L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Wait, don’t go. You do realize that the promise of the Spirit guiding them into all truth was being made specifically to the Apostles, and not your “average Joe,” right?
- Status
N
Nicene
Guest
So I guess that when Jesus commanded:
16: But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.17: If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.18: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
And stated:
21: He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him."
Because he left the apostolic church in charge (unless again the Father didn’t grant Jesus prayer John 17)
He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Doreen, you’re misunderstanding what the verse says. Peter is not saying there is no distinction between them (the Apostles) and the gentiles. There isn’t even any Protestant in the world that would agree with this. Everyone admits that the Apostles held a special teaching role in the Church, and that they held authority in matters of teaching the faith. The only disagreement is whether or not this authority was passed down to their sucessors.
In terms of this passage, Peter is talking about how God made no distinction between them (the Jews) and the gentiles. Read Acts 10:9-48. Here, God reveals to Peter that the gentiles are to be accepted, because before that, Christ was viewed as only being for the Jews. (Note that God reveals this first to Peter, even though Paul is to be the Apostle to the gentiles; He does this because of Peter’s special role of primacy.) Here, God is showing that the gentiles should be accepted to. In verse 34, Peter says, “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality.” This is what he is talking about in chapter 15: that God makes no distinction between Jew and gentile. This is what the entire council in chapter 15 was about: do gentiles have to be circumcised, and follow other Jewish rituals, to be taken into the Christian community?
When it speaks of rituals, that is what it is talking about. God doesn’t care about circumcision and other old Jewish rituals. However, some people were forcing the gentiles to be circumcised and whatnot to be welcome in the Christian community. The council was convened to decide whether the people did have to be circumcised (and follow other old Jewish rituals, like food laws for example) or not. They then make a list of the specific gentile things that the gentiles must give up (food sacrificed to idols, sexual immorality [many gentiles engaged in temple prostitution and worship of fertility gods], and from eating blood, which gentiles sometimes did).
But what do they NOT do here? They don’t read a word of Scripture. They convene, discuss it based on the Tradition taught to them by Christ, and make a decision. And in fact, we see something very interesting in line in verse 28, where James says, that it seemed good “to the Holy Spirit and to us” to make this decision, showing that they believed the Holy Spirit guided them in this decision. This is exactly how every ecumenical council since then has functioned :by the guidance of the Holy Spirit toward the truth.
N
Nicene
Guest
You do realize he is talking about no distinction between Jew and Gentile as regards to salvation right? Nothing in there said about they can interpret and make doctrine themselves. In fact the very council is held specifically because they can’t do so, go figure. Then again they didn’t have a NT yet, second they didn’t know the OT either and why they had to be taught, but hey who needs to be nitpicky.
Just goes to show when the average Joe goes and makes their own interpretation with their own tradition without regard to truth in light of apostolic tradition. Bible and tradition, hand in hand.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
I gather you didn’t read the first page of this thread with regard to the eucharist, posts #58, 59, 60, 62.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
D
Doreen
Guest
You Go! SolaChristo! I’m with you all the way and I think you did a beautiful job of summing it up. God bless! D.
N
Nicene
Guest
I would suggest reading Ignatius Epistles to the Smyrneans, Romans and Philadelphians as well as the Didache. Ignatius was the disciple of John the Apostle, given his Bishopric by Peter.
As well you can read Iranaeus, but they are rather long, but great reads. Against heresies is extremly good to see what the nascent church faced. Justin Matyr as well.
I think I pretty much covered the NT (though I haven’t gotten around to the tie ins with the OT which I will probably have to do sometime soon)
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
N
Nicene
Guest
Interesting, so regardless of the biblical evidence presented that needs no interpretation whatsoever, being plainly said by Christ and the apostles, you still hold to the “Me over Gods own words” doctrine.
I’m not being offensive, I just find that fascinating. Good luck on your journey Doreen and I wish you well Sola. Always remember the first step towards Gods will is complete surrender and servitude. Christ carries the rest of it.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
T
Tonks40
Guest
We don’t want to shake your faith - we just would like you to have a FULLER understanding of the faith given to you by God through Jesus Christ.
You don’t fear his questions…so why go??
M
mercygate
Guest
You’re on the right track. Being a believer means believing with the Apostles. When I interpret Hebrews 9 & 10 with the text from Deuteronomy, quoted by Jesus: “not by bread alone” and link it to John 6 and Jesus’ mandate to “do this in remembrance of me” I am “normal Joe” interpreting scripture for myself but my reading is with the Apostles – not against them or out of harmony with them: With them.
M
mercygate
Guest
Dummies! Actually, there is a new book out: Catholicism for Dummies and it’s really quite good: simpler than the *Catechism. *
Yeah. This should all go to other threads, but we’re having so much fun here, aren’t we?
Mass: Last supper (aspects in all 4 Gospels. This is my Body . . . Do this . . . in the synoptics).
Acts 2:41-42: So those who received [Peter’s] word were baptized, and . . . they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. (“Breaking of bread” is ‘code’ for celebrating the Eucharist.)
I Cor 11:29 For any one who eats and drinks without** discerning the body** eats and drinks judgment upon himself. (What “body” must they discern in order not to bring judgment down upon himself? The Body of Christ in the Eucharist.
On the main CA homepage there is a good tract about the early practice of the Eucharist. Check out their tracts section for some of your other questions.
What exactly is it about the Mass, personally for you, that troubles you?
Although I am a convert to Catholicism, I came from a church that celebrated the Eucharist (and called it “Mass”) every Sunday and several times during the week. My Presbyterian forebears celebrated “The Lord’s Supper” at least a few times a year. My Methodist friends did also. So I am unfamiliar with a tradition that does not celebrate the Lord’s supper in obedience to the Lord’s command that we do so.
M
mercygate
Guest
Aaaahhhh, Dorreen. Sola has made a humongous leap of judgment in his/her interpretation of John 16:13, where Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles into all the truth.
Sola says: Jesus gave each of us a promise that promise is that once He left then the Holy Spirit would be sent.
In that passage, Jesus is addressing only the eleven – nobody else is in the room.
This does not mean the we “normal Joes” do not receive the Holy Spirit for guidance but that the Holy Spirit will be sent to the eleven for their particular charism (special grace) of preaching and teaching. Paul delineates the various gifts of the Spirit, including the gift of “apostles.” He clearly recognizes a distinction in the charism for the apostolic office, which, I pointed out earlier in regards to the Magisterium, includes **teaching. **
Definitive teaching on Scripture must rest upon some court of last appeal when there are difficulties. Otherwise, it just boils down to:
My Holy Spirit can beat up your Holy Spirit!
Not!
Can too!
Your mother wears combat boots!
P
Philthy
Guest
Hi Doreen! 
Doreen:
“Likewise you younger members - BE SUBJECT TO the presbyters…”
Phil
Just for clarification sake, the question is NOT, “CAN any Joe interpret Scripture?”, of course Joe can - and Joe does, routinely. The question is, “How can Joe know when he has interpreted Scripture properly - ie in accordance with the intent of the holy Spirit?” That much being said, look at the conclusion you have reached. Does it really make sense to you? I think that in your conditional (IF,THEN)you have forgotten something Einstein taught us: everything is RELATIVE. In this case, the message of Scripture is that relative to the offer of salvation by God, there is no distinction - it is offered to all. However, relative to the empowering with the charism of infallibility (and other things) there is a distinction. Did you ever notice that, with the exception of Luke, all of the NT is Apostolic? Clearly there is a distinction between the Apostles and us in this respect, no? Furthermore, look to your own experience. Is there any evidence in your own life that not every believer can interpret Scripure accurately? Is it possible for Scripture to be correctly interpreted in contradictory ways? Clearly there are those who disagree with your (or my) interpretations of Scripture. According to your conclusion, when such a difference occurs you would have to conclude either that the holy Spirit contradicts himself, or that they must not be believers. Right? Im sure you dont believe that, but it is a necessary implication of your conclusion and a stance many still take. In the end, such an attitude is nothing less than elevating our own interpretation of Scripture above all others. Where is that in the bible?
“Likewise you younger members - BE SUBJECT TO the presbyters…”
Phil
C
chriskc64
Guest
Where is this in the Bible? Or is this an interpretation the Holy Spirit gave to you?
E
eaglesmark
Guest
hi…
The catholic doctrine reafirms it’s stand on Celibacy of the priests… but how do you think this verse should be interpreted?
1 Timothy 4:1-3, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and** doctrines of devils**; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Aren’t priests forbidden to marry?
thanks,
Eaglesmark
The catholic doctrine reafirms it’s stand on Celibacy of the priests… but how do you think this verse should be interpreted?
1 Timothy 4:1-3, Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and** doctrines of devils**; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Aren’t priests forbidden to marry?
thanks,
Eaglesmark
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
This passage is very specific to gnostics.
That being said, it is important to understand that it is not that Catholic priests are forbidden to marry. Catholic priests in many other rites are permitted to marry. Only those in the Latin rite are not permitted to marry. However, even in this case it is still a choice. Nobody forced a person to become a priest. In fact, you must understand the process of discerning ones vocation to the priesthood. It is not supposed to be that a person chooses to be a priest and then submits to celibacy. In fact, the first choice a person must make in his life is whether or not he or she would like to marry or to remain celibate. If the person chooses celibacy for God, then he must decide whether to remain lay or whether to pursue the priesthood or brotherhood.
N
Nicene
Guest
*11: But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12: For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”
1: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
2: But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.
3: The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband.
4: For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
5: Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.
7: I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
*
I don’t know, what do you make of what Jesus said. Paul practiced it as well. I guess they are of the church of Satan, no? Hrmm Jesus was celibate as well. Go figure.
Did you ever happen to notice how big catholic families are? Did you ever wonder why the only church still proclaiming contraception as intrinsically evil is the catholic church? Yet protestant churches all the while, suddenly this century have thwarted Gods plan of “Go forth and multiply.”
“Pastors, be married. Congregants, don’t have children, they are evil.”
I think one of my all time favorite protestant churches is “Liberated Christians”.
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
E
eaglesmark
Guest
Nicene said:
nicene,
if you would have to read v 6: I say this by way of concession, not of command.
See? he did not command this. He was just trying to tell us that we must avoid fornication. But if a man can avoid fornication that is he can contain himself, with out being married, and he chooses not to be married then go ahead it is your will not to be married.
But with the case of priests, priests are forbidden to be married if they wish to remain as priests. Aren’t they? Have you seen a priest, still in his priestly office and married? It is commanded that priests remain celebate.
Was there an exemption to 1 Tim. 2:1-3? There is none.is it written there that “priests exempted”?
E
eaglesmark
Guest
So, does it mean that i can still be a latin rite priest and still marry?
N
Nicene
Guest
How many rites are in the catholic church? Which rites may a priest be married in? Are there any latin rite priests that are married?
Get back to us when you have the answers.
Oh and by the way, you didn’t look up “Liberated Christians” did you? Here is another protestant group you should be interested in “The Shakers”
They both believe in Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura as well. Don’t forget that invisible umbrella of salvation you all have.
Just out of curiosity, do you believe in and say the Creed?
Peace and God Bless
Nicene
- Status