1 Timothy 3:15

[broski234]

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error and false beliefs. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

Protestants, what do you say in regards to the Sola Scriptura, the visible church, and this verse?

 

[mmplps7783]

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation. But then why does Saint Paul write that the Church, and not the Bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth? This is a powerful text that refutes the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) which erroneously holds that the Bible is the sole source of Christian truth (a theory which cannot be found anywhere in the Scriptures). Instead, Saint Paul says the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

This means that all the truth Jesus left us concerning faith, morality and our salvation flows from a living Church which, as we have learned, is built by Christ upon the rock of Peter and his successors. As the Catholic Church teaches, God has given us His truth in the form of the living word (written Scriptures and oral tradition) and the living teaching authority of the Church, endowed with the gift of binding and loosing. In fact, it is because the Church is the foundation of truth that we believe in the Bible. This is because the Catholic Church put the Bible together by determining which books were inspired and which books were not. The Church completed its selection of the “canon of Scripture” at the end of the fourth century. If the Catholic Church were not the pillar and bulwark of the truth, our belief in the Bible would be without foundation.

The Church’s compilation of the Bible illuminates the error of sola Scriptura. As alluded to above, Protestants generally believe that God has revealed everything that is necessary for our salvation through the Bible alone. Consequently, they also believe that no knowledge found outside of the Bible regarding the Christian faith is necessary for our salvation. However, the knowledge of which Scriptures belong in the Bible and which Scriptures do not is necessary for our salvation because if we didn’t know this we could be led into error and false beliefs. Further, this knowledge could only come from God because human beings cannot necessarily discern divine inspiration.

The problem, therefore, with sola Scriptura, is that the knowledge of which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not is not contained in the Bible. The Bible does not have an “inspired table of contents.” Instead, this knowledge of the canon of Scripture is a revelation from God that is necessary for our salvation, and yet came to us from outside the Bible . This revelation was given to the Holy Catholic Church, and this historical and theological fact destroys the doctrine of sola Scriptura (interestingly, while Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church on most matters, they accept her authority in determining the New Testament canon of Scripture; we pejoratively call such picking and choosing which doctrines to believe and which doctrines to reject “Cafeteria Catholicism”).

If I were a Protestant trying to prove sola Scriptura, and there was a verse that said “the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of the truth,” I would be proclaiming that verse from the roof tops. At the same time, if I were a Protestant, I would have to ignore 1 Timothy 3:15 to continue my protest of the Catholic faith.

Protestants, what do you say in regards to the Sola Scriptura, the visible church, and this verse?

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.
First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Guttenberg press was invented. Up until that point the Bible were written by hand. How many copies do you think were around in that era? Not to mention that many people were only functionally literate. Stained glass and art were the most common ways of teach Biblical stories (hence the reason why the church was so important).
Secondly, I would like to know what you mean by “rejecting the authority of the C.C”. I do not have the luxury of “picking and choosing” which doctrines to believe. I do know that if I did n’t follow what the Bible says and study for myself I would be like some- believing that: ineterracial relationships are a sin
Movies were created by the devil
Cutting my hair is a sin
Wearing pants (I’m a female) is sinful
Make- up is a BIG no,no
Do you get my point.

 

[Trishie]

What then do they make of these words that Jesus spoke?

“I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth…All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13,]

 

[Trishie]

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the pillar and foundation of the truth, and no knowledge outside of the Bible is necessary for our salvation.

What then do they make of these words that Jesus spoke?

“I still have many things to say to you but they would be too much for you now. But when the Spirit comes He will lead you to the complete truth"…"All He tells you will be taken from what is mine.” [John 16:8-9, 12-13,]

 

[JRKH]

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.

You are quite right in that it is difficult to generalize about what it is that “Protestants” believe. However I beleive that it is safe to say that “Most” protestant Christians believe in at least a fair degree of “Sola Scriptura”. That is that their faith is built on and derived exclusively from the Bible - and their own interpretation of it. You give a fine example of it below.

First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Guttenberg press was invented.

Now, this is an interesting interpretation of Paul’s words here. Especially given these facts.

1. The “Bible” as we know it today did not exist, and therefore Paul could not have been talking about “The Bible”
2. Jewish synagoges contained many - many scriptures and learning the scriptures was a part of Jewish life both then and now. So If Paul was founding the Church’s theology upon the written word, why did he not say that “Scripture” was the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
3. Jesus himself did not write a word that we know of. What He did do was empower His Church - Through the Apostles and their successors with the authority to Bind and Loose. The Church then used that Authority to record and canonize the books of the Bible you hold in your hands.

When Paul said “The Church”, it was because He meant “The Church”.

Up until that point the Bible were written by hand. How many copies do you think were around in that era? Not to mention that many people were only functionally literate.

Another good point. I would like to ask you though if you know which church did, from 400 AD until Guttenberg, hand copy, protect, defend, teach, translate, and evangelize the Bible? The answer of course is Holy Mother Church.

Stained glass and art were the most common ways of teach Biblical stories (hence the reason why the church was so important).

I’m sorry but “The Church” is important because this is what Christ founded. He built His Church upon men, empowered and protected by Himself, the Living Word, and guided by God’s own Holy Spirit.

Secondly, I would like to know what you mean by “rejecting the authority of the C.C”. I do not have the luxury of “picking and choosing” which doctrines to believe. I do know that if I did n’t follow what the Bible says and study for myself I would be like some- believing that: ineterracial relationships are a sin
Movies were created by the devil
Cutting my hair is a sin
Wearing pants (I’m a female) is sinful
Make- up is a BIG no,no
Do you get my point.

If I may ask a couple of questions based on the above.

1. On what Authority do you accept that this particular collection of books which we call the “Holy bible” is the true and complete Word of God?
2. Since you mention that you do not “study for yourself” may I ask who is your study guide?

Peace
James

 

[broski234]

You are quite right in that it is difficult to generalize about what it is that “Protestants” believe. However I beleive that it is safe to say that “Most” protestant Christians believe in at least a fair degree of “Sola Scriptura”. That is that their faith is built on and derived exclusively from the Bible - and their own interpretation of it. You give a fine example of it below.

Now, this is an interesting interpretation of Paul’s words here. Especially given these facts.

1. The “Bible” as we know it today did not exist, and therefore Paul could not have been talking about “The Bible”
2. Jewish synagoges contained many - many scriptures and learning the scriptures was a part of Jewish life both then and now. So If Paul was founding the Church’s theology upon the written word, why did he not say that “Scripture” was the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
3. Jesus himself did not write a word that we know of. What He did do was empower His Church - Through the Apostles and their successors with the authority to Bind and Loose. The Church then used that Authority to record and canonize the books of the Bible you hold in your hands.

When Paul said “The Church”, it was because He meant “The Church”.

Another good point. I would like to ask you though if you know which church did, from 400 AD until Guttenberg, hand copy, protect, defend, teach, translate, and evangelize the Bible? The answer of course is Holy Mother Church.

I’m sorry but “The Church” is important because this is what Christ founded. He built His Church upon men, empowered and protected by Himself, the Living Word, and guided by God’s own Holy Spirit.

If I may ask a couple of questions based on the above.

1. On what Authority do you accept that this particular collection of books which we call the “Holy bible” is the true and complete Word of God?
2. Since you mention that you do not “study for yourself” may I ask who is your study guide?

Peace
James

James, you took the words right out of my mouth.

 

[broski234]

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.
First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Guttenberg press was invented. Up until that point the Bible were written by hand. How many copies do you think were around in that era? Not to mention that many people were only functionally literate. Stained glass and art were the most common ways of teach Biblical stories (hence the reason why the church was so important).
Secondly, I would like to know what you mean by “rejecting the authority of the C.C”. I do not have the luxury of “picking and choosing” which doctrines to believe. I do know that if I did n’t follow what the Bible says and study for myself I would be like some- believing that: ineterracial relationships are a sin
Movies were created by the devil
Cutting my hair is a sin
Wearing pants (I’m a female) is sinful
Make- up is a BIG no,no
Do you get my point.

On one hand, you are right. It’s difficult to gauge what protestants actually believe because every protestant denomination disagrees with the others on at least one issue. It’s a **** shoot! So yes, it would matter which denomination your addressing because every protestant is free to believe what they want and what’s convient for them. James, pretty much took the words right out of my mouth, so please answer the questions at your convienence.

 

[mmplps7783]

You are quite right in that it is difficult to generalize about what it is that “Protestants” believe. However I beleive that it is safe to say that “Most” protestant Christians believe in at least a fair degree of “Sola Scriptura”. That is that their faith is built on and derived exclusively from the Bible - and their own interpretation of it. You give a fine example of it below.

Now, this is an interesting interpretation of Paul’s words here. Especially given these facts.

1. The “Bible” as we know it today did not exist, and therefore Paul could not have been talking about “The Bible”
2. Jewish synagoges contained many - many scriptures and learning the scriptures was a part of Jewish life both then and now. So If Paul was founding the Church’s theology upon the written word, why did he not say that “Scripture” was the pillar and foundation of the Truth.
3. Jesus himself did not write a word that we know of. What He did do was empower His Church - Through the Apostles and their successors with the authority to Bind and Loose. The Church then used that Authority to record and canonize the books of the Bible you hold in your hands.

When Paul said “The Church”, it was because He meant “The Church”.

Another good point. I would like to ask you though if you know which church did, from 400 AD until Guttenberg, hand copy, protect, defend, teach, translate, and evangelize the Bible? The answer of course is Holy Mother Church.

I’m sorry but “The Church” is important because this is what Christ founded. He built His Church upon men, empowered and protected by Himself, the Living Word, and guided by God’s own Holy Spirit.

If I may ask a couple of questions based on the above.

1. On what Authority do you accept that this particular collection of books which we call the “Holy bible” is the true and complete Word of God?
2. Since you mention that you do not “study for yourself” may I ask who is your study guide?

Peace
James

Maybe I should first clear up that I do study the Bible for myself. That is why I made the point about women wearing pants…but anyway let me see if I can answer your questions about what I believe.

1. I have searched many religions (J.W.,Mor,Bap,Meth,Pent,…) trying to figure things out (I have serious trust issues) and with the grace of God I have found that alot of religions claim basically the same things (God is God , Jesus is His Son, Mary was a virgin…) but they had differences as well. I just noticed that these relgions were based (if not loosely) on the Holy Bible but with their own spin and taking certain verses out of context. So I figured that since the only common denominator is the Holy Bible it must be right. Whether it is the “complete word of God” I don’t %100 know this. I will explain it like this. If God were to ask you to go to the store and buy a cheesecake would you wast your time trying to figure out which kind, (cherry- Catholics,Strawbery-Protestants) or would you think, “God knows my heart and how much I want to please him so I will bring just that plain cheesecake (the Holy Bible)” ?

2)I use everyone as my study guide and prayer. Not to mention that I ask for wisdom,discernment and lots of help from the spirit of truth.

 

[Soutane]

Christ came first.
The Catholic Church came second
The teaching Authority(Magisterium)came third
Holy Tradition came fourth
Holy Scripture(all 72 books-in other words the complete Christian Bible)as a direct result of the Church,Her Teaching Authority and Holy Tradition came fifth.
ALL of the above protected from innerancy by the Holy Spirit.

 

[JRKH]

Maybe I should first clear up that I do study the Bible for myself. That is why I made the point about women wearing pants…but anyway let me see if I can answer your questions about what I believe.

1. I have searched many religions (J.W.,Mor,Bap,Meth,Pent,…) trying to figure things out (I have serious trust issues) and with the grace of God I have found that alot of religions claim basically the same things (God is God , Jesus is His Son, Mary was a virgin…) but they had differences as well. I just noticed that these relgions were based (if not loosely) on the Holy Bible but with their own spin and taking certain verses out of context. So I figured that since the only common denominator is the Holy Bible it must be right. Whether it is the “complete word of God” I don’t %100 know this. I will explain it like this. If God were to ask you to go to the store and buy a cheesecake would you wast your time trying to figure out which kind, (cherry- Catholics,Strawbery-Protestants) or would you think, “God knows my heart and how much I want to please him so I will bring just that plain cheesecake (the Holy Bible)” ?

2)I use everyone as my study guide and prayer. Not to mention that I ask for wisdom,discernment and lots of help from the spirit of truth.

This is a very nice response. Thank you.
Also Soutane gives a very succinct listing of the order in which things came about. I hope you will consider this listing as it gives insight into why we accept the Bible in the First place.

When I was away from the Church (over 30 years) I too spent much time considering the various takes on religion, both Christian and non-christian. For a long time I figured that everyone had parts right and parts wrong so, like you, I didn’t trust anyone denomination.
One of the things I discerned in this was that most of the great religons were built upon Love. Love of God and Love of neighbor/nature etc. The same basic principle that Christ taught. However, no other faith had the claim of God’s son living and dying and rising for our salvation. This brought me back to Christianity.
Christian beliefs are of course was based largely upon the Bible but then the questions became Why these books. Who picked these and not others? Why, if the Bible is so important in discerning God, were there so many different denominations? It was the study of this which led me back home to the Catholic Church. For it is only the Catholic church (along with the Orthodox) among all of the denominations which can trace it’s roots directly to the apostles.
These factors, along with the fact that Christ DID found a church - With HIS authority - and not a book, sealed the deal.

I will add just one bit more. Since the Catholic Church predates “The Bible” by about 400 years, it becomes apparent that the bible itself is a part of Church Tradition. As such it is unwise to judge the Catholic Church by the Bible. Sort of like putting the cart before the horse. Those who do try to use the Bible to Judge the teachings of the Catholic Church misunderstand the role of each.

I offer this not as criticism of your response but simply as points to consider on your journey.

May God Bless.

James

 

[mmplps7783]

This is a very nice response. Thank you.
Also Soutane gives a very succinct listing of the order in which things came about. I hope you will consider this listing as it gives insight into why we accept the Bible in the First place.

When I was away from the Church (over 30 years) I too spent much time considering the various takes on religion, both Christian and non-christian. For a long time I figured that everyone had parts right and parts wrong so, like you, I didn’t trust anyone denomination.
One of the things I discerned in this was that most of the great religons were built upon Love. Love of God and Love of neighbor/nature etc. The same basic principle that Christ taught. However, no other faith had the claim of God’s son living and dying and rising for our salvation. This brought me back to Christianity.
Christian beliefs are of course was based largely upon the Bible but then the questions became Why these books. Who picked these and not others? Why, if the Bible is so important in discerning God, were there so many different denominations? It was the study of this which led me back home to the Catholic Church. For it is only the Catholic church (along with the Orthodox) among all of the denominations which can trace it’s roots directly to the apostles.
These factors, along with the fact that Christ DID found a church - With HIS authority - and not a book, sealed the deal.

I will add just one bit more. Since the Catholic Church predates “The Bible” by about 400 years, it becomes apparent that the bible itself is a part of Church Tradition. As such it is unwise to judge the Catholic Church by the Bible. Sort of like putting the cart before the horse. Those who do try to use the Bible to Judge the teachings of the Catholic Church misunderstand the role of each.

I offer this not as criticism of your response but simply as points to consider on your journey.

May God Bless.

James

Thank you for the advice. I have never thought of it that way. You would be surprised about my reasons for not following the Catholic religion. May God continue to bless you and your thoughts. Your attitude is one of the nicest I’ve encountered. Most people still don’t get the old addage about bees and honey vs vinegar

 

[WMM]

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.

**First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Gutenberg press was invented. **

Up until that point the Bible were written by hand. How many copies do you think were around in that era? Not to mention that many people were only functionally literate. Stained glass and art were the most common ways of teach Biblical stories (hence the reason why the church was so important).

Secondly, I would like to know what you mean by “rejecting the authority of the C.C”.

I do not have the luxury of “picking and choosing” which doctrines to believe. I do know that if I didn’t follow what the Bible says and study for myself I would be like some- believing that: interracial relationships are a sin
Movies were created by the devil
Cutting my hair is a sin
Wearing pants (I’m a female) is sinful
Make- up is a BIG no,no
Do you get my point.

During the time of St. Paul, the “scripture” was the Hebrew scripture, what we call the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn’t written yet. Paul would probably be amazed to learn the his old letters were included in the same book with the Hebrew scriptures. So it is wrong to say that the Bible was not readily available until the Gutenberg press was invented.

It hadn’t been written yet.

Paul and all of the other apostles taught primarily by word of mouth.

The 27 books that did make it into the New Testament got there by the authority of the Magesterium of the Church. And that list was not finalized until the fourth century.

Each book had to be judged to be ancient [written near the time of the apostles], orthodox [in agreement with what the Church taught orally], apostolic [traceable back to one of the apostles] and in wide use [as the letters of St. Paul were].

God love you.

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for the advice. I have never thought of it that way. You would be surprised about my reasons for not following the Catholic religion. May God continue to bless you and your thoughts. Your attitude is one of the nicest I’ve encountered. Most people still don’t get the old addage about bees and honey vs vinegar

Now you’ve got me curious
I can understand that you might not want to post them on the open forum, but If you’d like to PM me I would be interested to read them.

Thank you for your kind comments also.
I’ve always held that in these matters we must draw others to God and not push them. For the simple reason that in order to push someone you have to get behind them which puts you further from God than they already are.
does that make sense?

Peace
James

 

[mmplps7783]

Christ came first.
The Catholic Church came second
The teaching Authority(Magisterium)came third
Holy Tradition came fourth
Holy Scripture(all 72 books-in other words the complete Christian Bible)as a direct result of the Church,Her Teaching Authority and Holy Tradition came fifth.
ALL of the above protected from innerancy by the Holy Spirit.

Where does the Protestant Church come in?

 

[mmplps7783]

Now you’ve got me curious
I can understand that you might not want to post them on the open forum, but If you’d like to PM me I would be interested to read them.

Thank you for your kind comments also.
I’ve always held that in these matters we must draw others to God and not push them. For the simple reason that in order to push someone you have to get behind them which puts you further from God than they already are.
does that make sense?

Peace
James

Yes your comment makes sense:thumbsup: And on this thread I have no problem since it doesn’t have such a high volume of traffic I know that Catholics don’t “worship” Mary but I personally don’t feel comfortable with that much adoration. Yes I understand her role in my salvation and yes I appreciate it. I don’t think anyone else is wrong for praying to her. My problem is that from my experience with the Catholic Church most of the prayers are directed to Mary and only mention Jesus. I personally feel that it should be the other way around. Of course my experiences have been with the latin Catholic Church and maybe since they have that whole story about the Virgin appearing on some guys shirt that they feel closer to her but it makes me uncomfortable. If God is a jealous God and doesn’t want any other before him I’d prefer not to risk making him angry. And since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, I like to stick with him.
My other reason is that I heard that one couldn’t receive communion without going to confession. As long as I confess my sins to God I don’t see the need to confess them to anyone else.
Another reason is because I am a worshiper. I like to sing to God and pray and I feel like there is not enough worship in the Catholic Mass. I understand that for you the eucharist is the ultimate form of worship but even David (a man after God’s own heart) worshiped with song and dance. Every church is different i know but that is what i felt at the four that I have visited. I’ve gone with an open mind and heart and have left like something was missing. I don’t have that feeling at my church.

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by Soutane
Christ came first.
The Catholic Church came second
The teaching Authority(Magisterium)came third
Holy Tradition came fourth
Holy Scripture(all 72 books-in other words the complete Christian Bible)as a direct result of the Church,Her Teaching Authority and Holy Tradition came fifth.
ALL of the above protected from innerancy by the Holy Spirit.

The “Protestant Reformationi” (or revolt) came about some 1000 years after the canonization of the books of the Bible. As the name “Protestant” implies it came about in “Protest” of the Catholic Church.
Prior to that there was but one Church in Western Europe and that was the Catholic Church. She taught the faithful from the Bible as well as the deposit of Sacred Tradition, in other words from the full deposti of faith passed down from the Apostles and Early Church Fathers.
One of the Foundational Principles of the Reformation was that Scripture (The Bible) was supreme over the Church (even though the Bible contains no such statement). This resulted in what is called “Sola Scriptura”, or “Bible Alone” and holds that anyone can interpret the Bbiel on their own. Thus we now have thousands of different Protestant denominations that cannot agree on what the Bible says.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Yes your comment makes sense:thumbsup: And on this thread I have no problem since it doesn’t have such a high volume of traffic

I hope it continues this way as it is easier to have a conversation when there aren’t too many putting in different viewpoints.

I know that Catholics don’t “worship” Mary but I personally don’t feel comfortable with that much adoration. Yes I understand her role in my salvation and yes I appreciate it. I don’t think anyone else is wrong for praying to her. My problem is that from my experience with the Catholic Church most of the prayers are directed to Mary and only mention Jesus. I personally feel that it should be the other way around. Of course my experiences have been with the latin Catholic Church and maybe since they have that whole story about the Virgin appearing on some guys shirt that they feel closer to her but it makes me uncomfortable. If God is a jealous God and doesn’t want any other before him I’d prefer not to risk making him angry. And since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, I like to stick with him.

Frankly I was born and raised Catholic, though I was away for over thirty years, and I have some issues with this as well. However I am comforted by the fact that I am not forced by the Church to pray to Mary if I am uncomfortable with it. True there are references to Mary in the mass etc but there are references to many saints and to the congregation as well. So the long and short is that if you feel more comfortable “sticking with” Jesus and the Father, go for it (mainly I do too). That is certainly NOT against Church teachings.
Just keep in mind that Mary is the Mother of Jesus who is our Brother by our adoption to God. Therefore Mary is also Our Mother. As such she loves us her children, and we should show her a motherly respect and Honor.
(4th commandment - Honor thy Mother and Thy Father)

My other reason is that I heard that one couldn’t receive communion without going to confession. As long as I confess my sins to God I don’t see the need to confess them to anyone else.

Let me address this a little at a time.
First, since communion in the Catholic Church is “closed” one must be a member of the Church to receive. This is because St Paul among others cautions against recieving unworthily. I wasn’t sure if you were aware of this so I thought I’d point it out.
Second, the only time one would need to go to confession before recieving communion would be in the case of Mortal sin. Venial sin can be forgiven in the manner you describe, as well as during the penitential rite at the beginning of mass.
As to the idea of confession as a sacrament, that is more involved and I’ll leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that there is a strong deterrent factor involved with actually having to go and confess a sin to God in confession. We can sometimes “cut ourselves more slack” if we don’t have to face another person and confess.

Another reason is because I am a worshiper. I like to sing to God and pray and I feel like there is not enough worship in the Catholic Mass.

You lost me a bit here. I too am a worshipper. I get down on my knees and pray and worship my God each time I go to mass. This includes the time before mass when I pray that I be worthy, and the time after mass when I pray in thanksgiving.
I think that as you learn more about the Catholic Faith here your opinion might change on this.

I understand that for you the eucharist is the ultimate form of worship but even David (a man after God’s own heart) worshiped with song and dance.

The Eucharist IS the ultimate and most Intimate form of Worship since Our Dear Lord is entering into us - Body Blood Soul and Divinity. I can think of no more profound worship than this.
Yes David did indeed worhip with song and dance, but I doubt if he was doing this at the temple during the sacrifice. There are times and places for each. Personally I Worship God daily with praise and thanksgiving; song (but I don’t dance) and joy. I also worship Him with reverence and piety, contemplation and submission. All are worthy forms of worship, but the Mass is the Highest having been ordained by Christ Himself at the last supper and practiced continually from that time to this through Holy Mother Church.

Every church is different i know but that is what i felt at the four that I have visited. I’ve gone with an open mind and heart and have left like something was missing. I don’t have that feeling at my church.

Yes every Catholic Church is a bit different but in essentials they should be the same. I am sorry that you “felt something missing” but I suspect that it simply because you didn’t understand the mass itself, and you were bringing a certain expectation, or maybe preference with you. Not saying that it was intentional, but we all have our preferences - it’s only natural.
I’m glad you attended with an open mind and heart but please understand that the Holy Mass, like the Church is not a simple thing. To learn it and understand it is not an “emotional” thing. It requires a desire to grow as close to God as possible; a recognition that Christ Himself founded this Church and gave the Church His Authority to bind and loose.

I enjoy talking to you like this because you seem to be honest and forthright with your questions and accepting of our answers. I honestly think that once you learn a bit more about the Church, Her Teachings, Her History etc. you will find it intruiging and most attractive for,
while the Catholic Church recognizes that most protestant Church contain some elements of Truth, it is in Christ’s original Church that you can find “The Fullness of Truth”.

Peace
James

 

[DavWan]

I don’t know what most “Protestants” believe (I don’t think you do either) I only know what I as a Christian believe.
First, let me point out that the reason why St Paul said the church and not the Bible, was because the Bible was not readily available to all until the Guttenberg press was invented.

So Gutenberg and not St. Paul was really the true evangelist of Christianity? Keep in mind that when St Paul wrote 1 and 2 Timothy, the Gospels did not yet exist, and “Scripture” was the Old Testament.

Yet you would argue that the Church was only necessary until Gutenberg printed the Bible. Where then is this prophecy in the Bible that the Church would pass away once the Bible was printed?

Scripture was indeed called “profitable” (2 Tim 3:16) but nowhere did it say only Scripture was sufficient. The Bible nowhere says what works are canonical in the Bible after all.

Yet Jesus taught and St.Paul confirmed that the Church was necessary.

If the Church was the Bride of Christ, who was the one who issued the Divorce Certificate when Gutenberg printed the Bible?

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes your comment makes sense:thumbsup: And on this thread I have no problem since it doesn’t have such a high volume of traffic I know that Catholics don’t “worship” Mary but I personally don’t feel comfortable with that much adoration. Yes I understand her role in my salvation and yes I appreciate it. I don’t think anyone else is wrong for praying to her. My problem is that from my experience with the Catholic Church most of the prayers are directed to Mary and only mention Jesus. I personally feel that it should be the other way around. Of course my experiences have been with the latin Catholic Church and maybe since they have that whole story about the Virgin appearing on some guys shirt that they feel closer to her but it makes me uncomfortable. If God is a jealous God and doesn’t want any other before him I’d prefer not to risk making him angry. And since Jesus is the way, the truth, and the light, I like to stick with him.
My other reason is that I heard that one couldn’t receive communion without going to confession. As long as I confess my sins to God I don’t see the need to confess them to anyone else.
Another reason is because I am a worshiper. I like to sing to God and pray and I feel like there is not enough worship in the Catholic Mass. I understand that for you the eucharist is the ultimate form of worship but even David (a man after God’s own heart) worshiped with song and dance. Every church is different i know but that is what i felt at the four that I have visited. I’ve gone with an open mind and heart and have left like something was missing. I don’t have that feeling at my church.

you know, after reading your post i got to think. You have as much opinion as i do. so i wonder why our Lord did not ask for my opinion before He went around doing things His way.

yet, i say maybe He does not need my opinion, that He is sufficient and instead of want God do things my way i better do it His way.

how can i do it His way? well, if i pick up SS and try to enterpret any way i think things should be then we all gonna have problems since others could do the same.

Now, how can i discern the way of the Lord? if our Lord Himself taught man, i must conclude that those whom He taught would do the same as He did. just like He said to them.

the question is. who are these men that our Lord commanded to teach me about His Truth. everyone of us or just few?

how about this Church that our Lord spoke of? is this Church suppost to be based only from the Word written? then why was this Book not around even before this Church begun?

did the Apostles claim only what was written when going around converting the people into believing on Jesus?

**
BLESSED TO BE CATHOLIC.**

 

[WMM]

. As long as I confess my sins to God I don’t see the need to confess them to anyone else.

I have heard this from many of my Protestant friends.

If this is what Jesus had wanted, he would not have given the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. But He did.

Jesus wants us to confess our sins to a priest not for His benefit, but for ours.

Just my :twocents:

May God bless!