diminished by the individual sins of these people. Likewise, though various church leaders have had checkered pasts (to say the least) the teaching and guiding authority of the church is not diminished as the protestant reformation asserted. Problems like "well what did God really mean when He said X" are moot when you recognize and respect the authority God invested into his church.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."-Mt 16:18

The Church remains to this day and still lays down the law authoritatively for Christianity whether one recognizes it or not.

 

[MParedon]

The thing is, I am trying to be open to the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible, and when I do this I arrive at my own ideas. Can I not be directed by the Holy Spirit when I read? Have I been fooling myself all this time?

In short, I have too much of an idea of a God that wants to interact with me on a personal level to believe that he interacts with everyone in the same way.

Hi! I thought I might add my opinion if that's ok. I'm not absolutely positively positive on this so another more learned Catholic member can correct me on this. But the Catholic Church has not given an Official Interpretation on every single verse in the Bible, so I would suppose you would be able to glean what you can on those verses for yourself. That still does not refute or take away from our position that the Catholic Church is right and correct in its interpretation of the Bible and we should follow it. I recommend you read the Part One; Article Two and Article Three: the Catechism of the Catholic Church (If you google it, there are a couple sites for the Catechism online). I think you might find out that it makes a whole bunch of sense.

God does interact with us on personal levels. There is a thread here about when God is obvious, that is a very good example on how God interacts with us. There are a whole slew of ways for God to interact with us. At the same time God gives us ONE Truth. Not a whole bunch of different Truths. Jesus founded a Church so we could have that ONE Truth.

I know it may seem more 'nice' to be able to interpret the Bible the way you think the Holy Spirit is guiding you, but think about it. God knows how many different kinds of people there are and how equipped or ill-equipped they are to interpret the Bible, so he gave us a Church to pass down the Truth for us, so there wouldn't be confusion about it and so that His Word wouldn't be muddled.

And you might want to think about all those years that the New Testament had not been written or part of the Bible, and think that the Christians that had followed Jesus and were taught by his Apostles were not given information and told, 'Ok, now go and figure it out' They were given Jesus' teachings in the way Jesus wanted it to be taught (allready interpreted information).
If that was good enough for them, then it is good enough for me.

It might also help if you set aside the more democratic idealogy and try to view it from the perspective of total and utter submission to God's wishes.

Start researching what the early Church father's thought about The Catholic Church interpretations and then review your earlier position. I only say this because I came from the exact same place as you

I hope I didn't put you off or seemed abrasive. One of the things about Message Boards is that it is hard to carry across inflection and intention that is easier when you are speaking face to face.

I totally follow Catholic teaching when it comes to our 'seperated bretheren', I harbor no animosity nor want to seem as if my post is meant to bludgeon you with my opinion.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

There is a parenting tape I was listening to and one of the key precepts on this tape I think applies here:

Children have the liberty in determine what is right, but must always defer to their parent's authority in deciding what is wrong.

We can choose what is right, but must defer to the authority of the Church to determine what is wrong. I can be inspired by a certain Bible passage and apply it to my life, unless I desire to apply it in a way the Church has said is not okay.

If you think about what the Church is-- the Bride of Christ, and at the same time the Body of Christ, with Christ as the Head-- one can begin to see the parental role which the Church is supposed to play. Catholics refer to the Church often as Holy Mother Church.

In Him
Shannon

 

[Skripper]

Is it saying that the Church can interpret the Bible but no one else can?

No, that’s not what it’s saying at all. It’s saying that when we interpret the Bible, it is to be interpreted (A) not in isolation but in harmony and unity with the entire Bible as a whole:



112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover. [Emphasis in original]



And (B) within the parameters of the living Tradition of the Church:



113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81). [Emphasis in original]



That is, Scripture can be properly interpreted only within the parameters of Christian orthodoxy, as determined by the Church, through which Scripture came. It was, after all, “the Church” which, through various councils, recognized what was and was not authentic God-breathed Scripture. Consequently, it is “the Church” that has the final say-so regarding proper interpretation of its own sacred writings, and not individual Christians. Of course, this is not to say that the Church has specifically defined and interpreted every verse of Scripture (nor that she needs to) or that individual Christians are not to read and interpret Scripture, because we are. What it does mean is that any “interpretation” that is at odds with what the Church teaches to be correct, authentic Christian doctrine is, put bluntly, an incorrect interpretation. In other words, it is wrong to “interpret” Scripture in such a way as to contradict something that the Church teaches is correct, authentic Christian doctrine.

All I’m saying is that the unity you are talking about may not necessarily be doctrinal. All Christians are united under the banner of love. Couldn’t this be what Jesus is talking about?

It is extremely doubtful that the unity spoken of in the Bible would not include doctrinal unity because, among other problems inherent in such reasoning, that’s simply a form of relativism: “Everything’s good so long as we are ‘united under the banner of love.’ ”



Another factor is that to assume that the Bible isn’t including doctrinal unity is to ignore what Scripture says elsewhere, in passages such as Romans 16:17 (“I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them.”); 1 Corinthians 1:10 (“ I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.”) [Emphasis mine] See also Philippians 1: 27; 2:2. It's unlikely that this is not referring to, or at least including, doctrinal unity.

... it says nothing that I can see about appointing a teaching authority.

To deny that there was (and is) a “teaching authority” (and that that teaching authority was and is the central Church) is to selectively read Scripture. Because Scripture itself clearly shows, even in Christianity’s infancy, an authoritative, teaching Church whose doctrinal decisions are binding upon the people in the local Christian churches. To deny this is to ignore the testimony of Scripture itself.



For example, when there was a doctrinal dispute (caused, by the way, by a sort of “lone ranger” Christians, teaching without proper apostolic mandate and authority), the Church called a council of the leadership of the Church, in Acts 15. Then what? The authoritative teaching Church settled the dispute. Then what? Passed along its decisions to be observed by the people in the local churches in the various cities:



“As they [Paul and Timothy] traveled from city to city, they handed on to the people for observance the decisions reached by the apostles and presbyters in Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4, emphasis mine) That’s doctrinal unity. And that is, very clearly, a “teaching authority” that you seem to have missed elsewhere in Scripture. It is, also very clearly, a central, authoritative, teaching Church whose doctrinal decisions are binding upon the Christians in other cities, in the local churches. In other words, it is not up to individual Christians, no matter how “enlightened” they may feel themselves to be, to decide for themselves what is and isn’t authentic Christian doctrine, over and above, (or, worse still, “against,”) the authoritative teachings of the central, teaching Church.

 

[Michelina]

I have different ideas about God and the Bible, and they are good for me. Now I know that you will combat this with the claim that I am taking the bits and pieces of the Bible that I want and leaving what I don't like--in other words that I am pursuing what I want to be true rather than what is true. The thing is, I am trying to be open to the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible, and when I do this I arrive at my own ideas. Can I not be directed by the Holy Spirit when I read? Have I been fooling myself all this time?

You have been fooled and are fooling yourself, nad, if you think you need to be The Lone Ranger when you read SS. You can have interaction with the Holy Spirit as a Catholic. Check out the lives of Catholic saints. They read and lived by the SS without insisting that they were free to wander on their own where they might think the Holy Spirit led them. Jesus invites us to be part of His family and to take our place in the family home, not to take what is revealed and steer our ship wherever we want. By being a part of His Church, your freedom and individuality are enhanced not diminished because you have the certainty of His guidance and won't waste time wandering and wondering where you are or where you should go. I don't see any SS that support your view. Isn't it more a human desire, born of the confusion in nonCatholic churches, to be 'on your own'? Is it not a species of pride which makes a person think that he or she should have the last word on what the SS say? If God has given us an authoritative Church for the purpose of maintaining us in one mind and heart (as we Catholics believe), why should a person refuse such a great gift?

 

[thereselittleflower]

I didn't say he died to establish a debating society. I'm saying that we are all different, so naturally we are going to have different views on things. I really think that we can still be unified in love and that doctrinal differences are much less important than love.

Here is the crux of the issue for me. I really can't see myself completely agreeing with someone else on everything in the Bible. There will always be differences in doctrine among different people. There cannot, however, be any disagreement, I don't think, on Christ's main message--love.

Hi nadro!


I haven't read through this thread all the way yet, but I wanted to share some thoughts with you . .


A very common misconception is that Catholics are restricted to interpreting ALL parts of the bible in accordance with how the Catholic Church formally interprets it . .

But the fact is, the Catholic Church does not offer a formal interpretation of all passages in the bible . . only of those passages that speak to matters of faith and morals that we are bound to hold to by being Catholics . .

Let me give you some clear examples:


The book of Revelation . . the Church does not have a formal teaching on how it is to be interpreted . . and there are various interpretations within the Catholic Church, and we are allowed freedom here, and not allowed to force an interpretation on others . .


Then there are passages that are not open to discssusion . .the way they are interpreted are part of the basis of Church doctrine from the beginning . .

For instance, the begiinning of the Gospel of John . . The Catholic Church teaches that the Word is Jesus, that the Word is God, ,that God was made flesh . .

To interpret this passage differently would go against the teaching magisterium of the Church, and it is not open to private interpretation that differs from the established teaching of the Church . .


The New Testament Scriptures tell us that the CHURCH is the Pillar and Foundation of the TRUTH . .

(1Ti 3:15)



​

​

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


​

As such, we trust God to protect the Church in right understanding and interpretation of the scriptures to protect the faith handed down by the Apostles . . and so, if we find ourselves in disagreement with an interpretation that affects matters of faith and morals that the Church embraces as a matter of faith to be believe, then we have to question our private understading and submit to God through the Church, which is the Pillar and foundation of the truth . . (ground is also translated foundation )




Otherwise, we reject the Church's teaching in favor of our own, we are saying that we are more right than the Church, and instead of the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth, WE have become the pillar and foundation of the truth for ourselves and make ourselves infallible . . .

When one exalts their own understanding over that of the body of Christ, over that which the body of Christ has held as true, then one makes themselves greater than the body of Christ . .


This is only is in regards to those scritpures that deal specifically with matters of faith and morals in relations to the teaching of the Church that are necessary for the faithful to hold to and have been held to through the ages . . there is not that much in the bible that fits this bill . ..


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Here is my main issue I suppose, and I reckon it will be somewhat unpopular here. It's not that I think that my interpretation of Scripture is superior to that of the Church. I am more than willing to submit that if the beliefs you have been stating in here are good for you, then you should keep them. What I am trying to say is that I have different ideas about God and the Bible, and they are good for me. Now I know that you will combat this with the claim that I am taking the bits and pieces of the Bible that I want and leaving what I don't like--in other words that I am pursuing what I want to be true rather than what is true. The thing is, I am trying to be open to the Holy Spirit when I read the Bible, and when I do this I arrive at my own ideas. Can I not be directed by the Holy Spirit when I read? Have I been fooling myself all this time?

In short, I have too much of an idea of a God that wants to interact with me on a personal level to believe that he interacts with everyone in the same way.

Why do you think that simply because God relates to you on a personal level, that He wouldn't interaction with everyone in the same way?


Peace in Him!

 

[Skripper]

But the fact is, the Catholic Church does not offer a formal interpretation of all passages in the bible . .

Not only that, but people are often quite surprised to learn that there are actually less than 10 verses in the entire Bible that have been, specifically and infallibly, interpreted by the Church. And most of those are in a "negative" sense. That is, the Church condemns any interpretations that deny a particular teaching. For example, the Church condemned any interpretation of John 3:5 that denies the necessity of real water for valid baptism under normal circumstances (i.e. excluding such things as baptisms of blood and desire).

 

[jgaudino]

Nadro

Let me give you my simple take.

The first Christians were taught by the Apostles themselves. They spoke the native langauge, lived in the culture etc. They likely read the original NT documents if they had access to them. The Apostkes were taught and CORRECTED by Jesus himself.

They understood Christianity a certain way. When we come to those tricky passages of scripture we differ with our Protestant friends we look to how those first Christians understood it. The writings of the early Church are the truest form of Christianity. It is highly unlikely that we understand things better than those who were taught by the Apostles and Jesus himself. So we look to those writings for guidance.

If a particular interpretation was never held by the Apostles or first Chritians it is not Biblical. The Bible itself is inerrant but if errors creep in with interpreation then the result is the same. Error is error.

Private judegement and interpretation or "Sola Scriptura" is an invention of the Middle Ages not held or believed by any Christian before the Middle Ages. Hence - as doctrine it is an invention of man and a relatively RECENT one at that. History is a stricky thing for our Protestant friends... the early Church taught prfoundly Catholic/Orthodox views (Church as visible, real presence in Eucharist, Sacraments, "confession", prayer for the dead and a very Catholic interpretation of the "Communion of Saints").

The entire 39 volume set of early Church writings is available as Win help format online FREE at:
ww.redbay.com/newbies/mag/ecfwh.htm

Thi set is actually translated by a Protestant so you will find no "Catholic bias" only historical truths of the First Christians and how the teachings of JEsus Christ were understood.

If you want a good intro to them I suggest:

"The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Fathers" by Michael J. Aquilina, Yves Congar, Mike Aquilina

God Bless !

John

 

[jgaudino]

Ahh... I forgot the exact thing Skripper brought up!!! Thanks Skrip!

I think many Prots think we can never interp things at all. More often we have a range of "acceptable" interps and some that are not acceptable as the violate precepts of our faith.

I should also mention that although we formally declare such an authority that the ugly reality is that Sola Scriptura is often a taught but rarely practiced "right" within a Protestant church. If you were to publicly disagree with your pastor you will see what I mean. Yet he must procalim that you have the right to interpret yourself but still be able to maintain untiy and prevent chaos amongst his congregation. It is a tight rope fo sorts thaty Protestnat pastors must walk while trying not to appear to assert authority lest they be accused of being like those rascal "Catholics" !! LOL

Peace - John

 

[jgaudino]

Cardinal Newman put it this way in an essay on inspiration first published in 1884:

"Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation.

How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility."

Peace - John

 

[feo]

No problem, feo, so long as you are working hard to find the Church HE established.

Godspeed on your quest!

Well See, Thats Just The Thing. What Exactly do Catholics Consider a "church"?

When i Say The Following, i Dont Mean to Generalize or Assume That All Catholics Are The Way... When i Was Raised. But Growing up in The Catholic Church, it Always seem'ed to me.. Like The "church" Was a Building. i Remember at Times, The Priest Would often Give "extra prayer/blessings" to Those Who Donated Large Sums of Money Towards Stained Glass Windows

i Meet With a Group of About 30 followers at a Place called "Danforth Chapel" which is on Campus...and my "tithing" for This "church" is my Time, Money Donated to Missions, and Food for The Homeless. we Meet Every Thursday Night to Discuss Scripture and Sing.

Would This be Considered a "church" by Catholic Standards? (i Dont Mean to insult intelligence by Asking This, i'm Just Curious How Different Most Catholic's practises Are... from What i Was Raised With as a Small Child)

and why Wouldnt this be The "true" Church That God Intended?

 

[thereselittleflower]

Well See, Thats Just The Thing. What Exactly do Catholics Consider a "church"?

When i Say The Following, i Dont Mean to Generalize or Assume That All Catholics Are The Way... When i Was Raised. But Growing up in The Catholic Church, it Always seem'ed to me.. Like The "church" Was a Building. i Remember at Times, The Priest Would often Give "extra prayer/blessings" to Those Who Donated Large Sums of Money Towards Stained Glass Windows

i Meet With a Group of About 30 followers at a Place called "Danforth Chapel" which is on Campus...and my "tithing" for This "church" is my Time, Money Donated to Missions, and Food for The Homeless. we Meet Every Thursday Night to Discuss Scripture and Sing.

Would This be Considered a "church" by Catholic Standards? (i Dont Mean to insult intelligence by Asking This, i'm Just Curious How Different Most Catholic's practises Are... from What i Was Raised With as a Small Child)

and why Wouldnt this be The "true" Church That God Intended?

Hi feo

Well, when I had to come to terms with the fact that the Protestant Reformation and the Reformers had been whitewashed, and the truth was a very different matter from what I had been lead to believe about it, the question of "which Church IS the true Church?" or "Which church today is closest to the Church Christ established?" I realized the only way to find out was to first understand the Early Church . . .what they believed what they taught, how they lived their faith . .

So, that sent me on a quest into history, to the beginnings of the Church . .

The True Church is the Church started by Jesus and handed down to us by the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers . ..

To know if the church, or group, you are fellowshipping with is the "true" Church, examine how it measures up to the Early Church in teachings and practice . .

Does it have the Sacraments - Baptismal Regeneration, Confession, The Real Presence? What about the Communion of Saints? The Mass?

do its teachings on doctrines match those of the Early Church?


These are a few of the signs of the True Church . .

The True Church will not be different that the Early Church . . it will be the same . .


It was in discovering what the Early Church was, what it taught, how it lived and practiced its faith, that made me look at the Catholic faith . .



Now, that doesn't mean that other groups of believers are not Christians, or that they don't have a church . . but they do not follow completely to varying degrees all that the Early Church believed, taught and practiced . . .


Peace in Him!

 

[Skripper]

Well See, Thats Just The Thing. What Exactly do Catholics Consider a "church"?

When i Say The Following, i Dont Mean to Generalize or Assume That All Catholics Are The Way... When i Was Raised. But Growing up in The Catholic Church, it Always seem'ed to me.. Like The "church" Was a Building. i Remember at Times, The Priest Would often Give "extra prayer/blessings" to Those Who Donated Large Sums of Money Towards Stained Glass Windows

i Meet With a Group of About 30 followers at a Place called "Danforth Chapel" which is on Campus...and my "tithing" for This "church" is my Time, Money Donated to Missions, and Food for The Homeless. we Meet Every Thursday Night to Discuss Scripture and Sing.

Would This be Considered a "church" by Catholic Standards? (i Dont Mean to insult intelligence by Asking This, i'm Just Curious How Different Most Catholic's practises Are... from What i Was Raised With as a Small Child)

and why Wouldnt this be The "true" Church That God Intended?

feo,

The concept of "church" has different meanings in different contexts. There is no one meaning that fits all contexts. But if you don't mind reading a long post, this may help you understand what Catholics consider to be both the "C" concept of Church and the "c" concept of church: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1496376&postcount=51