Beliefs of the Early Church

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

However, you are the one who said that this thread should not be about sola Scriptura and, yet, you are making that the very basis of your position. However, it is the conflicting interpretations of these very texts which are the source of our disagreement on what the Early Church believed.

I have come to the conclusion that you are not really interested in discussing what the Early Church believed but, instead, are only interested in giving your own interpretation of Scripture as though the Early Church agreed with you. Well, their own writings refute your interpretation. I will leave with a question for you and any other non-Catholics reading this. Who is more likely to have understood the fullness of what the Apostles taught; those who were personally taught by them or by those who were only one person removed from being personally taught by them, or us - coming along nearly 2000 years later? Those who were personally taught by the Apostles left writings - outside of Scripture - describing what the Apostles taught to them. These people in turn taught these same things to others who also wrote about what they were taught. None of them reject Scripture but they also accept the authority of the Church which, as I have shown above, is also taught in Scripture.

Don’t take my word for it, go and read what they wrote for yourselves and you will see that much of what Protestantism reads into the Scriptures was completely unheard of until Wycliff. He and the Reformers didn’t rediscover the ancient practice of the Church, the Reformers abandoned that practice.

Sola Scriptura (the belief that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith). You are right, I said I didn’t want this thread to be about that. My position is based on the Bible, not Sola Scriptura. I have simply used the Bible (which was written earlier than the historical documents that you can cite) for my position. Because - the early church is the one of the New Testament period. They are the earliest believers, so obviously if you want to get to the depth and beginning of the early church, you must go to the Bible. That has been my position all along. Sola Scriptura does not equal using Scripture as a source for this debate.

It’s not about my interpretation of Scripture. We have Scriptures written in english to understand. All you have to do is read it and study it. My beliefs are based on years of personal study and years of formal study of the Bible. As you would agree that the Scriptures are “God-breathed” so I believe. God moved holy men to write what He wanted them to write. That’s good enough of a source for me. All your historical documents come after the writing of the NT.

I thought being a member here and posting means that you are going to bring forth your individual thoughts and points you want to convey. Is that part of the purpose here? Yet everyone seems to think otherwise. Why come to a discussion forum if you don’t want to discuss what you believe? Doesn’t that seem ludicrous to you? I have always been perfectly interested in discussing the early church. Now that you don’t like my answers and can’t answer some of them you want to discontinue the discussion.

The problem here is that my beliefs are those I deduce from Scripture. When those conflict with official Catholic teaching, then the discussion is over with you guys. Case closed, right? Since you can’t deal with just Catholic teaching you decide to close up shop.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Your position is that if something isn’t in Scripture as it now exists then it is error. So this whole thread is pointless, because the early Church did ask the intercession of saints and did pray for the dead. Evidence abounds in the catacombs (and in 2 Maccabees) but what the early Church believed doesn’t count, if I understand you.

My position is that the Scripture is a better source of doctrine than any historical document from any other author you can show me. The early church (in my protestant mind) is the church as it is described in the NT. The early church (in your mind) is the church that existed after the NT up until ???.

Are you using the word “eunuch” to mean literally, “physically castrated” in opposition to Our Lord’s counsel? You were saying that there were no celibate clergy. That is simply not true. Presbyters, deacons and bishops are all in the NT. Is your problem here that the church has embraced for her clergy a discipline counseled by Our Lord himself for the sake of the Kingdom? I’m sure this is not how Scripture undergirds even the most anti-Catholic Protestant thought – though I remember my Protestant catechism very well: If Catholics do something, then it is, ipso facto wrong.

First, you mentioned the eunuchs. I mentioned that a eunuch (as shown in Scripture) is a castrated male. I also mentioned that a eunuch is not the same thing as a deacon, bishop or prebyter. In fact, if you read I Timothy 3:2,12 you see that bishops and deacons were expected to be married (at least once). I know Catholics claim that could mean they were married before being ordained, but of course I reject that claim because the text seems to speak otherwise.

The authority and the “power” were already entrusted to the Church. Roman primacy was already emerging in the second century and, founded in Scripture, can hardly be called “error.” It can be argued from history that the strength of the Church was a key to the survival of Christianity and to the growth of Christian culture.

Indulgences are an instrument of mercy. By what logic does a reasonable development (NOT the abuse, which no one denies!) become “error?” Wait. I know. It is error because because the development has occurred in the Catholic Church.

This thread is about the early Church. The second century Church accepted the primacy of the see of Rome. That’s a “belief of the early Church.” You will doubtless say that because it was a belief of the early Church doesn’t mean that it is right, and besides the Scriptures Catholics use in support of it don’t count. Like the ones in support of celibacy.

You equate development with error, which Newman so eloquently forecloses in his formidable Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine. As others have noted earlier, the formulation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity represents a “development” of the purest kind – drawing logical conclusions from the words of Scripture. The doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, particularly entrusted to the Apostles is Scriptural. The means of dispensing that mercy developed. Remember those primitive Church penitents. Indulgences were a mercy.
And aren’t we glad about that! For you, “development” is fatal, notwithstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. For us, it is part of how the Lord continues to enspirit his Church and to live with us and in us.

That’s what I do - using my God given mind and reasoning capabilities - I draw logical conclusions from the words of Scripture. What does this come down to? Interpretations? No. It comes down to who wants to be in authority. The Roman Church seeks to have the authority over all people all around the world (both politically and religiously) as it has always seem to want to do.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mtr01:

As has been pointed out, celibacy is a not a doctrine, it is a discipline that is firmly rooted in the New Testament. According to St. Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 7, NIV):

The Catholic Church is simply following the advice of St. Paul. A priest, more so than a layperson, is to be concerned with the Lord’s affairs. This situation is better than having the priest’s interests divided between the Lord’s affairs and the affairs of the world and pleasing his wife.

I have noticed that the argument about St. Peter has been brought up…that he was married. Let’s not forget, however, that he and the other apostles left everything behind when they followed Christ. Luke 18:28-30 (NIV):

Finally, even though the early Church ordained married men to be priests, you must understand that there were no “cradle Christians” around at the time. All Christians were adult converts (with their children) at first. Most persons eligible for the priesthood would have certainly been married. As a result, it would have been impossible to impose celibacy on them. However, it has been constant tradition that a widower who remarried was ineligible for ordination (St. Paul writes of this…“the husband of one wife”), and those married men who were ordained were expected to live a continent life with their wives as “brother and sister” after ordination. There is nothing inconsistent with the current discipline of celibacy and the practices of the early Church. One of many articles on the topic: Origins of Celibacy.

As for the issue of praying to Saints, I’ll refer you to the tract from Catholic Answers (the parent site) which has quotes from the ECF’s concerning intercession: Intercession of the Saints.

Thank you for your post.

Though (as I already pointed out) celibacy is only a “discipline”, isn’t it a requirement except in the case of a converted minister who is already married before his conversion? No one has disputed this, although some are oblivious to the facts.

If one wants to be a priest - he is expected to be celibate. It doesn’t matter if a lay person wants to be married - they have the full blessing of the church. He has a choice to make. He can either remain a lay person and get married (if he wants) or he can be a priest and be celibate. That’s the choice. He doesn’t have the choice to be a priest and married at the same time.

It’s a discipline, practice, expectation, doctrine - whatever you want to call it. Either way, it is a development and requirement not levied in the NT upon the preachers, teachers and apostles.

It was not a commandment by Paul - as he clearly states. It was an admonition to be like him. He was traveling extensively and the thought of others being missionaries and dealing with families was something he wanted them to avoid if possible.

For a priest or deacon or bishop to be remarried but remain incontinent deprives the spouse of natural enjoyment that God intended for marriages.

Luke 18 does not describe the apostles leaving behind their wives. Peter visits his mother-in-law and brings Jesus with him. Jesus heals her fever. If they left their families, they would be worse than unbelievers.

Peace…

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

The problem here is that my beliefs are those I deduce from Scripture. When those conflict with official Catholic teaching, then the discussion is over with you guys. Case closed, right? Since you can’t deal with just Catholic teaching you decide to close up shop.

No, like I said, the problem here is your false understanding of Catholic beliefs. The scriptures don’t conflict with Catholic belief. What I can’t deal with is you thinking you know Catholic belief when you obviously don’t. We know Catholic belief and use scripture to support it. When the scriptures support our belief, you are the one who says, “No it doesn’t. It says no such thing.” Like Revelation and the communion of saints and the references to Catholic (and Orthodox) liturgy…to us it is obvious, but to some protestants it is not because the liturgical tradition has been abandoned. That is my beef with you…YOU have the final say as to what scriptures mean for all of us Catholics.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

If one wants to be a priest - he is expected to be celibate. It doesn’t matter if a lay person wants to be married - they have the full blessing of the church. He has a choice to make. He can either remain a lay person and get married (if he wants) or he can be a priest and be celibate. That’s the choice. He doesn’t have the choice to be a priest and married at the same time.

People in the Catholic faith don’t just “want” to be a priest. They are called by God to be priests. And part of that call is the realization that they are to be completely committed to his Church. They have just as much right to not accept the call.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

No, like I said, the problem here is your false understanding of Catholic beliefs. The scriptures don’t conflict with Catholic belief. What I can’t deal with is you thinking you know Catholic belief when you obviously don’t. We know Catholic belief and use scripture to support it. When the scriptures support our belief, you are the one who says, “No it doesn’t. It says no such thing.” Like Revelation and the communion of saints and the references to Catholic (and Orthodox) liturgy…to us it is obvious, but to some protestants it is not because the liturgical tradition has been abandoned. That is my beef with you…YOU have the final say as to what scriptures mean for all of us Catholics.

I have read many Catholic teachings. I have read parts of the Catechism. I have a book that I read through and through called “Survey of the Catholic Faith” by Fr. Oscar Lukefahr.

You haven’t given any specifics about what I’m supposedly wrong about. Is it the celibacy? What is it?

I don’t have the final say about anything. God does. He may prove both you and I wrong. I don’t lord over you in any way, shape or form. My beef (not with you) is that the Roman Church lords over the rest of the world when it doesn’t have the right and has changed the Christian faith as it was originally bestowed upon the early believers.

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

People in the Catholic faith don’t just “want” to be a priest. They are called by God to be priests. And part of that call is the realization that they are to be completely committed to his Church. They have just as much right to not accept the call.

You continue to dance around this issue. Fact is, celibacy is a discipline, doctrine, practice, whatever that was not expected of the early believers or apostles or teachers or deacons or bishops, but is a wrongful addition that has had disastrous consequences.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

I have read many Catholic teachings. I have read parts of the Catechism. I have a book that I read through and through called “Survey of the Catholic Faith” by Fr. Oscar Lukefahr.

You haven’t given any specifics about what I’m supposedly wrong about. Is it the celibacy? What is it?

I don’t have the final say about anything. God does. He may prove both you and I wrong. I don’t lord over you in any way, shape or form. My beef (not with you) is that the Roman Church lords over the rest of the world when it doesn’t have the right and has changed the Christian faith as it was originally bestowed upon the early believers.

I gave you an example in what you quoted. The communion of the saints mentioned in the book of Revelation and the references to liturgical practices in the same book. You tell me I am wrong. I never said you were wrong about what was written. You ask us for evidence in the scriptures to support what we do and then we provide it, but you promptly tell us that what the scripture says cannot possibly support what we mention…like celibacy and the “people who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God.” You still haven’t said why that in no possible way could mean that the church has the right to institute its own discipline.

ahimsaman72:

You continue to dance around this issue. Fact is, celibacy is a discipline, doctrine, practice, whatever that was not expected of the early believers or apostles or teachers or deacons or bishops, but is a wrongful addition that has had disastrous consequences.

I am not dancing around the issue. To be a priest in the Church is a call. You don’t just say, “I want to be a priest.” It takes discernment, and if you can’t hold to the celibate requirement that the Church of Roman has set for its adherents, then obviously you were not meant to be a priest in the Church of Rome. Had disastrous consequences my foot. And don’t go mention the priest sexual abuse scandals because they are the only ones that get press because of the high profile of the Catholic Church. I have personally dealt with at least 2 episodes of children in Baptist Churches who have been molested by Baptist ministers, but you don’t hear people crying foul about that on the evening news. (Yes, I have personally dealt with them because I am a pediatrician, and parents bring their kids to me distraught over it wanting guidance. It is not just hearsay.) Was it a practice of the early church? No. But it is not a dogma/doctrine so it won’t necessarily be this way forever. And furthermore, just because the discipline was instituted later in the history of the Church doesn’t make it a bad practice.

I have not told you that you were wrong for your private interpretation of scripture. I have told you that you are wrong for saying we are wrong in our interpretation, and for telling us that the passages we cite are not meant to be interpreted as we do.

 

[WBB]

ahimsaman72:

I have read many Catholic teachings. I have read parts of the Catechism. I have a book that I read through and through called “Survey of the Catholic Faith” by Fr. Oscar Lukefahr.

Reading many Catholic teachings does not mean properly understanding those teachings. I have not come to my understanding of the Catholic faith simply by reading books, but by being open to God’s grace and living and experiencing the Catholic faith. This is what the early Church fathers did. The didn’t have the books of the New Testament in the beginning. The faith was taught to them and they lived it.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

Sola Scriptura (the belief that the Bible alone is the sole rule of faith). You are right, I said I didn’t want this thread to be about that. My position is based on the Bible, not Sola Scriptura.

This is disingenuous. You are basing your understanding on the Bible alone and your interpretation of it alone. This is indistinguishable between Sola Scriptura because you are doing this in order to determine what we are to believe about the practice of the faith.

ahimsaman72:

I have simply used the Bible (which was written earlier than the historical documents that you can cite) for my position.

You act as if we (or, at least, I) have not used the Bible. Yet I, and other Catholics, have cited from Scripture to support our views far more abundantly than you have to support yours. Additionally, the other documents that have been cited have only been to show that the Early Church of the New Testament period also believed as we do because they taught the same things we believe to those that immediately followed them.

ahimsaman72:

They are the earliest believers, so obviously if you want to get to the depth and beginning of the early church, you must go to the Bible. That has been my position all along. Sola Scriptura does not equal using Scripture as a source for this debate.

And, as I have pointed out all along, when it comes to differences of interpretation of the meaning of Scripture as held by the Early Church an additional source is valid for making that determination; otherwise we are merely projecting our own interpretation on them.

If you assert that we can only use Scripture alone for determining the beliefs of the Early Church then that assertion is effectively the same as sola Scriptura.

ahimsaman72:

It’s not about my interpretation of Scripture. We have Scriptures written in english to understand. All you have to do is read it and study it. My beliefs are based on years of personal study and years of formal study of the Bible. As you would agree that the Scriptures are “God-breathed” so I believe. God moved holy men to write what He wanted them to write. That’s good enough of a source for me. All your historical documents come after the writing of the NT.

Actually it is quite possible that the Didache was written prior to some of the letters of John as well as that of Jude. Regardless, you are again implying that we have not read or studied Scripture when we have cited more of it than you have. Also, you are assuming that you studies of what is written in the Bible has led you to the same conclusions and beliefs that were held in the Early Church. However, The New Testament Christians, some of whom wrote the additional writings I have cited, were taught directly by the Apostles and their writings contradict the conclusions of your study.

 

[theMutant]

ahimsaman72:

I thought being a member here and posting means that you are going to bring forth your individual thoughts and points you want to convey. Is that part of the purpose here? Yet everyone seems to think otherwise. Why come to a discussion forum if you don’t want to discuss what you believe? Doesn’t that seem ludicrous to you? I have always been perfectly interested in discussing the early church. Now that you don’t like my answers and can’t answer some of them you want to discontinue the discussion.

That is not accurate. I am perfectly willing to discuss them. However, I disagree with the claim that you are only presenting the beliefs of the Early Church when you post your personal interpretation of Scripture. If you are going to post your opinions based on your own study, then simply admit that this is the case. Don’t try to make unsupportable claims about how the Early Church agreed with your interpretation. You simply dismiss our own interpretation although it, too, is the result of years of study OF SCRIPTURE and is very clear and obvious to us.

ahimsaman72:

The problem here is that my beliefs are those I deduce from Scripture. When those conflict with official Catholic teaching, then the discussion is over with you guys. Case closed, right? Since you can’t deal with just Catholic teaching you decide to close up shop.

I’m sorry you feel this way. The fact is that it is Protestants who can’t deal with what Catholics deduce from Scripture. Protestants say that there is no infallible human authority for interpreting Scripture but then act as though their interpretation, based on their own study, is infallible. When challenged with an alternate interpretation, you just say we’re wrong, no matter how much Scripture we show to demonstrate the consistency of our beliefs with the Word of God. Ultimately, every Protestant holds for himself that same gift he claims doesn’t exist in the Church!

 

[WBB]

theMutant:

I’m sorry you feel this way. The fact is that it is Protestants who can’t deal with what Catholics deduce from Scripture. Protestants say that there is no infallible human authority for interpreting Scripture but then act as though their interpretation, based on their own study, is infallible. When challenged with an alternate interpretation, you just say we’re wrong, no matter how much Scripture we show to demonstrate the consistency of our beliefs with the Word of God. Ultimately, every Protestant holds for himself that same gift he claims doesn’t exist in the Church!

I have been saying this in every post. That Catholic interpretation is just rejected outright because it possibly disagrees with Protestant interpretation. You said it nicely, David.

By the way, you wouldn’t happen to have any relatives in New Orleans would you?

 

[ahimsaman72]

WBB:

Reading many Catholic teachings does not mean properly understanding those teachings. I have not come to my understanding of the Catholic faith simply by reading books, but by being open to God’s grace and living and experiencing the Catholic faith. This is what the early Church fathers did. The didn’t have the books of the New Testament in the beginning. The faith was taught to them and they lived it.

This is quite ridiculous. So, if I want to REALLY know what Catholic teaching is, then I have to become a Catholic and experience the Catholic faith? Isn’t the Catechism the guidebook of the Catholic faith? I’ve read that. Doesn’t that count? Or do I have to become Catholic and wait thirty years for understanding the Catholic faith?

This is not reasonable.

 

[ahimsaman72]

theMutant:

That is not accurate. I am perfectly willing to discuss them. However, I disagree with the claim that you are only presenting the beliefs of the Early Church when you post your personal interpretation of Scripture. If you are going to post your opinions based on your own study, then simply admit that this is the case. Don’t try to make unsupportable claims about how the Early Church agreed with your interpretation. You simply dismiss our own interpretation although it, too, is the result of years of study OF SCRIPTURE and is very clear and obvious to us.

You will claim from the Didache that this reflects the early Church.
I will claim that the writings of the Scriptures reflect the early Church. We both have to use documents to support our beliefs. You take your historical document, run it through your knowledge and reasoning and I do the same with the Scriptures. Everything that is my words I will always admit are my opinions based on knowledge, reasoning of my mind deduced from Scripture. Unless it is a direct quote from Scripture, it is obviously my opinion. So, why is this hard to understand?

You admit that I “dismiss” your interpretation - YOUR interpretation. Everyone has an interpretation, including the Pope. Interpretation does not equal silliness or evil.

I’m sorry you feel this way. The fact is that it is Protestants who can’t deal with what Catholics deduce from Scripture. Protestants say that there is no infallible human authority for interpreting Scripture but then act as though their interpretation, based on their own study, is infallible. When challenged with an alternate interpretation, you just say we’re wrong, no matter how much Scripture we show to demonstrate the consistency of our beliefs with the Word of God. Ultimately, every Protestant holds for himself that same gift he claims doesn’t exist in the Church!

If I didn’t believe my interpretation was correct, I would be an idiot. Who gives a belief or opinion without believing it to begin with? Of course I believe my interpretation is correct, but I have said in other posts (just recently at one of Catholic4aReason’s posts) that I am a fallible human being and I can be wrong. But, based on my knowledge, experience and knowledge and experience of others who have gone before me I believe I am correct.

We don’t claim infallibility. We claim to understand the infallible authority, the Bible, while Catholics claim the Pope as their infallible authority. This is not an unreasonable thing. The Bible is God’s revelation to man. We need no further revelation from a human.

 

[clmowry]

ahimsaman72:

We don’t claim infallibility. We claim to understand the infallible authority, the Bible, while Catholics claim the Pope as their infallible authority. This is not an unreasonable thing. The Bible is God’s revelation to man. We need no further revelation from a human.

How does claiming “to understand the infallible authority, the Bible” differ in any material way from claiming infallibility?

The Catholic Church, I, any member or pastor of any denomination get to make the same claim.

Yet we have dramatically different teachings coming from our understanding of the same infallible authority.

By claiming that your understanding is correct are you not simply claiming that infallible interpretation for yourself?

By rights I get to do the same.

So when we disagree on basic fundamental issues do we both get to be right? If not, then who decides which understanding is right? Do we take a vote?

Chuck

 

[RBushlow]

ahimsaman72:

This is quite ridiculous. . . . Isn’t the Catechism the guidebook of the Catholic faith? I’ve read that…

Unfortunately, Engish (and every other living language) is ambiguous and guidance is needed in correctly interpreting and understanding it. You do not have to become a Catholic in order understand Catholic teaching, but neither can you read a few books and properly understand the Faith.

May God always go with you.

 

[mtr01]

Seems like I forgot about this thread until it got bumped. Anyhow…

ahimsaman72:

You continue to dance around this issue. Fact is, celibacy is a discipline, doctrine, practice, whatever that was not expected of the early believers or apostles or teachers or deacons or bishops, but is a wrongful addition that has had disastrous consequences.

Of course it wasn’t expected of the early Christians…they were all adult converts (along with their families). At that time there were no cradle Christians. In order to appoint any priests or bishops or whatever, the pool would have consisted almost entirely of married men. This, however, in no way conflicts with the biblical bases of celibacy found in the Gospel or in the writings of St. Paul.

I also noticed in one of these posts you mentioned the verse in the letter to Timothy about the bishop being the husband of one wife. That actually is not a requirement in the way you suggest (that a man must be married to at least one woman to be a bishop). Taken in the context of what I posted above, all bishops to be ordained would have certainly been married. What this verse is stating is that a bishop cannot have been married once, been widowed or divorced, then married again. Further, it is tradition (and I’m sure one could find some writings to confirm this) that once a married man was ordained to the clergy, he was expected to live like “brother and sister” with his wife. Thus, the clergy were still expected to be celibate even though married.

As for the current converts who are married and members of the clergy, this does happen, but only in limited cases. Specifically, a covert who was a minister in one of only a couple of Protestant denominations (Episcopalian/Anglican and Lutheran I think(?)). If such a man continues to feel the call in the Catholic Church, he is allowed to be ordained and remain married (as it would not be prudent to break up the family). I would also point out that the Eastern Catholic Churches allow married men to be ordained to the priesthood.

Again, I don’t see the big deal here…

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

mtr01:

it is tradition (and I’m sure one could find some writings to confirm this) that once a married man was ordained to the clergy, he was expected to live like “brother and sister” with his wife. Thus, the clergy were still expected to be celibate even though married.

There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of married Catholic priests. All the Eastern Catholic Churches (Ukrainians, Melkites, etc.) accept it as the norm that their priests have wives and families. I doubt if they or their wives would be happy if they were told they had to stop enjoying the marriage bed!

 

[ahimsaman72]

clmowry:

How does claiming “to understand the infallible authority, the Bible” differ in any material way from claiming infallibility?

The Catholic Church, I, any member or pastor of any denomination get to make the same claim.

Yet we have dramatically different teachings coming from our understanding of the same infallible authority.

By claiming that your understanding is correct are you not simply claiming that infallible interpretation for yourself?

By rights I get to do the same.

So when we disagree on basic fundamental issues do we both get to be right? If not, then who decides which understanding is right? Do we take a vote?

Chuck

We can all make the claim, but it doesn’t make us right. When we cannot agree on a particular issue, then obviously one of us is spiritually blind to the truth as it is revealed in Scripture. I’ve brought this up elsewhere and used Scripture to show this. If you search for blindness in the NT you see this applied.

The common denominator I find among Catholics is that they are so bound up in authority and rights and this and that so much that the gospel of Jesus Christ is downplayed when compared to it. The truth is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is proclaimed in the Bible. That gospel saves people, not the Catholic Church, not the Baptist Church. No one can claim the power and authority of Christ Himself. He didn’t give His power and authority to Peter. He gave it to His church (of which He is the head) which consists of all believers.

 

[ahimsaman72]

RBushlow:

Unfortunately, Engish (and every other living language) is ambiguous and guidance is needed in correctly interpreting and understanding it. You do not have to become a Catholic in order understand Catholic teaching, but neither can you read a few books and properly understand the Faith.

May God always go with you.

I can understand John 3:16, can you? Only portions of Scripture are debateable. The majority is plain to understand. When I need clarification of a doctrine or belief I look to others. I look at those who have gone before me. I also look to my peers. I understand that two heads are better than one, so I take the above approach. That does not mean however, that I need a magisterium or Pope to define my beliefs for me and bind me to them.

Neither can you take protestants (or orthodox) as a whole and declare all as lacking understanding of the Christian faith. The Catholic Church does not hold the bag on all of God’s truth. God shares it with whomever He will.

Peace…