I think I'm in the process of converting to Catholicism

[nvyhus85]

I find religion interesting, you can go back and forth about doctrines and beliefs. Jesus wasn't religious, religions have become to commercialized. I choose to follow Jesus and dieing to my old self daily, and utilize his strength to become more and more like him everyday. Jesus didn't say follow this religion and follow me, he said, give up everything and follow me

 

[MoreCoffee]

I never knew they cared much about what we thought or believed when it came down to defining what they believe. Interesting!

Also, are you saying that prior to the Reformation, the RCC was not concerned if they had Biblical support when they defined certain doctrines or a dogmas? I find that very hard to believe. Do you know of even a single example of this ..

Thanks!

--David

Catholic teaching is not crafted to make the Catholic Faith more attractive to Protestants or to Orthodox Christians. But the way the Faith is expressed is reflective of the times and cultures to which it is addressed so Vatican II does speak to our century (and last century) more expressively than did Vatican I or Trent (those councils were addressed to their time and the cultures of that time). I may be mistaken but I do think that every Christian theology attempts to shape its way of self-communication to the times and cultures to which it is addressed.

God grant that we all offer our faith's teaching with humility and wisdom.

 

[Albion]

I think much of that which has gone on recently (last couple centuries or so, especially post-Vatican II) has been an effort to make the Catholic church more palatable for Protestants/Evangelicals.

That could be true, I agree, but the conventional wisdom of church-watchers seems to be that what has gone on (especially post-Vatican II) has been done in order to minimize membership losses to the Protestant churches.

 

[St_Worm2]

Catholic teaching is not crafted to make the Catholic Faith more attractive to Protestants or to Orthodox Christians. But the way the Faith is expressed is reflective of the times and cultures to which it is addressed so Vatican II does speak to our century (and last century) more expressively than did Vatican I or Trent (those councils were addressed to their time and the cultures of that time). I may be mistaken but I do think that every Christian theology attempts to shape its way of self-communication to the times and cultures to which it is addressed.

God grant that we all offer our faith's teaching with humility and wisdom.

Hi MC, thanks for joining in .. Knee-V thought that prior to the Reformation, the RCC may not have felt the absolute need to include Scripture (like it clearly seems to today) in the forming of the church's doctrines and dogmas. Is that true, or has Biblical support for a RC doctrine/dogma always been considered highly important (or perhaps even necessary) in such cases ..

Thanks!

--David

 

[Knee V]

Hi MC, thanks for joining in .. Knee-V thought that prior to the Reformation, the RCC may not have felt the absolute need to include Scripture (like it clearly seems to today) in the forming of the church's doctrines and dogmas. Is that true, or has Biblical support for a RC doctrine/dogma always been considered highly important (or perhaps even necessary) in such cases ..

Thanks!

--David

I didn't mean to imply what it seems like it sounded to you like I said (and I'll stop trying to speak for the RCC after this). I believe that the RCC has always believed that her teachings *agree* with Scripture, whether or not she always uses Bible verses in her explanations of her teachings.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Hi MC, thanks for joining in .. Knee-V thought that prior to the Reformation, the RCC may not have felt the absolute need to include Scripture (like it clearly seems to today) in the forming of the church's doctrines and dogmas. Is that true, or has Biblical support for a RC doctrine/dogma always been considered highly important (or perhaps even necessary) in such cases ..

Thanks!

--David

No, it is not true but to some it may have seemed so because at the time of the Church councils before Trent there was no way to reference a passage of scripture except by quoting it - there was no chapter & verse numbering until around the time of Trent in the sixteenth century. But if you read the Catechism of the Council of Trent (also called The Roman Catechism) you will find an abundance of sacred scripture and appropriate references. Both Vatican I and Vatican II also include copious scripture references and quotes from sacred scripture. Earlier Church councils would contain only quotes from sacred scripture without references (because no reference system had yet been invented).

 

[MoreCoffee]

I didn't mean to imply what it seems like it sounded to you like I said (and I'll stop trying to speak for the RCC after this). I believe that the RCC has always believed that her teachings *agree* with Scripture, whether or not she always uses Bible verses in her explanations of her teachings.

That is quite right knee-v; thanks for explaining.

God bless.

 

[St_Worm2]

That is quite right knee-v; thanks for explaining.

God bless.

And thanks to both of you as well. Knee-V got me thinking about an old subject in a new way and I now realize how vital the RCC considered/considers Scripture in the framing of its various beliefs (a fact that greatly pleases me, though I have to admint that I am not always in agreement with the way the RCC uses Scripture to define its dogmas).

Yours and His,
David

 

[shturt678]

The modern Lutheran's (most Lutherans of today) and RCC's (hope I'm correct?) rule, norm, and foundation is that the Bible = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures.

MY non-modern Lutheran's rule, norm, and foundation is that the Bible = / = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Not even the best Greek Text we have = / = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Only the original Autographs = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. btw Mr. Luther in error with his Bible = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Wonder if the Popes of before, also wrong?

My point: We should not base any Church, teachings, and etc. upon a shade of Truth. If interpretive Bible translations = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures (Original Autographs) then my premise is invalid, and we will have plenty of time in heaven to discuss it; however if the premise is valid, we will have plenty of time in the Lake of Fire to reflect on it (include myself due to the time I was born into - full blown apostasy where most think they are going to heaven upon passing).

Just ol' old Jack clawing and scratching trying to keep out of hell

 

[MoreCoffee]

The modern Lutheran's (most Lutherans of today) and RCC's (hope I'm correct?) rule, norm, and foundation is that the Bible = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures.

MY non-modern Lutheran's rule, norm, and foundation is that the Bible = / = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Not even the best Greek Text we have = / = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Only the original Autographs = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. btw Mr. Luther in error with his Bible = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures. Wonder if the Popes of before, also wrong?

My point: We should not base any Church, teachings, and etc. upon a shade of Truth. If interpretive Bible translations = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures (Original Autographs) then my premise is invalid, and we will have plenty of time in heaven to discuss it; however if the premise is valid, we will have plenty of time in the Lake of Fire to reflect on it (include myself due to the time I was born into - full blown apostasy where most think they are going to heaven upon passing).

Just ol' old Jack clawing and scratching trying to keep out of hell

Brother shturt678, your comments are, as always, interesting even if they are a little bit cryptic.

A Catholic perspective is broadly this:

• Sacred scripture is inspired public (universal) revelation from God - the question of original autographs and translations is not particularly relevant because the manuscripts we have make most of the text of the new testament certain and the text of the old testament is fairly sure too. And translations are, generally speaking, reliable and accurate with only a very few exceptions (these exceptions being translations intended to serve heterodox groups in propagating their beliefs).
• Sacred Tradition (also called Apostolic Tradition) is public revelation from God but not inspired because it was not written under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was passed on by word of mouth and example (some having been written at various times and by various people but not as inspired scripture). Thus public revelation has two forms. One can refer to the two forms under the name Tradition or Public Revelation.
• Both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are rightly interpreted only within the community of faith, that is the church. And the church relies on the Spirit of Christ to lead and to guide her in the work of interpreting God's public revelation to humankind. The church, in this context, is the whole church but especially those whom God has called to be bishops and shepherds of his flock.

Thus the bible you have in your hand is reliable and accurate in most cases and will fulfil the functions explained by Paul in his letter to Timothy; specifically, All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice, so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

[shturt678]

Brother shturt678, your comments are, as always, interesting even if they are a little bit cryptic.

A Catholic perspective is broadly this:

• Sacred scripture is inspired public (universal) revelation from God - the question of original autographs and translations is not particularly relevant because the manuscripts we have make most of the text of the new testament certain and the text of the old testament is fairly sure too. And translations are, generally speaking, reliable and accurate with only a very few exceptions (these exceptions being translations intended to serve heterodox groups in propagating their beliefs).

• 
  
  Coffee is excellent this morning. We are in 'unity' as the modern Lutherans, along with myself, believe the same regarding the Text, ie, including the ancient language's Texts.
  
  

  [*]Sacred Tradition (also called Apostolic Tradition) is public revelation from God but not inspired because it was not written under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit but was passed on by word of mouth and example (some having been written at various times and by various people but not as inspired scripture). Thus public revelation has two forms. One can refer to the two forms under the name Tradition or Public Revelation.

  [*]Both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are rightly interpreted only within the community of faith, that is the church. And the church relies on the Spirit of Christ to lead and to guide her in the work of interpreting God's public revelation to humankind. The church, in this context, is the whole church but especially those whom God has called to be bishops and shepherds of his flock.

Here is where we are 'diverse,' ie, the upside is we have very reliable English translated Texts where we are in unity in communicating, eg, like we are communicating now; but the downside is the Texts are diverse to extremely diverse in its interpretation, ie, just by default by the definition of being a "translation."

My point is when anyone believes Texts = Inspired Word of God, or Scriptures, ie, and not as aids only then a bishop, shepherd, minister, or even myself could very well believe that they received an inspired interpretation by the Holy Spirit although the interpretation mutates Sunday to Sunday. I do enjoy drinking a cup of warm coffee under a 'shady' tree, but don't enjoy basing one's interpretation upon a 'shady' Truth?

Just ol' old lucid Jack's opinion btw thank you for the RCC update - perfect! I wasn't sure.

Thus the bible you have in your hand is reliable and accurate in most cases and will fulfil the functions explained by Paul in his letter to Timothy; specifically, All Scripture, having been divinely inspired, is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in justice, so that the man of God may be perfect, having been trained for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

 

[Edward65]

I'm a Confessional Lutheran. While we have some issues with both the Anglican and Vatican Catholic Churches, there is no doubt that they both teach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments; that is we are saved by "the blood of Christ", "God's grace", through "Faith in Christ".

The Catholic Church hasn’t changed its position on justification. It still upholds the decrees of the Council of Trent which condemns justification through faith alone, and the recent agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the RC church on Justification is just a deceptive statement which doesn’t affirm justification by faith alone but rather the RC position. Therefore the RC church doesn’t teach the true Gospel.

You affirm the true Lutheran position that the Papacy is the Antichrist yet you say the Gospel is taught within the Catholic church. This is an untenable position to hold. If the popes teach the true Gospel they obviously can’t collectively be the Antichrist. So you’re certainly not in agreement with Confessional Lutheranism here. The following quote is from paragraph 39 of “A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” which forms part of the Confessional documents of Lutheranism:

“Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority”.

 

[shturt678]

The Catholic Church hasn’t changed its position on justification. It still upholds the decrees of the Council of Trent which condemns justification through faith alone, and the recent agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the RC church on Justification is just a deceptive statement which doesn’t affirm justification by faith alone but rather the RC position. Therefore the RC church doesn’t teach the true Gospel.

You affirm the true Lutheran position that the Papacy is the Antichrist yet you say the Gospel is taught within the Catholic church. This is an untenable position to hold. If the popes teach the true Gospel they obviously can’t collectively be the Antichrist. So you’re certainly not in agreement with Confessional Lutheranism here. The following quote is from paragraph 39 of “A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope” which forms part of the Confessional documents of Lutheranism:

“Now, it is manifest that the Roman pontiffs, with their adherents, defend [and practice] godless doctrines and godless services. And the marks [all the vices] of Antichrist plainly agree with the kingdom of the Pope and his adherents. For Paul, in describing Antichrist to the Thessalonians, calls him 2 Thess. 2:3-4: an adversary of Christ, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God. He speaks therefore of one ruling in the Church, not of heathen kings, and he calls this one the adversary of Christ, because he will devise doctrine conflicting with the Gospel, and will assume to himself divine authority”.

Brother Mark is a friend an brother in Christ as you obviously are, and having said this I have to agree with you for the most part with a further explanation.

IIThess.2:3, 4 The history of the church during these hundred of years presents only one phenomenon of this type of Antichrist which I do agree, ie, the papacy, ie, sequence of popes. However IIThess.2 construed with Rev.8:7-9:21 the small antichrists have taken over all the Lutheran settings after 1930 for sure. All are Christians, but only in the Kingdom "outwardly." One needs to get in "inwardly" prior to passing. Mr. Martin Chemnitz's interpretation, ie, not mine; however I fully agree.

My very brief end point: All the former confirmed with the Jesuit General at the church of Jesu, a little out of the Vatican, rules the world (including the Lutheran churches today) very quietly behind the scenes, and is the real power and propaganda behind the papacy, and Lutherans today, with secret meetings followed with action, and will be quiet as I don't want to feel that action at my old age.

Just ol' old Jack's view, or is it opinion?

 

[MoreCoffee]

One is justified by faith; that is what scripture says. But "justified by faith alone" is not in scripture and that's a problem isn't it?

 

[shturt678]

One is justified by faith; that is what scripture says. But "justified by faith alone" is not in scripture and that's a problem isn't it?

Hey, we agree to agree: Justification: One is justified secretly and forensically from heaven. Where the ambiguity may be is at one's 'instant of faith,' (providing valid?) one is forensically and secretly justified from heaven, ie, "justified by faith alone," or? Forget?

Scripture, hmmmm, that sometimers again: Kona coffee did it: That ol' old course correction again: Mk.1:15 a good take off, ie, one is justified at one's REPENTANCE and FAITH. Hate that allstimers.

Good to see you not snoozing in preparation for haloween, ie, all those kids tricky'a treatin - I haven't grown up yet, I should join them.

Just ol' old joining, no halo for Jack today

 

[Albion]

One is justified by faith; that is what scripture says. But "justified by faith alone" is not in scripture and that's a problem isn't it?

No.

If we were to say that Obama is president of the USA, we wouldn't think it reasonable to insist that this means he's president of the USA and also Canada. By saying that he's president of the USA we understand that that means exactly what it says. But the Roman Catholic position is worse than that.

It not only says, in effect, that Scripture does not mean that we are justified by Faith when it states that we are justified by Faith, but it goes on to say we need something more, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT it invents that "something more" that it needs to fill in the void that its own illogic has created!

 

[MoreCoffee]

well if "justified by faith" is all you need then there's obviously no need to add "alone" at the end, right?

 

[shturt678]

No.

If we were to say that Obama is president of the USA, we wouldn't think it reasonable to insist that this means he's president of the USA and also Canada. By saying that he's president of the USA we understand that that means exactly what it says. But the Roman Catholic position is worse than that.

It not only says, in effect, that Scripture does not mean that we are justified by Faith when it states that we are justified by Faith, but it goes on to say we need something more, AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT it invents that "something more" that it needs to fill in the void that its own illogic has created!

No refute intended: Eph.2:8, 9 construed with v.5 includes water baptism where at Mk.1:15b just the 'instant of faith' portion.

Just ol' old picking up the slack Jack

 

[Albion]

No refute intended: Eph.2:8, 9 construed with v.5 includes water baptism where at Mk.1:15b just the 'instant of faith' portion.

Just ol' old picking up the slack Jack

Frankly, I don't see how you can construe water baptism out of that, and in any case, you are reconciling different verses--a common problem--but that is NOT the issue when anyone claims that a verse doesn't mean what it says merely because it might have said something more than it did.

 

[shturt678]

Frankly, I don't see how you can construe water baptism out of that, and in any case, you are reconciling different verses--a common problem--but that is NOT the issue when anyone claims that a verse doesn't mean what it says merely because it might have said something more than it did.

The Kingdom of God is first and foremost, ie, having said that, one is in the Kingdom of God at Mk.1:15b before water baptism, correct? No water baptism yet at Mk.1:15b? Wish MC wouldn't take such long naps.

Just ol' old agaping that Kingdom of God Jack, ie, in an 'instant'

Instant coffee?