A question from a former non-Catholic, for non-Catholics...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks STM
That makes sense. sort of ‘it was the right decision for that time’ but then time and culture changes, so the Church adapts.
Yes, but the trouble is that not many understand what is meant by “the Church should adapt”.For instance, homosexuality is forbidden in scripture yet many Churches in adapting to the times accept it. There are many other such “adaptations” which are not only wrong but are also sinful. Where does that put these “churches”?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
QUOTE=Izdaari
;7182654]Any church that claims infallibility is wrong.

For the first couple hundred years of Christianity, 7 books of our bible were doubted by some, in certain parts, as to their canonical authenticity, and the CC settled the matter in the 4th century. So if the CC is wrong then they could have been wrong about the correct inclusion of books in the bible or correct exclusion of books from the bible - right?
That doesn’t mean they have the Gospel wrong, but if they make a claim to infallibility, that claim is wrong. Why is it so important to you to have that?
The CC had the authority and the chance to compile a completely different version of the bible that you own today, which would have led to a very fallible bible. How do you know that they didn’t? Perhaps it is because the holy spirit was guiding the CC to correctly compile the bible yes, no maybe???
 
Hey poet…That’s a great point, and the very reason why I became catholic.
=woodland
poet;7182680]Better yet, from where if not the Catholic Church does the Bible gain it’s authority? The Bible does not quote itself as the source of it’s own authority. If there is no Catholic Church, why believe anything written in the Bible?/

Non-Catholics will, no doubt, simply say: the Bible gains it’s authority from Jesus Christ. The only problem with that is the fact that Jesus did not give us a bible. Jesus left the world with a teaching church comprised of all fallible teachers, starting with the fallible apostles, and these fallible teachers proceeded to infallibly teach and infallibly write as they were moved by the infallible holy spirit and they entrusted infallible truth to their fallible successors, who were also moved/guided by the holy spirit which enabled them to safeguard those infallible truths and interpret the infallible bible, even though they were all fallible teachers, and enabled them to infallibly compile the bible in the 4th century. Take the ever presence of the Holy spirit in Jesus’ church (guiding His church) - out of the equation, and there would be no way to know, with certainty, that the bible is infallible. I eventually learned that 7 books were disputed as to their authenticity, in certain parts, by certain people, which is why the CC bishops convoked at the various 4th century successive councils to settle the dispute, once and for all. I was pretty shocked to learn this as a former protestant. I agree with non-Catholics who say that Jesus is the author of sacred scripture but he used fallible people to assemble it into one bound codified book, and we can trust that the Catholic church correctly chose the right books and correctly rejected the wrong books because the author of the bible is forever guiding His established church into all truth. As a former protestant, I just couldn’t believe that the author of the bible, would guide His church to infallibly compile the infallible bible but fail to guide the Catholic church when it came to other teachings, such as Purgatory, and fail to guide the CC regarding the correct interpretation of the bible.
I came to realize long ago, as a former protestant, one immutable fact:

No Holy Spirit…no Catholic church…no Catholic church…no infallible bible…
 
Vatican II was an ecumenical council, and as such, an exercise of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. As Extraordinary Magisterium, I must give my mental assent to it. Those statements in Vatican 2 which are dogmatic (for example, abortion is condemned in GS) in nature are infallible. Those statements which apply more to the way we do things (inclusion of the vernacualr in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass) are reformable. Did the CHurch promulgate error? No.
I don’t think the Orthodox would see Vatican II as very ecumenical, having an invitation as an observer is quite different than being a full participant.
 
This is a good question. The Mormon would tell you that their “prophet” can interpet the Scriptures without error. The Protestants would say that the Holy Spirit leads each man or woman through the Holy Spirit to a correct understanding of the Scriptures. Alas, this has resulted in multiple sects, all with different views.

The Eastern Orthodox, a church with a history as ancient as the Roman church (believers were first called Christians in Antioch of Syria), would say they are guided by their magesterium and sacred tradition to reach conclusions about accurate doctrine; the Anglicans feel similarly, although I believe they would also look to historic ecumenical councils as having strong (name removed by moderator)ut on the interpetation of Scriptures.
forgive me if I intrude here. in the begining there is One Church according to Scriptures.
they all tought infallible, agreed? because if they didnt then we should not take their word as true. now, today we have all these groups that separated themselves from the Church of the Apostles and teach not what the Apostles tought. the main question is, is there One Truth? where can we find this Truth? all one has to do is to follow the calendar. the history. if one is not interested in teh Truth, they just settle for whatever any man teaches. to say that the HS guide each one to the Truth when Truth differs is a lie and it is blasphemy against the HS. because the HS cannot teach lies. if Jesus teaches that the Body of Christ is true food and His blood is true drink, and someone comes along and says different, i assure you that it is not the HS but a spirit of lies. the HS agrees with the Father and the Son. there is no contradiction between them…
 
I don’t think the Orthodox would see Vatican II as very ecumenical, having an invitation as an observer is quite different than being a full participant.
It was not ecumenical in that sense. It was ecumenical in the same sense that Vatican I, Trent, the Lateran Councils, et al. were ecumencoal. All of the bishops of the welrd were invited.
 
Thanks STM
That makes sense. sort of ‘it was the right decision for that time’ but then time and culture changes, so the Church adapts.
Yes, bit it mist be understood, that there are certain things that can’t change. Abortion will always be wrong. Only men may enter Holy orders. Other things can change. What kind of music is appropriate for the Mass. Saints feast days. Anonymous vs. face to face confession.
 
I don’t think the Orthodox would see Vatican II as very ecumenical, having an invitation as an observer is quite different than being a full participant.
All the participants at an ecumenical council of the Catholic Church are only those Bishops from the various Churches in communion with Rome. All others may be non-voting participants ( primarily Orthodox Churches ) and observers ( Protestants, Muslim, etc. )

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
He does not refer to himself as such out of humility
The pope does call himself such. If he had been in that kind of a leading position, he would have identified himself. Instead there are three apostles mentioned frequently at important occasions: Peter, James and John.
They defer to him
Where exactly? As far as I know James was rather important. He was the one to declare the decision at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:6-21. He is the one who is being informed when Peter is rescued in Acts 12:6-19.
We was commanded to preach, not to write
Where exactly? Who is saying that writing was not a form of preaching? It just tells me about Paul’s importance…
He was forced underground. Paul did not have this impediment
Paul was persecuted and imprisoned, just as Peter was… Paul had to flee from persecution where he was preaching too…
Galatians 2:9 is the ONLY TIME in the Scriptures he is not named first.
If Peter was so supreme he would have been mentioned first everywhere, wouldn’t he? Why is it that he is not mentioned first in a passage as important as this one?
He was infallible, not impeccable. He was not rebuked for doctrinal error, but for practice.
By withdrawing from the Gentile believers to fellowship with the Judaizers who held a position he knew was wrong, Peter had in appearance supported their doctrine and nullified Paul’s divine teaching, especially the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.
 
The pope does call himself such. If he had been in that kind of a leading position, he would have identified himself. Instead there are three apostles mentioned frequently at important occasions: Peter, James and John.

Where exactly? As far as I know James was rather important. He was the one to declare the decision at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:6-21. He is the one who is being informed when Peter is rescued in Acts 12:6-19.

Where exactly? Who is saying that writing was not a form of preaching? It just tells me about Paul’s importance…

Paul was persecuted and imprisoned, just as Peter was… Paul had to flee from persecution where he was preaching too…

If Peter was so supreme he would have been mentioned first everywhere, wouldn’t he? Why is it that he is not mentioned first in a passage as important as this one?

By withdrawing from the Gentile believers to fellowship with the Judaizers who held a position he knew was wrong, Peter had in appearance supported their doctrine and nullified Paul’s divine teaching, especially the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith.
You really need to work on your exegetical skills. For example, Peter i mentioned by name more than all of the other COMBINED. When the Apostles ate listed, by name in the Gospels, Peter i always first, Judas is always last. This is significant don’t you think? James is an important leader in th early Church, but Pete is first. At the Council of Jerusalem it is Peter, not James that makes the pronouncement. James, a the leader of the Judaizers, is giving his consent to Peter’s teaching.
 
I don’t know what Bible you are using, but mine says :
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace,*** James answered, saying,*** Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Peter first spoke and testified of his own experience how God told him that gentiles were as the Jew in receiving the gospel. After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabus had their turn testifying of the miracles and wonders God wrought through them among the Gentiles, then James got up and pronounced his sentence. (Verse 19) It was James therefore who had the authority to make the decision, and it was James who being clearly the leader of that council, pronounced judgement in favour of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with the Gentiles but not requiring that they should needs be circumcised.
 
I don’t know what Bible you are using, but mine says :
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace,*** James answered, saying,*** Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Peter first spoke and testified of his own experience how God told him that gentiles were as the Jew in receiving the gospel. After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabus had their turn testifying of the miracles and wonders God wrought through them among the Gentiles, then James got up and pronounced his sentence. (Verse 19) It was James therefore who had the authority to make the decision, and it was James who being clearly the leader of that council, pronounced judgement in favour of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with the Gentiles but not requiring that they should needs be circumcised.
James only confirmed with Peter’s decision. All discussion stopped after Peter spoke. If James alone, then he probably would have sided with the Judaizer, since this was his opinion to begin with. eter waas the leader, NOT James.
 
I don’t know what Bible you are using, but mine says :
Acts 15:12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace,*** James answered, saying,*** Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

Peter first spoke and testified of his own experience how God told him that gentiles were as the Jew in receiving the gospel. After Peter spoke, Paul and Barnabus had their turn testifying of the miracles and wonders God wrought through them among the Gentiles, then James got up and pronounced his sentence. (Verse 19) It was James therefore who had the authority to make the decision, and it was James who being clearly the leader of that council, pronounced judgement in favour of sharing the good news of Jesus Christ with the Gentiles but not requiring that they should needs be circumcised.
And you are trying to discredit St Peter’s authority over the Church based on that one Scripture?
how about when Jesus paid St Peter’s taxes?
how about when he walked in the water?
How about when Jesus told him, Peter satan is trying to get all of you, but I prayed for you that when you return, you strengh your brothers.
how about when Jesus said, feed my sheep?
and many others. Jesus had chosen St Peter from the beginning.

now, I ask you, are you being obedient to Christ when He commanded Peter to feed His sheep and you refuse to accept to be fed by St Peter?
 
If the Holy Spirit guides and safeguards the Catholic Church, why were there so many divisions among Christians since the very outset, why did the Church behave so oppressively by executing so many heretics and ‘witches’, why such massacres as the “Massacre of St. Bartholomew”, why was there a Reformation at all, why was it 400+ years later that the Church adopted such Reformation requests as worship in the vernacular - and we could go on?
Code:
 As one from a Catholic/Protestant background, I find it difficult to believe either in traditional Catholicism with all of its doctrines not substained by scripture or in sola scriptura Protestantism which keeps producing new denominations.

 What I am finding more and more attractive is the 'big tent' attitude that seems strong among mainstream Protestants. Such groups as Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and others seem happy to tolerate varying views on doctrine among themselves and yet also work together regardless of such disagreements. I think that may be a model for the Christianity of the future. That will push to one side the whole idea that any one group has a monopoly on spiritual truth. God alone has that monopoly and I'm satisfied with that. Meanwhile, I live by simply faith in the goodness of our one Lord and Savior and am not offended when a fellow Christian and I disagree on, say, the lifelong virginity of Mary or the doctrine of transubstantiation. "Think and let think. Agree amicably to disagree. Work together in the service of God and humankind."

 The longer I live the more I tend to think that most Catholics I know remain loyal out of a sense of tribalism - loyalty to cult, to family, to tradition. They aren't that much into doctrine, and those that are doubt some of them. Most Protestants I know have a similar loyalty, though they are much more likely to switch from one denomination to another for all sorts of reasons, ranging from the dynamism of the preacher and Sunday School facilities to distance from home and the neighbors who invited them to their church when they first moved in. They may be Methodists in Omaha, Presbyterians when they move to Pittsburgh and Congregationalists when they retire near their daughter in Springfield, MA.
 
James only confirmed with Peter’s decision. All discussion stopped after Peter spoke. If James alone, then he probably would have sided with the Judaizer, since this was his opinion to begin with. eter waas the leader, NOT James.
James a Judaiser? I would like your thoughts on what you believe a Judaiser to be, and why James fits the bill.
 
James a Judaiser? I would like your thoughts on what you believe a Judaiser to be, and why James fits the bill.
A judaizer was one who said that circumsision, ad by extention the whole of the law, needed to be kept for salvation. Was James of this persuasion? Probably, as he was the head of the congregation in Jerusalem, and that is where the problem arose. The important thing to remember is that St. Peter settled the matter doctrinally, and James made a pastoral suggestion on how the new teaching was to be carried out.
 
If the Holy Spirit guides and safeguards the Catholic Church, why were there so many divisions among Christians since the very outset, why did the Church behave so oppressively by executing so many heretics and ‘witches’, why such massacres as the “Massacre of St. Bartholomew”, why was there a Reformation at all, why was it 400+ years later that the Church adopted such Reformation requests as worship in the vernacular - and we could go on?
Code:
 As one from a Catholic/Protestant background, I find it difficult to believe either in traditional Catholicism with all of its doctrines not substained by scripture or in sola scriptura Protestantism which keeps producing new denominations.

 What I am finding more and more attractive is the 'big tent' attitude that seems strong among mainstream Protestants. Such groups as Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and others seem happy to tolerate varying views on doctrine among themselves and yet also work together regardless of such disagreements. I think that may be a model for the Christianity of the future. That will push to one side the whole idea that any one group has a monopoly on spiritual truth. God alone has that monopoly and I'm satisfied with that. Meanwhile, I live by simply faith in the goodness of our one Lord and Savior and am not offended when a fellow Christian and I disagree on, say, the lifelong virginity of Mary or the doctrine of transubstantiation. "Think and let think. Agree amicably to disagree. Work together in the service of God and humankind."

 The longer I live the more I tend to think that most Catholics I know remain loyal out of a sense of tribalism - loyalty to cult, to family, to tradition. They aren't that much into doctrine, and those that are doubt some of them. Most Protestants I know have a similar loyalty, though they are much more likely to switch from one denomination to another for all sorts of reasons, ranging from the dynamism of the preacher and Sunday School facilities to distance from home and the neighbors who invited them to their church when they first moved in. They may be Methodists in Omaha, Presbyterians when they move to Pittsburgh and Congregationalists when they retire near their daughter in Springfield, MA.
You seem to have dismissed your argument against communion of the saints rather abruptly. You didn’t offer a counter argument at all. Now you switch to precieved injustices by the Catholic Church. Are you engaging in the doctrinal dance?
 
Peter was a man just as I am. Subject to fits of temper, impetuous, at times misguided and at times downright wrong. Yet yes, Jesus loved him. And certainly, chose him as one of the leaders of the early apostolic church, just as was Paul, James, Apollos, Aquilla, Barnabas and Timothy and others. There is no hint in scripture, anywhere, that Peter had any authority over the others.Whatever he received from Christ by way of promise, that also was offered to the rest of the church. Peter himself says that we are all living stones built together on the chief cornerstone, Christ, and built to make up a house for the presence of God.
He also tells us how we are to gain eternal life, and how to live a holy life now.
**2 Peter 1:2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as **his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these **ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
**
Note what Peter is saying here. It is the power of God operating in our lives that gives us all things that pertain unto life and godliness. Peter continues to tell us that this is through knowledge of Him, in other words, through a personal one on one relationship with the Lord Himself who has called us to glory and virtue, that is, righteous living.
Peter goes on to explain that it is through faith that we are partakers in His divine nature. Faith in what? Faith in God’s promises, which Peter says are exceeding great and precious.

**5 ¶ And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6 And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7 And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.
8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
**
And we have here a step by step instruction as to how we can come to spiritual maturity in our relationship with Jesus. This knowledge of Jesus Peter speaks of is not a knowledge about Him, but a knowledge of Him. This brings us to a personal level, a level whereby we can become personally acquainted with our Maker, a level whereby Jesus becomes our closest confidante, friend, and Saviour. A help when in need, a strength when weak, a guide when lost, a shepherd when in danger, a light when confused, a friend when lonely, an encouragement when afraid. So long as we remain attached to the vine Jesus, we receive from Him the sap, the life giving power we need to ensure our eventual salvation, the growth and fruit we need to produce healthy seed with which to sow the gospel in the hearts and minds of others through our preaching, writing, and example.
**9 But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
**
*The blood of the covenant, the blood of Jesus shed for us upon the cross of Calvary is sufficient to purge us from our old lives, and the resurrection power of the Holy Spirit gives to us all the power to live new lives. *
**10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
**
No word here that submission to any earthly power or bishopric is a necessary adjunct to our salvation.
16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

Peter and others were eyewitnesses to the glory of God. They not only heard His voice, but witnessed His power in the resurrection of Jesus and in all the miracles that He did among them, and through them after He had returned to heaven. So they didn’t make up the gospel story, it is as verifiable as any event in history, **yet Peter does not use any of these as the basis or foundation for faith, not even the voice of God Himself! because Peter says next
**
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Prophecy, Peter is saying, is even more sure to pin our faith and hopes in than a voice from heaven. The scriptures, the Lamp, therefore are the basis and foundation of all our belief and doctrine.
**20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

**

Man is not to interpret God’s word, for
**All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.**2 Timothy 3:16
It is the Spirit inside the believer that leads man to all truth, and man does this through study, line by line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little, the scriptures interpreting themselves.
 
Hi Brakelite,
I will comment candidly. I will attempt to steer clear from Bible usage since you will not agree anyway.

I completely agree that Peter is just a man like you and me. We do not in the least indicate that we take him as more than just that. If you say we do, know that you do not understand our belief of the pope. If anything, Saint Gregory the Great said it best: a pope is the “Servant of the Servants of God.” You are wrong that there is “no hint” of Peter’s primacy. Think about it. If there was “no hint” as you claim, the pope would not exist. I will let you make an honest search through the Catholic doctrine on this. There are plenty of books, magazines, sites, etc…

Your first comments on the verses… Well done! You should be Catholic!

Your second comments… No Catholic would disagree with you on this. A personal relationship with Him is of great importance!

Your third comments… I agree that Jesus blood is sufficient. (I suspect that was a subtle attack at the Eucharist but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.) I am not sure what you mean exactly by the “resurrection power of the Holy Spirit” but I get your point. Seriously, this is not an utter act of hubris but think about joining the Church.

Your fourth comments… Here is where the bias gets in the way of objectivity. I am only bias for Truth. You are bias for being right. Anyway, of course, there is not word of submission to “earthly power” there. There is also no word of God creating the world, of cows not being able to fly or of Protestants should come to the Church in those verses. It is pointless that you mention this. Besides, none of us submit to “earthly powers” or a bishopric from the sheer fact that they are bishops. Again, you do not understand it from our point of view just like humans cannot understand a bats point of view (interesting article by Thomas Nagel by the way: “What is like to be a bat?”). As a side not, my Bible is a little different. But yours proves our point even further with the word “minister”. One cannot minister without a ministry but I take it you will not agree.

I will comment on your fifth and sixth comments in one paragraph because they kind of mesh together. Please bare with my unorganized and technologically illiterate self. Ok… You might be one of the few Christians who think this. Do please correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that he went by prophecy (I will assume that you mean Scripture with the word “prophecy”) as basis for belief? He had no Bible. He only had what we call the Old Testament. He believed BECAUSE of his witness to Christ; others trusted him and the Apostles. He nor any others had the Gospels or any other part of the New Testament to refer to. Tradition comes to mind here. Anyway, read what you said, use your logic and look at the word “also”. I suppose it is a moot point to say that Peter is NOT saying what you claim he is saying. You are reading into it with a presuppositional bias (you may say I am doing that but, as a former atheist, I am as objective as they come) instead of reading out of it in context. Also, your conclusion is false simply because you are using something to prove that something. Nobody is allowed to do that. By the way, was that your private interpretation or was that from an outside source?

Your seventh comments… I think it is quite clear by now (if you have read up to this point) that you are disobeying one of two things: 1. Scripture or 2. Sola Scriptura. The Word of God is not for private interpretation, which the Church adheres to (that is, NOT privately interpreting). This is why the Church makes proclamations of meaning during difficulties. For example, divinity of Christ, Trinity, and Ever-Virgin Mary. This is also why we have “Doctors of the Church” and Fathers. These great men and women were moved by the Holy Spirit (many times literally) in their interpretations. This could hardly be considered private. You will disagree. In any case, man HAS to interpret God’s Word, but not privately. This is what the Church is for (among other things).

Your eighth comments… By definition, Scripture cannot interpret itself. Scripture could not even put itself together for Christ’s sake! The Church did it whether or not you like it or believe it. Scripture is profitable. Again, that proves our point. A man who says he believes and asks the Holy Spirit to guide him in Scripture does not necessarily imply a correct interpretation. You are trivializing the Holy Spirit. I beg that you please refrain from doing that as much as you think you are not. This is also another reason I strongly dislike advocating Sola Scriptura: it trivializes God’s Word and turns it into a textbook called Bible.

I am sorry if this seems overly critical. I am just a person living under authority and trust for others as we all do every day. Authority is everywhere outside of religion. The U.S. authorities make official “dogma” on certain things when something is ambiguous. It happens in schools, school district boards, sports, goverment, economic deals, international unions and treaties, etc… When it comes to authority in religion, Catholics do just that because and ONLY because of our belief (backed by Sacred Tradition, written and oral) that it is a gift from God, including the infallibility part. Do not criticize what you do not know. Each of our doctrines contribute to the whole picture. When one attacks a part, they fail to see the whole. Atheists do that all the time. If all Christians actually agreed and submitted to God’s living authority (a.k.a. The Catholic Church), imagine how many souls would come to the Church and have hope in an eternal salvation.

Anyway, these are just my thoughts. Please forgive me of any insults that I may have said unknowlingly. Take care and God bless.
Gregg
 
Hi Gregg, no offense taken and I actually understand your stand more than you may realise. I am a former Catholic, was raised and educated in Catholic institutions. I have been a Protestant for many years now, but the time I have been in this forum has brought to me memories long since forgotten. One thing I remember and am strongly reminded of is how much the ‘church’ dominates the Catholic mind. To my possibly over-simplistic perspective, it seems to me that the Bible is only the word of God if the church says so.
Another memory that I have been reminded of is how little Jesus features in the Catholic mind. When I was young the church was dominant, Mary featured regularly, but Jesus came up in conversation only rarely, and then only with a fear that placed Him at an unnecessary distance from the believer.That Jesus was a potential friend was never suggested, that He loved us was glossed over,; Mary was needed to placate His wrath.
Things have changed within Catholicism since I was one. It has been a long time. When I was a practicing Catholic the Bible was never referred to in any teaching. Scriptures, yes, but no-one explained where the scriptures actually came from.To me in those days the Bible was a book that sat on my paternal grandmothers shelf and something to fear. I couldn’t bring myself even to touch it out of some suspicion it may corrupt me. After all, it was less than 60 years before that time that Bible Societies were on the “syllabus of Errors” as heretical societies along with freemasonry.
When I gave my life to Christ over 30 years ago and it was recommended to me by a Protestant friend that I buy a Bible, I asked why?
So I rejoice that the Bible has taken a more prominent role in the life of the modern Catholic. But I am uncomfortable with the idea of deferring to mortal man the authority to decide for me what God is saying in the scriptures. If the Holy Spirit can teach the church, surely He can teach the individual within that church? For me as a Protestant I accept Jesus only as my authority; I stand or fall before Him and Him only as my Master. I do belong to a church, and in certain matters of church life they have authority over me and I am happy to submit myself to that authority, but one thing they do not have is authority to decide for me what I should believe in spiritual matters.
God bless, and thanks for your polite and carefully thought out reply. Appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top