Catholic? Why

[TexanKnight]

I want to exit this thread, but so long as there is poor theology I must jump in.

that seems self-serving. You keep providing poor theology. Is that so you will stay?

Firstly, let me observe that you expect me to understand Scripture without an infallible interpreter, and, which is perhaps more interesting, that you do so to. Secondly, who is Acts 20:28-30 addressed to? It’s the “overseers” or bishops:

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.

Given Catholic theology, verse 30 is remarkable:

“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth”.

So? When, in the OT, people from within “the Church” at that time distorted truth, God did not start a new Church elsewhere. Your example and verse mean nothing other than it is…a warning to be vigilant.

Bear in mind that Catholics must submit intellect and will to the magisterium, and that you take these verses to be addressed to Catholic bishops. Paul is saying flat out that some of your own number will teach heresy. These aren’t outsiders. These are people within the RCC magisterium.

Really? Exactly who did he specifically say? Why must you add words and meaning to a verse in order to make a point?

 

[Della]

I was making the point about the credentials Paul had to have to be considered a true apostle, and the verses you quote make my point. The reason he was accepted was because he, like them, could claim to be a direct messenger of Christ. That is what apostolic authority rests on, and why they are a group without peers. The popes, however, claim no immediate commission, no independent knowledge derived from immediate revelation, no personal infallibility, no vision of Christ, and no gift of miracles. That is empirical fact. They claim the same authority (like you said) as the apostles, without the reality behind it. The things that meant the apostles could teach authoritatively, the popes do not have. It’s an historical fact that corrupt, immoral and ignorant men have claimed (and bought) the “same authority” to teach and rule that belonged to men to whom the truth was supernaturally revealed, and who received their mission from God Himself.

The criteria you cite is not the criteria for being a bishop. It is the laying on of hands that passes on the authority not revelations or miracles. Jesus Christ is the last Word of God to man. No visions are necessary because no further word needs to be spoken to man. Christ founded his Church to speak for him, which he established on the Apostles who passed their authority on to bishops. That is the biblical way to know who has the authority to speak as Christ’s voice in the world.

And there is only one Church. The Catholic definition doesn’t fit the promises made to the Church in Scripture. But that’s for another thread. I appreciate the sincerity, but it is essentially patronising, and I could in return pity you for choosing Rome. It’s not objective or fair.

I had no intention of being patronizing–but I apologize since you took it that way. The marks of the Church are totally biblical. It is one, as Christ intended it to be. It is holy–how is that not biblical? It is catholic–universal, which is also what Christ intended when he sent the Apostles out to preach and baptize “all creatures.” And it is apostolic since it was founded on the Apostles.

GK Chesterton also said:
“They are always telling us that priests and ceremonies are not religion and that religious organisation can be a hollow sham; but they hardly realise how true it is.”

But that’s not all he said. I have read nearly everything GKC wrote and I can tell you he had very high regard for the priesthood and the liturgical life of the Church. He was merely saying that we cannot look to externals alone, which is certainly true. But the sacraments are not mere ceremony and the priesthood is more than the men who are priests. I know that he would agree with me about that.

 

[ffg]

Yes, everyone on the world today are sinners, even the pope goes to confession.

This is not new or surprising since as humans, by definition we are sinners.

This is what makes the Catholic Church so amazing.

Look at the USA right now, it is about to implode after only about 7 adult generations (somewhat adjusting for life expectancy).

Men are always going to screw things up.

There is no way that a Church lasts for so long with a few men as leaders after watching many of their own get ripped to shreds for the cause.

The Church exists because God wants it to exist. If it was in man’s hands, it would have wilted more than a thousand years ago.

Something to consider, the pope is elected, he does not rule as king, he guides as servant.

 

[PRmerger]

I want to exit this thread, but so long as there is poor theology I must jump in

I thought that you were an advocate for “private judgment”.

Or are you saying that there are some dogmas which one must espouse that are consonant with truth?

 

[Heart_Foam]

So? When, in the OT, people from within “the Church” at that time distorted truth, God did not start a new Church elsewhere. Your example and verse mean nothing other than it is…a warning to be vigilant.

Yes, the underlying problem is the Catholic definition of the Church as a visible organisation. A warning to be vigilant… to whom? Follow the thought through. If there’s going to be heresy preached from within the RCC, shouldn’t the laity be allowed to “test everything” as Paul said in 1 Thessalonians?

Really? Exactly who did he specifically say? Why must you add words and meaning to a verse in order to make a point?

I’m doing no such thing. He said, in verse 28, this time from the Douay-Rheims:

Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

PJM had no trouble saying it was addressing the bishops. I’m surprised at your complaint to be quite frank. Anywho. Then, verse 30:

“And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”

I’ll play along. So, Paul makes these comments to the bishops. Who do you say “of your own selves” refers to?

 

[Heart_Foam]

I thought that you were an advocate for “private judgment”.

Or are you saying that there are some dogmas which one must espouse that are consonant with truth?

I would wholeheartedly agree with that. I will also agree with Chrysostom who says that the necessary things in Scripture are all plain. He didn’t see the need for an infallible interpreter either. I’m just trying to get people to read the sentence in Acts 20:30 properly and ask the difficult question. Paul is quite clear that heresy will be taught in the church (it’s taught in many big charismatic churches), and I find it remarkable then that Catholics criticize anyone for using private judgment. You may write me off as a heretic, but, even if you place only the Catholic church ‘within’ Scripture, and all the separated brethren outside, verse 30 still says “even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.”

 

[Reuben_J]

“Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth”.

Bear in mind that Catholics must submit intellect and will to the magisterium, and that you take these verses to be addressed to Catholic bishops. Paul is saying flat out that some of your own number will teach heresy. These aren’t outsiders. These are people within the RCC magisterium.

Just want to correct this misconception about the Magisterium. This is a poor understanding of the Magisterium, the teaching office of the Church. Individual Catholics, be they are Popes, Bishops, priests or theologians are not members of the Magisterium unless when they are invited and formed to do so. There are individual Catholics who may teach in individual ways and may be heretics. They are not members of the Magisterium which has different levels.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Thread off topic and closed