Some think it’s ill-advised. I think it’s useful to study comparative religions. Every priest and theology student that I know of has taken it, plus they teach it at our Catholic high schools as a required course.
We are commanded by Christ Himself to judge actions, speech, writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth.
It is ill-advised to attend non-catholic Bible studies if you are not well-grounded in the faith. It can be of some benefit if you are strong and knowledgable in the faith if you use it to compare views and contrast them with Catholic theology.
There’s a big difference between stepping into the wading pool of a classroom study of comparative religions and stepping into the shark tank of an encounter with non-Catholic theology in the wild. Priests and theologians study comparative religions because they have graduate degrees in Catholic theology. For a person without that kind of experience and education, the danger of walking into a non-Catholic study of Scripture is that he will be unable to discern the differences between Catholic and non-Catholic theology, and as a result, will walk away misinformed.
Right: if the Christians in Corinth have rightly discerned that Christ is God, and that their hope lies in Him and not in the attractions of the world, then they have accurately “judged the world.” Note Paul’s wording: he isn’t saying that Christians pass judgment on people, but on the world (the word he’s using here is ‘cosmos’). The point isn’t “now go out and judge all those nasty pagans out there!” but rather “now go out and seek resolution to the problems in the community by relying on the wisdom of the Church, not the wisdom of the local magistrate!”
I don’t fear hearing an opinion that may be wrong, because until I have checked it out I hold it as “their way of stating it.” Sometimes others say things I’ve never heard discussed by Catholics so it opens new avenues of interest to explore Catholic teachings. :bible1:
kpeople:
Yep, that makes perfect sense. Here’s the thing, though: the problem isn’t the things that perk up your ears and make you say “hey, that doesn’t sound right…” but rather, those things that make it through your internal filter. Moreover, there are things that we think we know and understand (but might not have as good a grasp on them as we think we do), so when someone pushes up on them, our misunderstanding prevents us from being able to mentally counter them – and our misunderstanding is now compounded by our projection of it on the topic at hand.
What if it’s something that you’d heard talked about by Catholics – but unbeknownst to you, these Catholics themselves weren’t accurately representing Church teaching? In that case, the Protestant teaching would act to affirm the erroneous notions you’d heard elsewhere.
I don’t think that it’s a matter of “I’m a more enlightened, more analytical, and more discerning person than those Catholics over there” thing.But I understand it’s hard for a lot of people to do that. To go where someone speaks emphatically and with presumed authority, and not believe everything they hear.
Exactly. That’s why it pays to keep building the filter!
Actually I’ve seen that a lot of places. People think they know something and then go around repeating because it either sounds right or it reinforces their previous thoughts or fits their religious “agenda” as it were. Sometimes when people come off like they know what they’re talking about I think, “something doesn’t sound right about that. I just can’t believe Jesus would have wanted it like this.” Then sure enough, looking into it more it turns out they were in fact.What if it’s something that you’d heard talked about by Catholics – but unbeknownst to you, these Catholics themselves weren’t accurately representing Church teaching? In that case, the Protestant teaching would act to affirm the erroneous notions you’d heard elsewhere.
In a lot of cases, I actually have done a lot of analysis or study on a particular issue – not so much an apologetic way but just as much philosophical and biblical. And I do find the stereotype of Catholics not knowing the Bible kind of feels like it has some basis. Which is why it is rewarding when I hear a Catholic who wants to know something, and I get to offer a wonderful scripture that helps them.
JOINT DECLARATION ON THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church
Absolutely – build the filter, without a doubt! The issue, though, isn’t whether you build it, but where you go to ‘build the filter’! A Protestant Bible study is not the right place. When one needs to build up his understanding, he goes somewhere that will teach him and build him up, not somewhere that teaches error and threatens to tear him down… right?Exactly. That’s why it pays to keep building the filter!
OK, but hold on – you’ve just moved the goalposts. The question wasn’t “what’s the best way for Mystical Seeker to learn the faith?”, but “is attendance at a Protestant Bible study the best way to learn the faith?” For you, there’s the chance that this is helpful; but, you’re projecting your personal experience onto others (in a way you already see is invalid – since you see that you don’t fit the characterization of a typical Catholic), and are now trying to say “what works for me is the best course of action for people in general.” That just doesn’t work.
The biggest recent example, was people were telling me that the Catholics and Protestant have signed a joint agreement on “faith” and “works” issue. Well gosh it turns out they do, and it’s on the Vatican website.
Case in point. You realize you’re helping me demonstrate my assertion, don’t you?But I see Catholics and Protestant insulting each other, because they did not “get the memo.”
I didn’t say I was building up my understanding, just opening new doors of discovery. But if you are afraid that hearing the point of view of a non-Catholic is going to mess up your own understanding, then by all means I heartily endorse your desire to stay away.Absolutely – build the filter, without a doubt! The issue, though, isn’t whether you build it, but where you go to ‘build the filter’! A Protestant Bible study is not the right place. When one needs to build up his understanding, he goes somewhere that will teach him and build him up, not somewhere that teaches error and threatens to tear him down… right?
You are right. And I think I was absolutely clear that this has worked for me, and it may be helpful for others. But no if I said this is the way to do things, then you misheard me. On the other hand, I get the impression that you are saying that except for me, you would give a blanket “stay away” to anyone who asked, unless they had a theology degree. So I am allowing the same options you are, plus adding some. Your advice therefore is more restrictive so I think it’s kind of cute that you wish to engage in intellectual banter over this.OK, but hold on – you’ve just moved the goalposts. The question wasn’t “what’s the best way for Mystical Seeker to learn the faith?”, but “is attendance at a Protestant Bible study the best way to learn the faith?” For you, there’s the chance that this is helpful; but, you’re projecting your personal experience onto others (in a way you already see is invalid – since you see that you don’t fit the characterization of a typical Catholic), and are now trying to say “what works for me is the best course of action for people in general.” That just doesn’t work.
Case in point. You realize you’re helping me demonstrate my assertion, don’t you?
You are exactly right. I fully intended to say Catholics v. Lutherans, knowing that Lutheran is a subset of “Protestant.” I didn’t even realize that until you just pointed it out so either I’m thinking of the Reformation (because I do a lot) or it was a Freudian slip maybe.“Catholics and Protestants have signed a joint agreement on ‘faith and works’”? No… not even close. Catholics and Lutherans have done so. And, it’s not even all Lutherans, but just some. If you go to some Lutherans (Missouri Synod, IIRC), they’ll tell you that this agreement doesn’t speak to their faith tradition. If you go to Evangelicals, they’ll definitely tell you that this is the case. Now… what’s this about personal exploration and inquiry leading to accurate representation of knowledge?
That’s one reason I like to cite my sources; so that when I type something in error, in case I can’t get back and correct it you have the reference to identify what I have done wrong. Therefore you have done well to filter what I wrote – luckily I provided you with the reference so you didn’t have to Google it yourself. Right? 
No – that’s a rather subtle misstatement of my position. It’s not “fear of messing up one’s understanding”, it’s the concern that, prior to having acquired a solid and complete understanding, one is at risk of acquiring a poor understanding. It’s an important distinction…
Not precisely: I’m suggesting that, if a person does not know what the Church teaches, he should first learn Church teaching. Then, later, if he wishes to study ‘comparative religions’, then that study can take place in a variety of contexts. But, those basics of Catholic teaching should be learned in the context of the Church.
Right. Because the only people who can be intellectual are ones who claim they have ‘open minds’?So I am allowing the same options you are, plus adding some. Your advice therefore is more restrictive so I think it’s kind of cute that you wish to engage in intellectual banter over this.
) isn’t that they “allow more options” or that they’re not “more restrictive”, but that they offer good, reasoned arguments. So far, your argument is “I have certain talents and experiences, and this has appeared to have worked for me, so I think I’ll recommend it as a good option in general.” 
Actually, no. Your citation didn’t at all address the issue I raised (i.e., that the Joint Declaration is not accepted by all Lutherans). You see, if one was self-taught, and only read references off the internet (and was not taught by a reputable Catholic source), he would have read your citation and concluded, “wow! All Lutherans agree with the Catholic Church regarding justification!”… and that would be a huge misunderstanding. Luckily, I provided you with information that you didn’t have and weren’t (ostensibly) aware of, so you didn’t have to hope to stumble upon it in Google at some point in the future. Right?Therefore you have done well to filter what I wrote – luckily I provided you with the reference so you didn’t have to Google it yourself. Right?
That makes sense. Learn the right stuff first, then go looking around at the other stuff. That’s a perfectly valid strategy; I have no problem with that.
Hee hee.Right. Because the only people who can be intellectual are ones who claim they have ‘open minds’?
Aww, that’s not fair. I thought I was really clear that I was not shoving this at everyone, and you went and selectively quoted me … and … and … :crying:In any case, the hallmark of an intellectual (a cute one or not
My point was this. I gave you my references, and you can draw your own conclusions. I gave you the tools to debug what I said. I thought I was helping you make your case, by being wrong myself, that you should check the references. Didn’t you say I was?Actually, no. Your citation didn’t at all address the issue I raised (i.e., that the Joint Declaration is not accepted by all Lutherans). You see, if one was self-taught, and only read references off the internet (and was not taught by a reputable Catholic source), he would have read your citation and concluded, “wow! All Lutherans agree with the Catholic Church regarding justification!”… and that would be a huge misunderstanding. Luckily, I provided you with information that you didn’t have and weren’t (ostensibly) aware of, so you didn’t have to hope to stumble upon it in Google at some point in the future. Right?
But by reviewing and correcting me, you “made them your own” by taking what I said and throwing out the parts I was wrong. It’s like you winnow the chaff from the wheat before you bring it to storage.