Attending an Anglican bible study

[catharina]

Growing up as a young man, one thing (among many) that I truly loved about Catholicism was that it never took a victim mentality. No Catholics I knew ever let the “idol-worshipper” or “Mary worshipper” or “not real Christian” silly un-educated charges get to them. They let it roll off and took the high road. They never were like a special interest group or a group of whiners. I loved it.

Sadly, as Catholicism has grown a very large, wealthy, influential, media-savvy machine like Catholic Answers, EWTN, Envoy, and other media outlets, we are seeing ANY criticism or intellectual challenge to Catholicism as “a vicious attack” or “anti-Catholic.” Some Catholics are doing what Jews did when Mel Gibson tried to make the Passion of the Christ. Instead of “anti semitism!!” we’re hearing “anti-Catholic!” at our every turn. It’s just ridiculous. The Catholic League that ole Bill Donohue is in charge of thinks if someone spits on the sidewalk it’s somehow a swipe at the Pope. It’s knee-jerk and a victim mentality that is totally unecessary. I would think Catholics would welcome a robust debate…

Who is the “we” you reference above?
You are a “you,” are you not?

So who is your imagined “we?”
Above, you say “we are seeing ANY criticism or … .”
Who is that “we?”

 

[Reuben_J]

I did not bring up the ECFs on this because it can be a very big subject. Beside the direction of the discussion has veered off from the OP’s intent.

.

The discussion here has demonstrated why Catholics should not go to another denomination’s Bible study if it is purely from a stand point of academic understanding of the Bible. Different denominations have different understanding of the Biblical verses; some of these may be in contrast to Catholic teachings. If it is mainly for faith and Bible sharing, then I suppose it may be beneficial but then again there is always limitation to the freedom that we can express ourselves in such group without peeving the others and vice versa. It can be quite draining if it is on a regular basis or if it is one’s main outlet in such activity.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Some Catholic bible studies diverge from Catholic official teachings as well. But I would generally agree. If a Catholic is 100% sold that the Church is the only interpreter of the Bible and that only the Catholic Church can be trusted to deliver truth, it goes without saying that that person should stick to Catholic bible studies. But the fact is that many bible studies in Catholic churches are not conducted by priests or even deacons, definitely not by bishops, so it’s hard to get pure magesterial bible studies without any individual interpretation or exegesis.

The discussion here has demonstrated why Catholics should not go to another denomination’s Bible study if it is purely from a stand point of academic understanding of the Bible. Different denominations have different understanding of the Biblical verses; some of these may be in contrast to Catholic teachings. If it is mainly for faith and Bible sharing, then I suppose it may be beneficial but then again there is always limitation to the freedom that we can express ourselves in such group without peeving the others and vice versa. It can be quite draining if it is on a regular basis or if it is one’s main outlet in such activity.

 

[catharina]

The discussion here has demonstrated why Catholics should not go to another denomination’s Bible study if it is purely from a stand point of academic understanding of the Bible. Different denominations have different understanding of the Biblical verses; some of these may be in contrast to Catholic teachings. If it is mainly for faith and Bible sharing, then I suppose it may be beneficial but then again there is always limitation to the freedom that we can express ourselves in such group without peeving the others and vice versa. It can be quite draining if it is on a regular basis or if it is one’s main outlet in such activity.

Agree with your post, Reuben.
A Catholic who seeks to “study” the Bible in a Protestant group makes an unwise choice.

 

[catharina]

Some Catholic bible studies diverge from Catholic official teachings as well. But I would generally agree. If a Catholic is 100% sold that the Church is the only interpreter of the Bible and that only the Catholic Church can be trusted to deliver truth, it goes without saying that that person should stick to Catholic bible studies. But the fact is that many bible studies in Catholic churches are not conducted by priests or even deacons, definitely not by bishops, so it’s hard to get pure magesterial bible studies without any individual interpretation or exegesis.

Yet they are always conducted by someone who has received the authority to do so.

 

[Reuben_J]

What about Nicea, Reuben?

Triune, I think yesterday you were telling me that it was the Catholic Church or something to that effect that interprets Mt 16 that the rock is Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. Triune, as you can see from the discussion (mainly between you and Nicea) that you are not quite correct. I will stop short of saying that you might have misled with that statement. It is common knowledge and stand of the Catholic Church that the rock is Peter. Of course the Church can explain the other perspective - that Peter’s confession of Jesus is the Christ as the foundation of the Church too. There is no conflict in the two; it is a matter of how one sees the differentiation.

If you quote ECFs that support your contention, as you can see from what I show you - that can work both ways.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Triune, I think yesterday you were telling me that it was the Catholic Church or something to that effect that interprets Mt 16 that the rock is Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. Triune, as you can see from the discussion (mainly between you and Nicea) that you are not quite correct. I will stop short of saying that you might have misled with that statement. It is common knowledge and stand of the Catholic Church that the rock is Peter. Of course the Church can explain the other perspective - that Peter’s confession of Jesus is the Christ as the foundation of the Church too. There is no conflict in the two; it is a matter of how one sees the differentiation.

If you quote ECFs that support your contention, as you can see from what I show you - that can work both ways.

Reuben, not quite. gurney had mentioned in one of his posts that some of the fathers interpreted Matt. 16:18 to mean Peter’s confession of faith. Nicea asked gurney to post the sources of that, indicating he/she didn’t believe what gurney was saying and/or wanted proof of gurney’s statement. I posted those quotes from the fathers mentioning their view of the passage due to Nicea’s request.

 

[catharina]

Triune, I think yesterday you were telling me that it was the Catholic Church or something to that effect that interprets Mt 16 that the rock is Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. Triune, as you can see from the discussion (mainly between you and Nicea) that you are not quite correct. I will stop short of saying that you might have misled with that statement. It is common knowledge and stand of the Catholic Church that the rock is Peter. Of course the Church can explain the other perspective - that Peter’s confession of Jesus is the Christ as the foundation of the Church too. There is no conflict in the two; it is a matter of how one sees the differentiation.

If you quote ECFs that support your contention, as you can see from what I show you - that can work both ways.

Also Apostolic authority, the Papacy itself, is directly derived from Peter as the “rock.”

 

[Non_Serviam]

Also Apostolic authority, the Papacy itself, is directly derived from Peter as the “rock.”

Beg pardon?

 

[catharina]

Beg pardon?

The Holy Father, the Pope, proceeds from Peter and occupies “the chair of Peter.”
It’s a matter of direct Apostolic succession. Sorry if that upsets you. It’s “old” news.

 

[Non_Serviam]

The Holy Father, the Pope, proceeds from Peter and occupies “the chair of Peter.”
It’s a matter of direct Apostolic succession. Sorry if that upsets you. It’s “old” news.

Not that part, the firt part of your quote

Also Apostolic authority, the Papacy itself, is directly derived from Peter as the “rock.”

Are you saying Apostolic authority is derived from Peter?

 

[I_Fortuna]

I am attending an Anglican bible study on Romans. The curch is definitely not Anglo-Catholic but I don’t think its at the other extreme either. The pastor told me they are “middle of the road” which is a team that has always confounded me. Anyway, the study is being lead by a member that was a former Presbyterian, but he converted to Anglican and is a big proponent of NT Wright.

It is apparent to me that there is some underlying bias towards Catholics - not strong, but I sense it. There are about 10 people in this thing and the pastor did mention that I was a Catholic. The group leader makes comments like “When Paul is addressing the Church of Rome, he does not mean Roman Catholics, Paul would not know what a Roman Catholic was” (snicker, snicker from the back).
To be fair, he has also made statements like Catholics believe the same basic gospel as the Anglicans so we are in communion with them. And he pointed out thet I would be welcome to receive the Eucharist there but he is not welcome to receive at my church.

I asked him if when Paul talks about justification, are we “declared” justified or are we “made” justified, and he went off on how he is not talking about a Catholic perspective and how we put too much emphasis on Mary. Mary! I asked a question about justification.

Now, I am enjoying the study very much, we are moving at about the pace of one chapter a night but I need some help. In light of the way my last question was received, I want to through this question out here first. He keeps saying that based on what he has read of NT Wright, He has come to the conclusion that Luther and the Reformers “got it wrong” with respect to “justification by faith”. He sited James and and other points where works come into play also. But he also says Roman Catholics got it wrong - I am going to have to ask about this.

But first to the forum - First, do you think he is regarding Roman Catholic theology as a “gospel of works” when he says this (before I tick him off by asking that), and second, is there a “Catholic perspective” on the “New perspective on Paul”? How is what Wright describes as justification similar/different to the Catholic position? We are only on Romans 4, but it sounds pretty similar so far.

By definition the Anglican Church is a Protestant Apostolic Catholic Church and says the Nicean Creed. They are a direct split from the Catholic Church in England. We are not in full communion yet, but rumors are we may soon be since allegiance to the Queen is no longer a religious requirement for Protestants.

 

[catharina]

Not that part, the firt part of your quote

Are you saying Apostolic authority is derived from Peter?

I’m saying that Our Lord appointed Peter to lead the Apostles.
Not James, John, Andrew, etc… PETER.

How can that surprise you?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

wow, so I dreamed up the whole assumption thing…hmmm

For the record, there is no Catholic doctrine declaring Mary as “ascended into heaven.”
You are confused about this. There is no such Catholic doctrine.

Now - why would any Protestant care at all about papal infallibity? What’s the point?
All Catholic Martyrs, pray for us.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’m saying that Our Lord appointed Peter to lead the Apostles.
Not James, John, Andrew, etc… PETER.

How can that surprise you?

So now you are saying that Apostolic authority isn’t derived from Peter?

 

[doughnut]

The discussion here has demonstrated why Catholics should not go to another denomination’s Bible study if it is purely from a stand point of academic understanding of the Bible. Different denominations have different understanding of the Biblical verses; some of these may be in contrast to Catholic teachings. If it is mainly for faith and Bible sharing, then I suppose it may be beneficial but then again there is always limitation to the freedom that we can express ourselves in such group without peeving the others and vice versa. It can be quite draining if it is on a regular basis or if it is one’s main outlet in such activity.

I think if a Catholic wishes to find out about other denominations then it make sense to go into their groups for understanding from their point of view - but if one is seeking understanding of their own catholic faith, going to other denominations might risked the state of one’s faith, due to differing intepretations.

Not to mention I have bad experiences of protestants who harrassed, coerced me into agreeing with them the moment I declared myself Catholic. I don’t go in there to start debates even, purely from a wanting to understand point of view. I met people who before I even say anything they were starting to ‘correct’ me by preaching against what they perceived Catholicism is about. With that said, I don’t mean I have something against protestants, or that all of them behave like that. I have met many wonderful understanding protestants as well; but just to note that one is putting oneself at risk if one opt for such a bible-study arrangement. There are some very ‘stubborn’ catholics who too had very strong views about their faith - but they are less likely to hammer you into ‘converting’ by virtue that you’re ‘of a same kind’…

 

[catharina]

wow, so I dreamed up the whole assumption thing…hmmm

Yes, it seems you did.

Christ Our Lord ascended into heaven.
His mother, Mary, was assumed into heaven.

You do recall that** you said Mary ascended into heaven**?
If you can’t recall that, go back and check your own post.

 

[catharina]

GH - Better yet, don’t trouble yourself. Here’s your post.

What parts of Scripture has the Church officially declared infallible? Most Catholics you’ll talk to will tell you the declarations about the Blessed Virgin Mary being Immaculate and being Ascended into heaven are the only two infallible statements in Church history that are definitely infallible? The rest Catholics debate. Some say Humanae Vitae was infallible, but a plethora of bishops, theologians, and lay people believe otherwise. Some say if no anathema is attached, it’s not infallible, some only if the pope says it’s infallible is it infallible. This is the problem with papal infallibility. It’s very loosely-defined by the Church herself and even more loosely-defined in here!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And you continue to not understand my answer, Nicea. I never said that the early church taught the pope had to elect bishops!! Go back and read it??!! I said that many Catholics NOWDAYS think that the pope has ALWAYS HAD the power to install and defrock bishops anywhere and everywhere at will. That is the essence of papal supremacy, correct? I stated that the early church shows us that he DIDN’T have that power. We never see such power or jurisdiction in the early church. That’s the point. I’m not side-stepping anything.

You are welcome to question whatever you wish, Nicea. I am not in the Catholic Church right now. And according to the catechism of the Catholic Church anyone baptized a Catholic, especially confirmed as one has an indelible mark of being a Catholic that cannot be removed. But in any case, I am not in the Catholic Church right now. This entire thread and the thin, skanty, poorly-reasoned arguments therein have only served to show me I am right at this point. But my personal life, yours, Catharina’s, etc. are not the subject of the debate. The issues are. But thanks for asking…or rather speculating

And you misunderstood my question or side-stepped it. I asked you tell me where the early church taught the pope had to elect the bishops? Second of all, simply because Augustine was elected or chosen does not debunk or disprove the primacy of Rome.

You say you are Catholic,but I am starting to question it.You seem more Protestant than Catholic and by a long shot.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never offered you advice, Catharina. Don’t flatter yourself. I’m a “hostile stranger?” LOL…I have almost 3,000 posts in CAF since 2007 and just about everybody knows me in here. Stranger? I’m a stranger? That’s a new one!

You didn’t learn a thing from me? Right back at ya, cathy. I did learn that you don’t provide Biblical evidence, you never provide quotes, you never provide data, and you very poorly apologize for Catholic teachings. You scream real loud and bark out Matthew 16:18 real nicely but apart from that you haven’t proven any cases to me either. I provided scriptural references, historical facts, quotes from ECF’s, etc.

How did I “attack” you. Drop the victim mentality, Catharina. I fail to see how any challenge to your view of the world is an attack. I’d also like to know where I had an “immature personal attack.” Again, I’m playing the world’s smallest violin.

Ihave a short fuse? LOL LOL It’s mirror, mirror time, Catharina. You can actually shout in your posts. Go back and review.

You are most welcome to your views. Bon apetite. I have no spiritual need to hear Matthew 16:18 quoted thirty times either. I know it well. And I know the rest of the Bible, too. If you’re so vehemently hateful, spiteful, and venemous toward non-Catholics and Protestants, then I suggest you quit coming into the “non-catholics forum?” That’s like a Giants fan wanting to camp out at Dodger Stadium??

Your mind is closed and made up. Best of luck to ya. Just don’t read Romans, Galatians, Colossians. That’s my recommendation.

Any time I need your advice as to how I should speak, think, debate, observe, act or exchange ideas with hostile strangers, I’ll be sure to let you know. You’ve proved to be a very hostile stranger - no one has “attacked” me and my posts more sarcastically than you and as for your teaching skills; I don’t need to learn a thing from you. That I failed to point out your immature personal attacks as they occurred doesn’t mean I didn’t notice them. I simply moved past them. Frankly I don’t think there is a single thing you can teach me other than info re your views and opinions and the fact that you seem to have a very short fuse. I have no spiritual need or personal need to learn another thing re Lutheran ideas or Anglican ideas. I’m a Catholic. I will always reject the errors of Protestantism. It’s a given. Your worldview is not mine. It is not given to me to embrace your ideas. Deo gratias.