Catechism vs Scripture

[Anna_Scott]

James, Before I launch into a discussion re “Sola Scriptura - Spriit Led Interpretation of the Bible;” I must ask you one question:

Do you believe that anyone outside the Catholic Church has a valid "Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible?"
Anna

The answer to your question is “Yes”. A person outside of the Catholic Church can have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of the Bible”.

Now let me ask you one back. Can multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” and come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?
Peace James

James, During my short time on these Forums, I have encountered and participated in discussions regarding interpretation of Scripture. Passionate opinions are flung at one another in arguing who has the authority to interpret Scripture, and whether or not there can be multiple interpretations of the same passage of Scripture. The word “Sola-Scriptura” defined in the Catholic Dictionary as, “Bible alone, with the exclusion of Tradition,” pops up everywhere.

At first, I argued passionately for Sola-Scriptura, stating my belief in “going straight to Scripture” and praying for discernment through the Holy Spirit.

I eventually had some very enlightening debates with an Episcopal Forum Member. I have to say that I finally realized, it is really impossible to interpret the Bible without any element of tradition.

This is a partial quote from my Post #59, (current Thread.)

. . . . . I think it is important to remember that we share our Christian history with the Catholic Church to the point of the Protestant Reformation–which has its own set of problems.

In these Forums, I have been arguing the issue of going straight to Scripture vs. Scripture interpreted in light of tradition.

In the last few days, I have begun to realize that many Protestant beliefs are also handed down as tradition. (I need to PM Forum Member Contarini-he would be proud of me.) We may have our Bibles open while in Bible Class or Church Service; but there is always a leader who is telling us what the Scriptures are saying. We are most definitely indoctrinated.

The writings of the church fathers are not just Catholic heritage, they are part of our Protestant heritage, as well. We share the same beliefs defined in the Nicene Creed.

It is not uncommon for Protestant teachers and ministers to refer to commentaries of other Christians. This is a similar concept as the Catholic Catechism. It is just less formal, usually from more recent authors, and no specific writings are held with equal esteem within the Protestant Sector.

Then there is the issue of the many Protestant Bibles. Not all are created equal. The most offensive to me are some of the Amplified Versions, which add commentaries to the main body of text of Holy Scripture—the commentaries are only identified by Parentheses. Joyce Meyer’s Amplified Bible is one example. This Bible also bears her name-another disturbing issue.

Nearly every Protestant Minister has a book out, now. Some have written multiple books. These are commentaries, which quote Scripture and then interpret the Scripture for the reader.

I am not saying that I am going to convert to Catholicism, but I do have a great respect for their faith. I enjoy these forums, because of the wealth of knowledge regarding Church history, which I cannot find in the Protestant Sector.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit gives us discernment of Scripture. I do not believe that we, as Protestants, can claim that the Holy Spirit only speaks to us.

After I posted the above, I looked back through other comments and found Catholic Member, JudieK’s Post #50. She said almost identical things. We both even mentioned Joyce Meyers. You would think the same person wrote both posts.

I have more to say later,
Anna

 

[SteveGC]

I personally don’t have a problem calling Catholicism a denomination…but only inasmuch as it is limited to the scope of that definition which states that it refers to an entity which possesses a name, or official designation.

And so long as it is clear that the Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Apostolic Church established by Christ. That She is the original Church, and all others are not only denominations themselves, but more appropriately identified as schisms.

 

[allhers]

It is generally not acceptible to “prrof text” and pull a single verse out of context, but rather look at overarching themes and see how the Scriptureds work together. That being said, there are no Biblical occurances of ordained women. Jesus ordained the APostles who were all men, so I would then ask for your precedent for the ordination of women. Priestly celibacy is a practice, and not a dogma, and therefore can change. But in Lukes’s Gospel, Jesus speaks about “eunuchs for the Kingdom” this could be taken as an endorsement (though not a command) for priestly celibacy. At any rate there are some married priests in the Latin Rite, and I believe the Eastern Rites allow married priests, but only for those who were married before ordination. Limbo was never dogmaticly defined. Purgatory is inferred by numerous passages that speak of the faithful being judged by their works. Also it is inferred in Revelation that nothing impure can enter heaven, which would indicate the necessity for a purifiaction process for those of us who have not obtaind saintly perfection in this life.

Thats all very good, and I found this about the Priesthood too.
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp

 

[Anna_Scott]

Regarding Baptism

. . . .Scripture says a man must be born of water and of the spirit to enter into heaven. First you must be born of water, that being the womb. Then you must be born of the spirit.Scripture said that you must be born again. Scripture NEVER siad you must be immersed or sprinkled to enter heaven. That is what we believe.

. . . .so when you say…“Scripture says a man must be born of water and of the spirit to enter into heaven”.–That doesn’t mean Baptism to you, right? Because it does to us. But you may have known that already, you didn’t ask, but I thought I’d let you know in case you didn’t.

So friend when Jesus Christ said in John 3: verse 5 "Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Mk.16:16 “16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.”

Mark 1:9,10, It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a
dove, descending upon him.

Another question that needs to be asked is why would Jesus Himself allow St. John the
Baptist to Baptize Him (Jesus), in the Jordan River (which is clearly water), and why, as
the Bible clearly says in Mark chapter 1:9,10 would Jesus be rising up out of the water if
water need not be used?

NLM: I hate to disagree with you, because you’ve had so many people responding with disagreements. So, hang in there, Christian friend. Having said that, I must say that many Protestants, including myself, believe water is a reference to Baptism.

John 3:4-6: 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

**NLM: If you claim that being born of water refers to the womb, that would be the same as saying, “unless one is born of the womb and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. **

There are O.T. references to water as cleansing, and that was a known Jewish practice at the time of Christ: Ezekiel 36:25: I will **sprinkle clean water **on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

The N.T. has many references to the Baptism of water by John—compared to the Baptism of Spirit and Fire by Jesus: Luke 3:15-16: 15 As the people were in expectation, and all were questioning in their hearts concerning John, whether he might be the Christ, 16 John answered them all, saying, "I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
**
Acts speaks of Repentance and Baptism working together for the forgiveness of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38:** And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

A more symbolic/allegorical meaning to Baptism is given in Romans 6:3-5: 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Another symbolic/allegorical meaning to Baptism is found in** Colossians 2:11-12:** 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The teaching of Christ sanctifying the Church and having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word is found in Ephesians 5:25-27: 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.

The “washing of regeneration” is found in Titus 3:5: 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the** washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit**,

Water is symbolic of cleansing of evil in Hebrews 10:21-22: 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

**The question of whether one can enter the Kingdom of God, without the Baptism of water is a separate issue.
**
It has long been argued that the thief on the cross was promised a place in paradise, and he was not Baptized with water. **The question is, was the thief Baptized with Spirit and Fire-the Baptism that comes from Christ? Did Christ, from the cross, accomplish the Baptism of Spirit and fire for the thief? **

The N.T. also contains a reference to “Baptism on behalf of the dead.” This could be interpreted as an indication that the early Church believed Baptism was essential to enter the Kingdom of God: 1 Corinthians 15:28-30: 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 29Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead?** If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?** 30Why are we in danger every hour?

For Catholic Forum Members, and others who are well studied in the writings of the Church Fathers, can anyone tell me if the practice of “Baptism on behalf of the dead” continued for any length of time after this reference in Scripture? What was the original purpose of this? (This is not a question for Mormon Forum Members-I already know the Mormon beliefs on this subject.)

Awaiting Comments,
Anna

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
The answer to your question is “Yes”. A person outside of the Catholic Church can have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of the Bible”.

Thank you for that informative post but, unless I overlooked it, I did not see an answer to the question I asked you in response you your question to me. I o note that, in my haste, I perhaps did not express the question clearly. I will repeat it here and clarify.

Do you believe that multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” can come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?

I could have answered your question with many caveats but did not. I am hoping that you will consider and answer the above question in the same simple way. That way we avoid getting sidetracked.

Peace
James

 

[allhers]

…The scripture I am referring to is the Bible I had at the time, the Bible of Jerusalem. I considered myself a good catholic and yes, these things did create much confusion for me as I am a product of the 60’s and early 70’s you refer to… NLM

Alright, we’ll put aside for a minute that I really have trouble believing that you use to
be a Cathoilic, let alone a Monk, its just that when you say things like this:
“Bible of Jerusalem”. See, I think anybody who use to be a Catholic and a Monk no less would at least know that its called the Jerusalem Bible not the Bible of Jerusalem. But anyway…

Since you say you are a product of the 60’s and early 70’s, let me explain the Mass to you in the way it was explained to me, in the early 60’s (same time frame as you), okay?

First we said a prayer before Mass, we asked for forgivness, kind of like the man in the
Bible, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” We were told that we were entering heaven,- we were before the throne of God, the angels and Saints, the Blessed Mother and all who had gone on before us were there. Of course Jesus, remaining hidden from us, but still with us, in the tabernacle, for love of us, as He is with us still. The Church is the Church Triumphant (those in Heaven), The Church Suffering (those in Purgatory, awaiting their entry into heaven after their final purification, as nothing unclean shall enter heaven, and those in purgatory, although they had already confessed their sins, they still needed purified before entering into His presence, but one day they too will be in heaven for all eternity.) The Church Militant is us here on earth. One Church, we are all members of His Body, Heaven, Purgatory and us here on earth, still on the journey. Does any of this ring a bell?

…continued.

 

[JRKH]

Alright, we’ll put aside for a minute that I really have trouble believing that you use to
be a Cathoilic, let alone a Monk, its just that when you say things like this:
“Bible of Jerusalem”. See, I think anybody who use to be a Catholic and a Monk no less would at least know that its called the Jerusalem Bible not the Bible of Jerusalem. But anyway…

Since you say you are a product of the 60’s and early 70’s, let me explain the Mass to you in the way it was explained to me, in the early 60’s (same time frame as you), okay?

First we said a prayer before Mass, we asked for forgivness, kind of like the man in the
Bible, “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner.” We were told that we were entering heaven,- we were before the throne of God, the angels and Saints, the Blessed Mother and all who had gone on before us were there. Of course Jesus, remaining hidden from us, but still with us, in the tabernacle, for love of us, as He is with us still. The Church is the Church Triumphant (those in Heaven), The Church Suffering (those in Purgatory, awaiting their entry into heaven after their final purification, as nothing unclean shall enter heaven, and those in purgatory, although they had already confessed their sins, they still needed purified before entering into His presence, but one day they too will be in heaven for all eternity.) The Church Militant is us here on earth. One Church, we are all members of His Body, Heaven, Purgatory and us here on earth, still on the journey. Does any of this ring a bell?

…continued.

Allhers,
Please do continue with this as it is most interesting.
I am a product of mid-LATE sixties and early seventies catachesis and I never heard the mass explained this way.
Since nlm is also a product of the late sixties/early seventies I suspect he may not have either.
Such was the erosion of the catachesis in the immediate post VII Church.
Thankfully catachesis is being rebuilt - but slowly.

Peace
James

 

[allhers]

…continued.
Since you say you use to be a Monk, I have here a little book that use to belong to
a relative of mine that is a deceased Priest (may the Lord have mercy on his soul.) Perhaps
this will be easier for you to understand.

When these actions are performed: We think of this:

When the Priest goes to the Altar…Jesus enters the Garden

When the Priest begins Mass…Jesus prays in the Garden

At the Confiteor…Jesus falls on His face to the earth

When the Priest kisses the Altar…Jesus was betrayed with a kiss

When the Priest goes to the corner of the Epistle…Jesus is led captive

At the Introit…Jesus was struck in the face

At the Kyrie Eleison…Jesus was denied by Peter

At the Dominus Vobiscum…With a look from Jesus, Peter is converted

At the Epistle…Jesus is led to Pilate

At Munda Cor Meum…Jesus is brought to Herod

At the Gospel…Jesus was scoffed at and sent back to Pilate

At the unveiling of the Chalice…Jesus’ garments were taken

At the offortory…Jesus is scourged

At the uncovering of the Chalice…Jesus is crowned with thorns

When the Priest washes his fingers…Pilate washes his hands

At the Orate Fratres…Pilate says to the Jews, behold the Man

At the Preface…Jesus is condemned to die

At the Memento for the Living…Jesus bears His Cross

When the Priest holds his hands over the Chalice…Veronica wipes the face of Jesus

When the Priest signs the Oblation…Jesus is nailed to the Cross

continues…

 

[allhers]

At the Elevation of the Host…The Cross is raised

At the Elevation of the Chalice…Jesus’ Blood flows from His wounds

At the Memento for the Dead…Jesus prays for the world

At Nodis Quoque Peccatoribus…The conversion of the thief

When the Priest prostrates before Host and Chalice…Jesus cries out, “I thirst.”

At the Pater Noster…The seven words of Jesus on the Cross

At the breaking of the Host…Jesus dies on the Cross

When the Priest puts part of the host in the Chalice…Jesus’ descent into hell

At the Agnus Dei…The conversion of many at the Cross

At the Communion…Jesus is buried

At the Ablution…Jesus is annointed

After Communion…Jesus’ Resurrection

At Dominus Voriscum…Jesus’ appearance to His disciples

At the Post-Communion…Jesus converses forty days with His disciples

At the last Dominus Vobiscum…Jesus ascends into heaven

At the final blessing…Descent of the Holy Ghost on the disciples

The sacrifice at Calvary and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are the same, only now, we
stand with our Blessed Mother and St. John at the foot of the Cross, it is an unbloody
sacrifice, as Jesus died once only. The Mass is the representation of that. OUr Lord offers
Himself for us every time Mass is prayed. Jesus Christ Himself prays with us and for us.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thank you for that informative post but, unless I overlooked it, I did not see an answer to the question I asked you in response you your question to me. I o note that, in my haste, I perhaps did not express the question clearly. I will repeat it here and clarify.

Do you believe that multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” can come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?

I could have answered your question with many caveats but did not. I am hoping that you will consider and answer the above question in the same simple way. That way we avoid getting sidetracked.

Peace
James

James,

I guess I didn’t answer your question. You are asking if multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” can come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?

I do not believe that God’s truth can be conflicting or contradictive. How could God contradict Himself? So, that would mean that those led by the Spirit in matters of faith and morals should be in harmony.

I do realize that it appears that I have just backed myself into a corner; and before me is the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church vs. the authority of the many Protestant Churches—that do, in fact, hold conflicting beliefs in matters of faith and morals.

Before, you do the victory dance :extrahappy:, consider these questions:

1. Who has it right?
2. Does the Catholic Church, alone, hold the “Spirit led” answers in matters of faith and morals?
3. Does the fact that Protestant Churches are not all in agreement in matters of faith and morals, necessarily mean that no Protestant Church can hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals?
4. Are there Protestant Churches, in agreement with one another, that hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals?
5. Is the Catholic Church wrong and lacking any “Spirit led” truth in the matters of faith and morals?
6. Are all Protestant Churches wrong and lacking any “Spirit led” truth in the matters of faith and morals?
7. Do Protestant Churches, in agreement with one another–and in agree with the Catholic Church–on the matters of faith and morals, hold the “Spirit led” truth, along with the Catholic Church?

I think question #7 is the most important to consider.

I believe that there are both Protestants and Catholics who are “led by the Spirit” in matters of faith and morals, and can therefore be in agreement.

I do not believe that all Protestants hold the “Spirit led Truth.”

I do not believe that the fact that Protestant Churches are not all in agreement in matters of faith and morals, necessarily means that no Protestant Church can hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals.

I welcome you comments,
Anna

 

[imkingdad]

You have been provided insurmountable and irrefutable references from Sacred Scripture regarding the Catholic Church. The fact that you claim to be a Bible believing Christian how do you justify ignoring and standing in disbelief of Sacred Scripture. Please do not insult us with your own fallible personal interpretation and expect Catholics to come running to you for spiritual guidance.

Thank you for a well documented & thorough Stand for the Faith.
Well Put! Too bad some come just to argue & aggravate and miss out on the great
opportunity to be educated and to grow in the Faith.

We can only hope that God in His infinite mercy will help these antagonistic and self righteous Sola Scriptura Christians with the gift of enlightenment.

Regards, Vivat Jesus!

 

[rocketrob]

Adam,
Going back to the original question in your thread, the following comments illustrate exactly how a Catholic (or non-Catholic for that matter) can use the Catechism and its scriptural references to clarify what the Catholic Church actually teaches on a particular subject. And since these types of questions often surface on forums, such as this one, you may see Catholics quoting the Catechism quite often. For one thing, a diligent Catholic will want to accurately represent what the Church actually teaches. For another, a lot of time, energy and emotion can and will be wasted by arguing about what someone ‘thinks’ or ‘was told’ that the Church teaches (ie, over a ‘straw man’ argument).

What happens to un baptised infants if they die and the fact they would go to a place called Limbo and never see the face of God.

Unbaptised infants go to heaven when they die.A forgiving loving God would do nothing else.

The following quotes from the Catechism stipulate the Catholic teaching on baptism, as well as the Church’s reliance on the mercy of God in regards to the death of unbaptized infants:

CCC Article 1257

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation (Jn 3:5). He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them (Mt 28:19-20). Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament (Mk 16:16)…

CCC Article 1261

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” (Mk 10:14; 1 Tim 2:4) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

rocketrob

 

[allhers]

Sorry, tried to quote someone but their quote didn’t show up because of the way they formed it.

 

[allhers]

James,

I guess I didn’t answer your question. You are asking if multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” can come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?

I do not believe that God’s truth can be conflicting or contradictive. How could God contradict Himself? So, that would mean that those led by the Spirit in matters of faith and morals should be in harmony.

I do realize that it appears that I have just backed myself into a corner; and before me is the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church vs. the authority of the many Protestant Churches—that do, in fact, hold conflicting beliefs in matters of faith and morals.

Before, you do the victory dance :extrahappy:, consider these questions:

1. Who has it right?
2. Does the Catholic Church, alone, hold the “Spirit led” answers in matters of faith and morals?

I welcome you comments,
Anna

As to your questions 1 and 2 above, I’d say that the Catholic Church has been given the fullness of the truth. As such, the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit is protected from error in matters of faith and morals…(which is when the Pope, speaking
ex cathedra, is infallible.) This has been done only a few times by any Pope.

 

[allhers]

…then there is this to help you understand more fully:

As from the first, God speaks to his Church through the Bible and through sacred Tradition. To make sure we understand him, he guides the Church’s teaching authority—the magisterium—so it always interprets the Bible and Tradition accurately. This is the gift of infallibility.
Like the three legs on a stool, the Bible, Tradition, and the magisterium are all necessary for the stability of the Church and to guarantee sound doctrine.

Sacred Tradition (CCC 75–83)
Sacred Tradition should not be confused with mere traditions of men, which are more commonly called customs or disciplines. Jesus sometimes condemned customs or disciplines, but only if they were contrary to God’s commands (Mark 7:8). He never condemned sacred Tradition, and he didn’t even condemn all human tradition.

Sacred Tradition and the Bible are not different or competing revelations. They are two ways that the Church hands on the gospel. Apostolic teachings such as the Trinity, infant baptism, the inerrancy of the Bible, purgatory, and Mary’s perpetual virginity have been most clearly taught through Tradition, although they are also implicitly present in (and not contrary to) the Bible. **The Bible itself tells us to hold fast to Tradition, whether it comes to us in written or oral form (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Cor. 11:2). **

Sacred Tradition should not be confused with customs and disciplines, such as the rosary, priestly celibacy, and not eating meat on Fridays in Lent. These are good and helpful things, but they are not doctrines. **Sacred Tradition preserves doctrines first taught by Jesus to the apostles and later passed down to us through the apostles’ successors, the bishops. **

Then it goes on to Scripture (for more, click here)
catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

(my bold above)

 

[Anna_Scott]

As to your questions 1 and 2 above, I’d say that the Catholic Church has been given the fullness of the truth. As such, the Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit is protected from error in matters of faith and morals…(which is when the Pope, speaking
ex cathedra, is infallible.) This has been done only a few times by any Pope.

Thank you for commenting on questions 1 and 2. How would you answer 3, 6, and 7?

1. Does the fact that Protestant Churches are not all in agreement in matters of faith and morals, necessarily mean that no Protestant Church can hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals?
2. Are all Protestant Churches wrong and lacking any “Spirit led” truth in the matters of faith and morals?
3. Do Protestant Churches, in agreement with one another–and in agree with the Catholic Church–on the matters of faith and morals, hold the “Spirit led” truth, along with the Catholic Church?

 

[JRKH]

James,

I guess I didn’t answer your question. You are asking if multiple persons who have a valid “Spirit Led Journey and interpretation of The Bible” can come to different and conflicting conclusions on matters of faith and morals?

I do not believe that God’s truth can be conflicting or contradictive. How could God contradict Himself? So, that would mean that those led by the Spirit in matters of faith and morals should be in harmony.

I do realize that it appears that I have just backed myself into a corner; and before me is the issue of the authority of the Catholic Church vs. the authority of the many Protestant Churches—that do, in fact, hold conflicting beliefs in matters of faith and morals.

Before, you do the victory dance :extrahappy:, consider these questions:

1. Who has it right?
2. Does the Catholic Church, alone, hold the “Spirit led” answers in matters of faith and morals?
3. Does the fact that Protestant Churches are not all in agreement in matters of faith and morals, necessarily mean that no Protestant Church can hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals?
4. Are there Protestant Churches, in agreement with one another, that hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals?
5. Is the Catholic Church wrong and lacking any “Spirit led” truth in the matters of faith and morals?
6. Are all Protestant Churches wrong and lacking any “Spirit led” truth in the matters of faith and morals?
7. Do Protestant Churches, in agreement with one another–and in agree with the Catholic Church–on the matters of faith and morals, hold the “Spirit led” truth, along with the Catholic Church?

I think question #7 is the most important to consider.

I believe that there are both Protestants and Catholics who are “led by the Spirit” in matters of faith and morals, and can therefore be in agreement.

I do not believe that all Protestants hold the “Spirit led Truth.”

I do not believe that the fact that Protestant Churches are not all in agreement in matters of faith and morals, necessarily means that no Protestant Church can hold the “Spirit led” truth in matters of faith and morals.

I welcome you comments,
Anna

Anna,
Thank you for your wonderful post.
Be at peace, for I do not wish to “back you into a corner”. I am not one of those who believe that the choice is all black and white.
You have asked some wonderful questions above and I will attempt to answer them later. Right now I don’t have the time or energy to devote to giving good and thoughtful answers.

Peace
James

 

[Anna_Scott]

My answer to that is as follows. No, I am not an expert but a humble pilgrim here on earth. MY experience in the Catholic Church, a 50 year experience was not a good one for many reasons.I am not the first person to leave the Catholic Church nor will I be the last. I am quite certain that many who profess to be Catholic simply sit in the pews and listen. I at least stopped living a lie and did something about it. If I am wrong with my choice, I will be accountable no one else. I can tell you I am very happy where I am now. Living a lie I believe is worse than moving on. Let me ask you this. Am I correct that the Catholic Church forbids the use of birthcontrol pills? If I am, then why are so many Catholic women on it? Is this living a lie. Have you noticed how few people go to confession, but still go to communion? Is that living a lie? I could go on but i won’t. I look forward to you reply.NLM

Anna,
Thank you for your wonderful post.
Be at peace, for I do not wish to “back you into a corner”. I am not one of those who believe that the choice is all black and white.
You have asked some wonderful questions above and I will attempt to answer them later. Right now I don’t have the time or energy to devote to giving good and thoughtful answers.

Peace
James

James: Thank you for your comments. I really did not feel that your were backing me into a corner. I just used that analogy to show that there is more than one way to look at an issue.

I look forward to hearing from you, when you are rested and “re-energized.”

Anna

 

[wmscott]

Thank you for a well documented & thorough Stand for the Faith.
Well Put! Too bad some come just to argue & aggravate and miss out on the great
opportunity to be educated and to grow in the Faith.

We can only hope that God in His infinite mercy will help these antagonistic and self righteous Sola Scriptura Christians with the gift of enlightenment.

Regards, Vivat Jesus!

Thanks, I hope that after the emotion of their visceral attacks against what Catholics believe that a little seed of light was planted. Some Protestants come here claiming to seek an understanding of the Catholic faith, and when an explanation is given as to why we believe the way that we do, the onslaught begins. We are wrong, we are not following Christ, and how dare we do this or that, or any number of other jabs that they can come up with. The problem is they are not here to learn about the Catholic faith, they are here to “Reform” us. Then it gets heated and when we provide massive amounts of references to refute their fallible interpretations, they drop out, deflect it, change the subject, or obstinately continue in blissful ignorance. Either way, the agenda is based on hatred of what they think the Catholic faith is, and all they want to do is argue and try to tell us how wrong we are.

Vivat Jesus! Brother

 

[Anna_Scott]

I have a question for Catholic Forum Members:

Do you believe the Holy Spirit speaks to Christians–as individuals–or just to the Pope or other Catholic leaders?