• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Please, I'd really like to know the answer to this

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by PublicNewSense, Oct 29, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Since the Catholic Church is the first Christian Church, we say you've come back home to your spiritual roots."

    KC to be honest it wasn't..it was the first ORGANIZED religion of christianity. ;) The first church wasn't catholic, it was just simply christian. Wols, did you want me to reply to those verses or were you just sharing? I see (in my view) some major phopas (sp).
     
  2. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,599
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    It's up to you. It'll probably end up being a diversion of interpretive viewpoints again, but if you want to discuss them, by all means. :)

    Ahem. That's "faux pas", Louis, not "phopas"---and it literally means a blunder in social behavior or a breach of etiquette, not an error in reasoning or philosophy. If you're going to use these French phrases, old boy, you should really know what they mean and how to spell them properly. ;)

    Dieu vous garde,
    ---Wols.
     
  3. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    True, the first Christians were not "called" Catholic - Augustine officially named the first christains Catholic a bit later.

    BUT, everything that the first christians practiced, were taught and believed - was and is Catholicism.

    Wols, correct me if I'm wrong - but they may not been officially called "Catholic", but they were!
     
  4. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,599
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Insofar as their practices, beliefs, and rules went, they were much closer to what we today would consider modern Catholicism than they would have been to modern Protestantism. They adhered to a system of episcopal hierarchy, believed in the veneration of Mary and the saints, believed in Purgatory, Apostolic succession, infant baptism, and above all, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. As dozens of instances in the relevant Christian literature from 60 AD to 200 AD show, these were things that Christians of the period practiced and believed in.

    Followers of Christ were being called "Christians" at least as far back as the writing of the Book of Acts (c. 63 AD); Acts 11:26 (describing events possibly around 41 AD) identifes them as such. However, Acts 24:5 (describing events possibly around 60 AD) also calls them "Nazarenes". The term "Christians" seems to have won out by 93 AD, when Flavius Josephus published The Antiquities of the Jews, (18.3.3) where he describes followers of Christ as "the tribe of Christians".

    "Catholic" first appears in the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans (110 AD)---"Wheresoever the bishop appears, there let the people be; just as wheresoever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (8:2). It must be borne in mind, however, that at that time, "Catholic" simply meant "universal". It wasn't until the Eastern Schism in the 11th century that "Catholic" came to mean Roman Catholic, as opposed to the Eastern, or Orthodox, churches.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  5. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    ". If you're going to use these French phrases, old boy, you should really know what they mean and how to spell them properly"

    Umm..its also SLANG for mistake...guess you haven't been keeping up ;)

    "BUT, everything that the first christians practiced, were taught and believed - was and is Catholicism. "

    whoa baby, that is far from true. They thought you can't sin after baptism or you don't get salvation...and that's just one belief...should I go on? soo..umm..you're wrong ;) Hey wols..how about you tell us what the meaning of the word catholic is hmm ;)
     
  6. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,599
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    References, my dear Louis, references. It's easy enough to say, "whoa, you're totally wrong, they didn't believe that at all, they believed X, Y, and Z", but without any sort of corroborating material, all you're doing is expressing a personal opinion or hearsay, which ain't gonna hold much water in court.

    You will note that I, above, gave names for my material, and where it could be found; author, chapter, book, and verse, for material both scriptural and non. And your material comes from......????
    Not according to Webster, it doesn't. Guess you haven't been attending to etymologies lately.

    "Catholic" means "universal". It is derived from Middle English catholik, which came from Latin catholicus, which came from Greek katholikos, "kata" (completely) + "holos" (whole).

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  7. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "References, my dear Louis, references. "

    Don't have the author(s) names with me. History of Christianity.just to name one. I have a few other books I can show you such as something called "the latin fathers.." Do I really need to list them all? I can give you a biblography if that's what it takes, to me that's just trivial.

    "Not according to Webster, it doesn't. Guess you haven't been attending to etymologies lately."

    :lol: so? Webester is the LAST place you should look for slang :lol: you have to be joking...

    ""Catholic" means "universal". It is derived from Middle English catholik, which came from Latin catholicus, which came from Greek katholikos, "kata" (completely) + "holos" (whole)."

    Is that the direct translation, I have one source that says otherwise....The current catholic church is not the catholic church..it is the ROMAN catholic church...big difference.
     
  8. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,599
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    And, as usual, I say green, you say red. Interpretation A, or Interpretation B? Ah, decisions, decisions.....

    "I say po-TAY-to, you say po-TAH-to,

    I say to-MAY-to, you say to-MAH-to,

    Po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to, to-MAY-to, to-MAH-to,

    Let's call the whole thing off........"

    Blessings, ;)
    ---Wols.
     
  9. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    :lol:

    Well, in terms of history, I'm just being realistic. In terms of semantics..I'm again...being realistic ;)
     
  10. Schrack

    Schrack Guest

    +0
    Hi Wolesly,

    Sorry for the delay, but you're right about these posts taking time. At least you'll have all weekend to make your reply, as I will be gone till monday.

    "Context, Schrack. Why did Paul say that every man should have his own wife? "To avoid
    fornication". In verse 9 he says, "If they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry". The
    point being that if you're going to be a priest, it is understood that you have a handle on your sexual desires."


    Well in context, where did Paul say anything about priests? No where. His message was to the entire congregation, and that is proven by virtue of his words "let every man/let every woman." And yes, the weakness of the flesh is precisely why every man and woman is permitted to have their own spouse. While celibacy was preferred by the apostle Paul, he understood that it cannot be imposed for this very reason.

    "Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is."

    If you believe the church governs the Scriptures and not the other way around, then you would have also to believe the church in Corinth could have set aside Paul's apostolic rule to install their own regarding celibacy and marriage, correct?

    "Depends on the vow he took in the first place. Celibacy? No, he doesn't have the right to change his mind. Marriage to a woman? No, he doesn't have that right to change his mind (i.e., divorce and re-marriage). No vow to either? Yes, he can change his mind."

    First of all, celibacy does not require vows as does marriage. Celibacy is what God expects of unmarried people, at least until they marry. Now, if a man has vowed, then you are correct in that he has to keep his vows. Unless, of course, he had been deceived to believe he was required to make such a vow, which he is not. In this instance, that vow would become invalid because it was based on a lie and not the truth, and you know as well as I do that the truth liberates.

    "Yes, he did. Which simply means that at that time, the Church had not imposed the discipline of celibacy Church-wide. Later, they did."

    Of course celibacy had not been imposed, because God's answer to Paul was clear that the Lord did not will the imposition of it. That is why Paul did not attempt to trap them into celibacy.

    I wrote: "Well, Wolseley, the verse did say the "church" or assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth. Are you telling me that the verse is not saying that? Are you saying that Paul should have meant to say "the magisterium"? Either the Christian assembly is the pillar and ground of the truth or some other body is. And if it be the Christian assembly, such as those established in the New Testament, then it certainly could not be the body of the magisterium, now could it?"



    You replied: "Again, Scripture for us is not the ultimate arbiter for faith and morals. The Church is. We also interpret Scripture and Scared Tradition in light of each other, while you interpretScripture in light of itself, thus making for vastly different interpretations of the same verses, taking into consideration the bodies of context you're dealing with.

    This really didn't answer the questions I raised, Wolseley. I want you to tell me what you are taught to believe: is the Christian assembly the pillar and ground of the truth, as Paul stated, or is your magisterium?

    "Jesus chose special men to be His Apostles (Jn 15:16). To those men He gave His mission (Jn 20:21). He appointed one of them to be the head of the rest (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:17). He gave these men all power (Mt 28:18ff). They could forgive sins (Jn 20:23). They could speak with Christ's voice (Lk 10:16). They could both discipline and legislate others (Mat 18:17ff). The Church was built upon them (Eph 2:20). And when they died, their office passed on to their replacements (Acts 1:20-26). He did not give this power to everybody (Eph 4:11). Ergo, as I said: you have the clergy, and then you have the laity."

    The church is one, Wolesely. It is not broken up into a heirarchy with the leadership being at the top of the pack. All are disciples of Christ. True, God has given different gifts to different men, but that does not make one higher than the other. It only makes them all servants of Christ. Furthermore, Jesus made it plain that his apostles were not to exercise authority over God's church like the Gentiles exercised it over their people. That just isn't the Christian way. It may have been the Roman way, but not the Christian way.

    "In the Gospels, the 12 disciples were the Apostles. The disciples didn't become Apostles ("those who are sent") until after Christ's Ascention."

    I think a little Bible harmonizing might do well here. Luke says Mary Magdalene and other women came in the morning and told the eleven "and the rest" that Christ rose from the dead (Lk. 24:9-10). This is validated by John in 20:18. Later that same day, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus requested Jesus to abide with them as it was "toward evening, and the day is far spent." (24:29). After Jesus ate and vanished from their sight, they rose up the same hour and returned to Jerusalem (a 7.5 mile trip) and found "the eleven gathered, and those that were with them" (24:33). By this time, it had to be evening, and thus John says "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst...." Luke ties everything together nicely when he wrote: "And as they [the disciples on the road to Emmaus] thus spoke [to the apostle and all the rest], Jesus stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you" (24:36). And this is where John fills in what Luke left out in verse 36: "as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you" (20:21). So all of Jesus' disciples, Wolesley, were there (except Thomas), and the truth of the matter is, Jesus gave his authority not to any magisterium but to all of his disciples, his church. I realize this will diminish any argument for the special authority of your magisterium, but truth is truth no matter how much one believes to the contrary.

    "Does not this indicate that you have set yourself up as the final judge of what is truly Apostolic doctrine?"

    Not at all, because it was the apostles and other holy men who told us what is truly apostolic. It's not as if they kept it a secret, you know. They filled up 27 New Testament books explaining and delivering once-for-all the true faith to the saints of Christ's churches. So I don't need to set myself up as the final judge...their words are already final because they were inspired of God.

    "What of those who disagree with your conclusions?"

    What of them? They can disagree all they want. Did disagreements between Catholics stop Catholics from claiming what they believed to be the truth?

    "And what if those who succeeded the Apostles were basing their teachings on the doctrines they learned from the Apostles?"

    And just how would you know they actually got it from the apostles? How do you know they just didn't make it up as they went along? Just because they claimed to have succeeded the apostles? Joseph Smith did that not too long ago as well, but he claimed it was an angel. Oh wait...people believed him too.

    "Actually, no; I am speaking of the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, which was followed by the
    Councils of Carthage---3 Carthage in 397, and 4 Carthage in 418. In all cases, these councils merely followed the listing put forth by Pope Damasus in 382 AD, containing the same listing found in Catholic Bibles today."


    I have often heard of this "list" put forth by Damasus, which some have attempted to use as a "proof" that the bishop of Rome sanctioned a canon which included the apocrypha, and that others, like those in Africa, used it as their guide. The truth of the matter, however, may be found in Jerome's own words. Below is a quote from one of his prefaces, although I have lost the exact reference:

    "As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of the Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church."

    There is also this which I found at the University of Oregon: "Jerome did not include the Apocrypha in the body of his translation. These are the fifteen books of the Bible that were not considered part of the Herbrew canon. However, he included the Apocrypha in an appendix so that people might utilize the books for their own edification, but "not for the corroboration of ecclesiastical doctrines." (Kelly, p. 161; Apocrypha, p. xii; Britannica, "Saint Jerome")."

    The fact is, Jerome did include apocryphal books in his version, but they were not considered inspired by the church at Rome. And take note that Jerome referred to the church's view and not his own. Consequently, the councils of Hippo and Carthage acted on their own in declaring the apocryphal books as being part of the inspired Scriptures. And so, as I said, these African councils had only determined for themselves what was inspired; they did not determine for the rest of the world what was the canon, despite the fact that their version, many centuries later, was made the official catholic canon by Trent and is what you use now.

    "You're correct, which was the major reason the Pope put together the listing of books he did in 382."

    Well, we both now know this to be completely irrelevant to my original contention, isn't it?

    "Tertullian was a Christian from 197 to 212, and accepted the rulings of the Catholic Faith; after a period of wavering, he succumbed to the Montanist heresy in 213, and died as a heretic around 240. It is unsurprising that he would accept the rulings of heretical councils which might include or discount non-canonical books, but the fact that he deviated from Christianity does not nullify the veracity of the canon approbated by the Church."

    Who said the councils themselves were heretical? From what I read in Tertullian's writings, these councils were accepted by the majority of churches with whom Tertullian was familiar, before he became a Montanist. And as for Tertullian being a heretic, well, you can have whatever opinion you wish of him, but don't forget that it was he who defended the Trinity against the bishop of Rome who fell into the heresy of Praxeus. And it was he who defended the ancient discipline of the churches in regard to the one man/one wife rule, when the "physics" (i.e. later called Catholics) were multiplying marriages and permitting adultery to exist in the church. And it was Tertullian who exposed the fleeing shepherds of the flocks for what they were--traitors and apostates to the faith of Christ. Strange that such a man, as well as those churches with whom he joined, would be called "heretic" by you rather than those churches who were guilty of the above sins.

    "Notice, however, how Epiphanius draws a distinction between the Montanists and "true Christians". He also does not enumerate the books he considers "the whole of the old Scriptures", any more than he names what he considers the New Testament. And in any event, Epiphanius is not the deciding factor in the canon of scripture; the Popes and various Catholic councils are."

    Epiphanius did not draw a distinction, he made a comparison: "as do all true Christians." If he had made a distinction, he would have said "as opposed to all true Christians." Also, Epiphanius was one of those who rejected the apocryphal writings, as did Jerome. And he does list which books are canonical, but the problem I've had is not having full access to his Panarion. And if what I have read about his canonical list is correct, then the Montanists held to Scriptures no diffrent than we Baptists hold to today.

    I wrote: "I actually understand celibacy quite well. In fact, I was a celibate pastor myself for quite some time before I married. But I also understand that celibacy does not require a vow to remain celibate indefinitely. A man is not required of God to vow celibacy."

    You replied: "If he wants to be a priest, he does."

    Where did God ever require a man to vow celibacy in order to become a minister?

    "Here, again, we get into matters of interpretation within contexts."

    The text needs no interpretation. Paul is clear. He was not trying to trap the Corinthians into celibacy. He was just trying to demonstrate to them what would profit them the most during the "present distress." How is it that you interpret his words entirely differently?

    "Did he? Then how do you account for 2 Peter 1:20 and 3:16?"

    I'll take 2 Peter 3:16 first, as it requires a shorter explanation. First, Peter said "some things" are hard to be understood, not "all things." Second, he says "which they," the "unlearned and ustable," i.e. "undiscipled" or unconverted, wrestle to their own destruction.

    As for 1 Pet. 1:20, that isn't so hard either. Peter did not say "no Scripture" is of any private interptetation, he said "no prophecy of the Scripture" was of any private interpretation. In other words, when men of old spoke prophetically it was not by their own will but rather they were moved by the Holy Spirit to speak. It was not their own words or their own explanation, but it was the Lord's, his revelation of things to come. Now if Peter had meant what you Catholics take his words to mean, then it sure would be a strange thing for him to have written average Christians and then turn around and say that they would not be able to interpret what he wrote by inspiration. But the fact was, he delivered and entrusted Sacred Scripture to the minds of those ordinary Christians because he knew they had God's Spirit too.

    "...and by that very fact, not part of the Catholic Church."

    But in their eyes, they are every bit as Catholic as you think you are. And in their eyes you are the schismatics, not them. Catholicism has always been fractured, Wolesley. Always. But I'll leave it between you Catholics to sort out who the true Catholics are.

    Long post, Schreck. Took me a while to get through this reply. BTW, did you know that "schreck" is the German word for "fear"?

    Nope. Didn't know that. But the name is Schrack, not Schreck. Till next time...

    SchracktheBaptist
     
  11. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    Dear Schrack,

    Okay, I have to admit that my viewpoint is highly slanted, because I am Catholic. Not only Catholic, but a CONVERT, which means I made the "educated" choice; of course, I also believe it was a choice inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    I have thoroughly read the back-and-forth discussion between you and Wolseley, and even though I don't claim to have the definitive education that the two of you stand upon, I do have powers of observation.

    Wolseley bases his arguments upon the teachings of the Church. This is a 2000-year-old source of information that has been researched and expounded upon by scholars far, far wiser than I shall ever be.

    You also base some of your arguments on some of these early Church scholars, yet on the other hand, you lump ALL early Church teachings into the "teachings of men." Wolseley has explained the Church's position that these "men" were continuing the Apostles' ministry, thus giving mankind Sacred Tradition.

    You argue AGAINST the councils which gave us the New Testament, yet continue to hold the Sola Scriptura defense of Christianity.

    Your authority is based upon what the evidence, or lack thereof, "seems to you." This is given to you, I presume, by the Holy Spirit.

    Why does it therefore make no sense that these early Church scholars were not also guided by the same Holy Spirit?

    I respect your position, Schrack. But I don't see the extensive, historical background to your viewpoint that I see in Wolseley's. (Remember, now, though, that I AM prejudiced...) The Baptist Church is a relatively "new kid" when compared to Catholicism. And it really does not reflect well upon your faith when you are permitted to pick and choose what YOU consider to be valid teachings from the early Church fathers. Fact is, without these successors to the Apostles, you would have no New Testament, and you would not have the "traditions" of the Trinity or even Sunday Sabbath!

    Just because you have a personal bone to pick over celibacy does not give you the "authority" to contest the validity of the Church. Look at it this way: Paul DISCUSSED the matter of celibacy. He found it to be admirable under certain circumstances. The Magisterium (did I spell that right, Wols?) INTERPRETED these circumstances as they apply to the priesthood. You interpreted this differently. What makes your "Holy Spirit" inspiration more valid than that of the Church?

    I have much to learn. I come to this board to do so. And I do admit, this discussion has been one of the most civilized that I have read ANYWHERE online. I thank both Wolseley and Schrack for their courtesy to each other, and to the other readers.


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  12. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +1,599
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    That's what you think. It'll probably be Monday, or even Tuesday, until I get a chance to sit down with this.

    Weekends tend to be my busy time. But I'll be back.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  13. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    >>>Tongue - in - cheek<<< Moment

    Ok, I might have to remind our guests this is a "No Spin Zone." :lol:

    Facts and sources only, please!

    Sorry, I had to laugh - I watch Oriley frequently, but I promise not to take on his interview skills for moderating! ;)
     
  14. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "This is a 2000-year-old source of information that has been researched and expounded upon by scholars far, far wiser than I shall ever be."

    Umm..most of which they don't take all of their theology either..and you are saying that we do that..:lol: well isn't that the pot calling the kettle black :)
    Thats one of our main points. They were PEOPLE and could be wrong, so we judge by the source alone and take the church fathers into account when we do, but not as inspired, but, as men (and women) like ourselves trying to "figure" it out.

    "You also base some of your arguments on some of these early Church scholars, yet on the other hand, you lump ALL early Church teachings into the "teachings of men." Wolseley has explained the Church's position that these "men" were continuing the Apostles' ministry, thus giving mankind Sacred Tradition.

    You argue AGAINST the councils which gave us the New Testament, yet continue to hold the Sola Scriptura defense of Christianity."

    See above ;)

    "What makes your "Holy Spirit" inspiration more valid than that of the Church?"

    Ahh..that seems to be a big question. What makes a "church father" or bishop have more of a connection to the holy spirit then I or you? For me that is a major part of the issue.
     
  15. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Louis -

    I really thing the bottom line here is authority. Scripture show us plainly that Jesus bestowed the authority of his church on Peter and his disciples. He breathed the Holy Spirit on the disciples and gave them the powers to forgive sin, among other things.

    And he promised the Holy Spirit would guide and protect his church even against the gates of hell. At the time - the first Christians, who were later called Catholic and was the first church - believed all these teachings.

    Jesus said "Church" not "churches". The Holy Spirit and Jesus are infallible, incapable of error and if the Holy Spirit is indeed leading Christ's church, then those teachings, beliefs, etc are protected from error. The Holy Spirit would not lead the church astray - Christ promised. So, all the teachings and biblical authors and scholars have been lead with Christs authority to the truths shared today in the Catholic Church.

    Its a matter of accepting what the bible says as it was meant. Most people who read and "study"the bible are not linguists, historians, etc who understand the time, the audience and the issues being addressed by the bible. Maybe you and some around here have the background, but most joes on the street don't. Yet they are told they can interpret the bible for themselves.

    And then we end up in the circular arguement of "I say it's red, but you say its burnt-orange."

    Where does it end?

     
  16. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +59
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Scripture show us plainly that Jesus bestowed the authority of his church on Peter and his disciples. "

    Umm..not really, he bestowed it on all his disciples, all Christians, not a select few.

    "Jesus said "Church" not "churches". "

    That's right, what is a church? Its a body of christians...not a demonimation.

    "The Holy Spirit would not lead the church astray - Christ promised. So, all the teachings and biblical authors and scholars have been lead with Christs authority to the truths shared today in the Catholic Church."

    Agreed, but HUMANS are faultable. Only christ was perfect. They can interpret anyway they want, that doesn't mean anything to me..I will put wieght on it and put it up against the scripture to see if its true.

    "Maybe you and some around here have the background, but most joes on the street don't. Yet they are told they can interpret the bible for themselves. "

    Yup, they can't but that's the difference between me and joe, I heard make disciples (ie involves LEARNING) not make converts.

    "And then we end up in the circular arguement of "I say it's red, but you say its burnt-orange."

    Where does it end?"

    At the bible. There are a few things I won't budge on, they are the same (usually) as yours. Infaultable word of God, Trinity, Christ as atoinment, faith alone. (well maybe most of them). Those are the basics of Christianity. The big difference between the catholic church and me is I believe that God isn't an elitest when it comes to teaching, he reveals his truth to all, not just certain church fathers.
     
  17. Kirkland1244

    Kirkland1244 Regular Member

    195
    +3
    Anglican
    God does reveal his will to all -- through the leaders of the Church he founded. This is not Gnosticism, where only the select few knew the big picture. There are no secret doctrines in the Catholic Church.

    If God really meant for us to be able to discern the truth just by picking up the Bible, how do you defend the fact that prior to the idea of Sola Scriptura being created by Martin Luther, there was really only one Church (split into two main parts, but mainly due to political issues and ecclesial organizational issues, not theology) -- but since that point the branch that says "its easy, just go back to what the Bible says" is the branch that has splintered nearly 30,000 times, and counting?

    If the Bible is so clear that anyone can see the right meaning, how come there are Methodists who baptize infants like the Church always has, and Baptists who call that a heresey? Why have some been duped by dispensationalism, pre-millenialism, the Rapture nonsense, while other have not?

    If the Holy Spirit's job is to show each individual believer the proper understanding of the Christian religion, then he's clearly failed.

    However, if his job is to protect from error and apostasy the Catholic Church, he has clearly succeeded, for Catholicism and its beliefs can be traced back as far as we have records (for evidence of this, read John Henry Newman's "The Development of Christian Doctrine," if you can).

    Kirk
     
  18. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    We had NO denominations before the 1500's. There was the church that split in two, but still had connections.

    Luther, one person, started the split into 30,000 different beliefs, yet there is really still ONE Catholic Church, why?

    Yes, its true, we have different rites - but we hold the same teachings.

    The second theme I get concerned about is why would you want to lean on your own understanding - alone? Are you infalible? Are you absolutely certain that you'd stake your own salvation and eternity by trusting just your knowledge and the "belief" that the Holy Spirit may (or may not) be guiding you?

    Your rather confident in yourself! Yes, we can read the bible (I do) and gather an understanding of the text. But I still rely on the source of knowledge, the folks who have studied and reviewed scripture to clarify what the bible is telling us. The doctor doesn't allow me to prescribe my own medicine, the police don't allow me to set and interpret my own laws...

    You have to have SME's to explain the fullness of the teachings. SME's ....Subject Matter Experts. If we were entrusted to understand and interpret the meanings of the bible - then how come there are 30,000 Protestant denominations? Because, each one of those 30,000 think they have the corner market on biblical knowledge.

    Where did those 30,000 folks get their knowledge? They sure didn't spend hundreds of years translating down, over and over again. They were not at the councils that voted and decided with the guidence of the Holy Spirit what the final cannons of the bible would be. No, no Protestants contributed one ounce of effort to the bible - but they sure snapped it up and decided to tell the authors that they have no idea what the bible is about.

    Kind of odd isn't it? Its like the school bully snatching the honor students homework and calling it his own. You would not have a bible to interpret if it were not for the Catholic Church. Think about that for a few minutes.
     
  19. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    ""Scripture show us plainly that Jesus bestowed the authority of his church on Peter and his disciples. "

    Umm..not really, he bestowed it on all his disciples, all Christians, not a select few."

    Louis--

    SHOW me in the Bible where Jesus BREATHED on his followers (NOT just the disciples!) and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. What you forgive will be forgiven, what you hold bound will be held bound in heaven." (John 20: 19-23)

    Further, while Jesus told his parables to everyone, he only EXPLAINED them to his disciples. (Matthew 13: 36; Luke 8: 9-10)

    At the end of Luke, Jesus opens the minds of his disciples to understand Scripture.

    The entire seventeenth chapter of John is a prayer by Jesus to the Father for his disciples and their journey into the world after he is gone.

    Also, in many references in the Gospels, Jesus dispatches "The Twelve" to do his ministry. In fact, at the end of Matthew, he sends his disciples out into the world to continue his ministry. These instructions are NOT given to great crowds, but to the disciples!! And Jesus WAS used to preaching to the multitudes.

    Again, as I have mentioned before, I'm a Catholic convert. I didn't blindly jump into the faith, I studied, I researched, and (for you sola Scriptura folks!), I turned to the BIBLE. And I believe I was guided by the Holy Spirit to see the foundations of the Catholic Church in God's Word.

    As the subject line of this post says, though, we are doomed to going around and around and around and...


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  20. KC Catholic

    KC Catholic Everybody's gone surfin'...Surfin' U.S.A

    +76
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Sounds like a couple of great 80's tunes! :lol:

    You spin me round like a record baby...or Round and Round by RATT! ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...