C
Canto
Guest
Catholics are united to Christ and His Church
To be fully united to Christ one must be united to his Church too
After all, he instituted it!
- Status
To be fully united to Christ one must be united to his Church too
After all, he instituted it!
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Interesting belief… and if you continue to read your Bible, you will have a hard time supporting this belief. All Christians have some sort of thelogy. But not all Christians have biblical theology and biblical beliefs.
C
Canto
Guest
Christ set up a visible Church, if one is not a member of this Church, how can one be fully united to Christ?
Are all beliefs contained in the Scriptures?
If so, how many beliefs?
Surely we would need to know?
Are they all explicit or some implicit?
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
Are you saying that Jesus has seperated himself from His Church? That contradicts Scripture, which clearly states that the Church is His Body.I think if is more important to be in union with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Not to mention: “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”
Love is Patient
G
guanophore
Guest
I don’t believe that either word is used in any of the translations. However, I only have 13 of them here. The Gk. word “catholic” is translated in English as “throughout all”.
L
Love_is_Patient
Guest
If you do decide to swim the Tiber, bring the best parts of your Lutheran background with you.Thanks, but I’m not much of a Protestant since I’m considering ditching. Sometimes I feel like a traitor.
May God bless you as you discern.
Love is Patient
G
guanophore
Guest
Post it over in Apologetics - Sacred Scripture.
It is really off the topic of the thread. Trust me, 2nd, everyone in Apologetics is highly motivated to read their bibles.I just like to hang our on the non-Catholic Reglion, because I am catholic but not Catholic.We should discuss the Scriptures hear on the “Catholics need to read their Bibles”, so Catholics will be motivated to read their Bibles when participating on this thread.
You are right that the threads inspire us to study. Do you doubt that we are motivated to read our bibles?
I agree. What puzzles me is, why are you afraid of Apologetics? Do you imagine that non-Catholics don’t post there? Are you aware that you are welcome in all areas of CAF?
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you will further this goal if you post in Apologetics too.
This is the point, though, 2nd. We all understand what we read through the lenses we wear. People who wear Calvanist lenses see them in that perspective. Catholics interpret scripture according to what the Apostles believed and taught. It is important, when beginning to explore “what God reveals in the Scriptures”, to be cognizant of our lenses.
It may demonstrate that the construct of “essential” is a fallacy. Catholics have received the faith as a whole - an integrated deposit that was given once and for all to the Church. We are not at liberty to carve it into splinters arbitrarily and assign the construct of “essential” to some of it, and reclassify the rest. This is one of the elements of the framework with which Catholics read scripture.
I think you believe this because you don’t know what the Church has always believed and taught. You apparently also do not accept that your NT is Catholic. The reason these ideas are found in the NT is because they are Catholic. Justification by faith has always been Catholic. The Church has not “moved”.
Prior to the Reformation, persons claiming to be teachers of the Catholic faith misrepresented that faith, resulting in apostasy, heresy, and division in the body.
This is an excellent question, and I provided part of the answer in the previous post. We have been commanded by the Apostles to read it in conjuction with the Teaching of the Church. Failure to do so results in the ignorant and unstable twisting them, and making a shipwreck of their faith.
You are welcome, and encouraged to do this. It belongs over in Apologetics, under Sacred Scriptures.That is the purpose of the OP link written by a Catholic. I love to go a round or two with my Arminian Protestant brothers, forcing both of us to search the Scriptures daily. Why can’t we do the same here?If I am wrong on an issue or doctrine, I welcome my brothers to enlighten me through the Scirptures… alway reforming to the revealed will of God.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Apologetics is a whole different ballgame. Catholic apologetics is a defense of the Catholic Faith. Reformed apologetics is a defense of the Reformed Faith. I’m much more ecumenical nowadays since both Catholics and Reformed Christians know in part. I’m here to help the remnant chosen by grace to grow in their love for our Triune God. The Remnant is found in Reformed and Catholic Churches,; therefore, the only apologetics that makes sense is a defense of the faith with non-Christians.Post it over in Apologetics - Sacred Scripture.
It is really off the topic of the thread. Trust me, 2nd, everyone in Apologetics is highly motivated to read their bibles.
You are right that the threads inspire us to study. Do you doubt that we are motivated to read our bibles?
I agree. What puzzles me is, why are you afraid of Apologetics? Do you imagine that non-Catholics don’t post there? Are you aware that you are welcome in all areas of CAF?
G
guanophore
Guest
It would be interesting to understand how you see this. I do not see this at all.
I can only imagine that you don’t understand Catholic theology very well.
The NT came through the Catholic Church. It is all based upon the Old. I can’t imagine how you would conclude that it is “not important”.
’The Eucharist, the Source and Summit, is based entirely in the Passover, which is woven throughout.
What makes you think that Catholics donm’t believe in the remnant? There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic, 2nd. These things were included BECAUSE they are Catholic.
The reason some of us are offended is because you seem to make the assumption that “all Catholics” fail to read and study like our separated brethren. I do agree with the article, that Catholics do need to do exactly what he states. However, most of us that are on here do not need such barely veiled insults to give us “incentive”. If we did not enjoy searching the scriptures with others, we would not be here. You imply that we are not motivated, because we use a different framework and perspective than you do.
If you want to search the scriptures with us, we are ready. Post your invitation in Sacred Scripture.
No, I dont’ think so . I think the difference lies in the presuppositions in our communities.
They say that the HS works through these communities to bring people to Himself. They are clear that the HS does not lead believers in an opposite direction than the leading given to the Apostles.
No, 2nd, it is not. The two are both part of the One Deposit of faith. The only reason it seems to you as though they are not a seamless garment is that you are so far separated from Sacred tradition that you cannot see that they complement one another.
This is an excellent question. First of all let me stte that one does not “have personal time to read”. If one is serious about studying scripture, then one MAKES time for this. Like most spiritual disciplines, it does not just “happen”. When we read, we all understand what we read through our own perceptions, experiences, and education (or lack of it). Many individuals who read may reach conclusions that are not consistent with the Apostolic faith. They may not understand this until they compare their perceptions with what Jesus taught that is preserved in the Church by the power of His HS. This is why the Apostles instructed us to “hold fast to the Traditions”.
They prevent us from going astray.Smart and educated Catholics will do this, yes.
This varies depending upon each person’s particular spiritual disciplines. Daily communicants in the Latin Rite often meditate on the Readings for the Day that are part of the Liturgy. Religious (priests, brother, nuns) usually use the Liturgy of the hours. However, many also read, pray, meditate and study them very similarly to the way I am sure you do. Those of us that learned to read scripture with our separated brethren have adopted some methods taught to us by Protestant scripture scholars.
I don’t find it funny, 2nd. I find it very sad. The fact that you believe this demonstrates that you don’t understand Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or both. God does not “juggle” against Himself, and His revelation is entirely consistent with itself, whatever form it takes.It’s a balancing act juggling Sacred Scripture with Sacred Tradition… just having fun with my Catholic siblings.
G
guanophore
Guest
Of course you have, 2nd. You found what you wanted to say on the lips of a Catholic, and you posted his article. Then you asked the question “why don’t Catholics read their bibles like their separated brethren”. The implication is that they don’t. It is the same as asking “when did you stop beating your wife?” Take some responsibility here.
Just about.
I think, in reference to the vast majority of Catholics, this is true. I don’t think you need to pretend that you were not making criticism. The author was doing it too. I think that you will find (if you ever pluck up your courage to go to Sacred Scripture) that the Catholics here on CAF are not the one’s to whom the article was addressed.
No, 2nd, this is not the case. They were all Catholic. They were the very first members of “the Church throughout all” which is called in the NT “catholic”. It continues to be called Catholic to this day. Those who have departed from the faith they espoused go by different names.
That is really outside the topic of this thread. However, they espouse the doctrines represented in it, where the Reformed do not. Maybe we should do that on another thread? Rinnie seems to be intent upon derailing this one.
This is off topic too, but rinnie, I have to tell you how delighted I am that you are making progress on this point.
Careful, 2nd, your desire to convert Catholics is leaking out!
You are stating clearly that, if Catholics “continue to read” their Bibles, that they will have a hard time supporting Catholic faith. this indicates that you see the Holy Scriptures opposed to Catholic faith, which they are not. The NT was produced out of the Catholic faith,a nd there is no Catholic doctrine that is not supported by it.
I agree with you that all Christians have some sort of Theology. Well catechized Catholics have recieved the Teachings of the Apostles preserved in the Church.
What you have learned to call “biblical theology and biblical beliefs” are doctrines that are quite divergent from what the Apostles believed and taught. They are based upon modern innovations from the Reformationg,a nd in some cases, reiterations of heresies defeated by the early church.
G
guanophore
Guest
Among other things, yes. That is why I criticized you for posting “Defend your faith” on the non-Catholic area. if you are really interested in having these discussions, then bring them where they belong.
The purpose of the Sacred Scripture section in Apologetics is to discuss how the Catholic understanding of Scripture differs from non-Catholic perspectives, and to provide people like you with a cogent defense of our approach.
It is quite possible to be ecumenical no matter what section you are on. You may not have any of your “invitations” to discuss scripture taken seriously when you are unwilling to wade into an area where the differences are addressed head on by knowledgeable Catholics. Hiding over here in NC religions posting articles that criticize Catholics may feed your need to feel superior as a bible student, but it will not accomplish much in the way of genuine dialogue (iron sharpening iron).
Well, you might wish to review the forum rules. This consitutes a personal agenda, and is contrary to the purpose of CAF.
CAF is not here to serve as a venue for your evangelistic intentions. We are here to provide Catholic Answers to sincere inquiries. If you really are sincere in your inquiries of how we understand the Scriptures, you will take you invitations to the Sacred Scripture section.
This makes no sense to me in the light of your stated desire to discuss scriptures with Catholics, and your implications that, when Catholics read the Scripture, they will come to their senses, and leave the Catholic faith. You are new here, so you may not realize that many of our separated brethren are drawn to the Sacred Scripture area because of their love of the Word.
You have implied that you agree with the article, and that Catholics are unable or unwilling to go “head to head” with Evangelicals in Scripture. Now back up your aspersions, and take yourself over to where the rubber meets the road.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
That’s ridiculous. Many of my best friend in High School and college were Catholics. I were in many of their weddings. I know that they read their Bibles. Most of them were reading their Bibles way before I became a Christian. However, Catholics do not read their Bibles in the same way that Protestants do. If you want to try to debate this point, then you are not being honest. Protestants tend to neglect church history and Catholics tend to neglect diligent Bible Study. You can’t blame Catholics since Protestants have greater emphasis on Sacred Scripture than Catholics.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
That’s ridiculous too. I’ve debated Catholics from Catholic Answers in person. I found that those particular Catholics to be quite mean and ungraceful in their debating tactics. A Catholic can never debate a Protestant with Scripture as final authority, because the Catholic Faith is not built around the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Therefore, a typical Catholic who tries to debate within Scripture will either have to appeal to Sacred Tradition, or get down right mean to avoid the issues at hand. By the grace of God, a Protestant just conforms to the revealed Word of God as he or she grows in Christ. The Catholic will always have great difficulties juggling Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. That’s just the way it is. If you don’t acknowledge that truth, then you are dishonest. Think about how large the stack of Sacred Tradition is in comparison to Sacred Scripture.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Sacred Scripture for a Catholic is insufficient revelation. Therefore, Sacred Scripture is always understood within defined Sacred Tradition. That’s the Catholic approach to the Scriptures. I’ve also been to Catholic men’s meetings, where the orthodox Catholics and Priest try to reign in the Catholic men from studying the Scriptures apart from Sacred Tradition. I’m not blind brother.
M
Michael007
Guest
I’ll go further than the original post to say that everyone needs to read the Bible and study church history. And that history also includes the Old Testament. If we don’t we are doomed to repeat the past mistakes. And I include Protestants and Catholics into this. We also need to know each others official teachings before accusing each other of heresy. I find a danger of the sin of bearing false witness in this. And I think the more Protestants study the Bible and history they will come back to the Catholic church. And I believe that the more Catholics do the same the more will stay in the church.
There is one history fact I discovered when studying the history of the church. Rome is the only main Christian city to have never been conquered by muslim armies. Jeruselam, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople all fell. Not even the gates of hell will prevail againts the church of Jesus.
There is one history fact I discovered when studying the history of the church. Rome is the only main Christian city to have never been conquered by muslim armies. Jeruselam, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople all fell. Not even the gates of hell will prevail againts the church of Jesus.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not accusing you of being blind, and I am glad that you are aware that all these things are true, and that you have observed Catholics studying their bibles. I guess I did not expect that these realities would prevent you from entering a discussion.
Do you believe that the only way you can accomplish your goal is to get Catholics to read the Scriptures apart from Sacred Tradition? What is it about Sacred Tradition that you find so prohibitive?
Ridiculous that you made the implications? I certainly think so. Ridiculous that I am asking you to take responsibility for what you have posted? I think not.
I think I am the one who has been trying to make this point for the entire thread!
What you are saying here, or what it appears you are saying, is that Catholics, when they read Scripture in the light of Sacred Tradition, are not being “diligent” students of Scripture. This is your anti-Catholic prejudice talking.
I really don’t understand this statement.
I have not “blamed” anyone except you, for throwing a gauntlet, then running from the fray.
2
2nd_Adam
Guest
Much of what Catholics call Sacred Tradition is truth and should be received by all Christians. However, Sacred Tradition cannot trump Sacred Scripture. Scripture is authorative over Sacred Tradition because Sacred Tradition is fallible and imperfect. Sacred Tradition is man’s attempt to understand God. We all claim that the Holy Spirit is illuminating truth to us. But in reality, sometimes the Spirit is leading us, and sometimes our flesh is leading us. It is the same with Church authority too because the Catholic Magestirum consists of fallible men, even when the Pope speaks ex-Cathedra. It is impossible for any particular branch of Christianity to have the “Fullness of Truth” because God is infinite and we are finite and imperfect on this side of glory. The Catholic Church and Protestants communities do not always represent Christ in life in their behavior, which is clear evidence that we all know in part, and are all sinners in process. The Catholic Church can continue to claim to be the One True Church for the next 500 years, but that does not make that claim to be true. Christ is the fullness of truth, and the church is quite imperfect. The head and the body are not the same. The head is Christ, and the body consists of redeemed sinners in process of transformation.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is an intersting statement.
Your perception that there is any “juggling” or “trumping” emanates from your rejection of the Apostolic Teaching that the Word of God was delivered to the Church both in writing, and by word of mouth. Although this is clearly demonstrated in Scripture, you do not accept it. The two are equal parts of the One Faith. There is no competition, except in your mind.
This statement has several errors. The main one is that Scripture is able to be an authority. Authority is a quality of persons, not books, however Holy. One of the main errors of the Reformation was the attempt to press Scripture into a role which it cannot fulfull. The exercise of authority requires discernment, acts of the will, and the ability to be held accountable. Scripture does not have these qualities. Only persons do.
Sacred Tradition is not fallible and imperfect. Such a statement indicates that you don’t understand the Source and Nature of the Teachings of Jesus.
No, 2nd. You have confused human customs with Sacred Tradition.
I am glad you are able to acknowledge that this is possible. This is the reason why Jesus had to establish authority on earth, and why He had to protect it from error by His Spirit.
It is because humans are fallible that the Church requires the divine intervention of infallibility. The gift enables fallible men to act in the Power of the Spirit so that no error results.
I agree. Jesus only committed the fullness of His revelation of Himself that He wished to give to the Church. By definition, it cannot be all of Him.
Here again you are failing to make a critical distinction. the Church, being the Holy, pure, and infallible Body of Christ, cannot fail Christ. Fallible persons who are attached to her, can. It is essential to distinguish between the two.
And your refusal to accept it does not make it false.
Such a statement indicates an deficient view of the Church. The fallible persons attached to the Church are imperfect, but what perfects the Church is Christ, and in Him there is no error. You have severed the Body from the Head.
This is also a deficient understanding. the Body also consists of those Holy men and women who are perfected in faith, and now rest from their labors. The Soul of the Church is the HS, which is why she cannot err.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
I think that your impressions are colored by your misperceptions, and it shows in an ugly way around the edges of your posts.
2A:
This is absolutely not true. Catholics and Protestants can discuss what scripture means with resort to scripture alone. What we reject is the assertion of Scripture alone as doctrinally sufficient. That does not mean that we cannot rationally discuss what scripture teaches and means with recourse to scripture alone, in a way that is completely consistent with the teachings of the Universal Church. For example, John Martignione’s apostolate does this specifcally because he acknowledges that with persons like yourself who only look to scripture, the Catholic faith can really only be presented through Scripture alone, and his ministry does a great job of showing the consistency of Scripture with Catholic teaching without conceding the point on sola scriptura. Your argument is essentially saying something akin to the accusation that heterosexuals cannot argue the immorality of homosexuality without first acknowledging the morality of the act.
Similarly, there are Catholics who assert (without crossing Catholic doctrinal lines) that the Scriptures alone are materially sufficient. (See Robert Sungenis’ book “Not by Scripture Alone”) From this perspective also the doctrines and dogmas of the Church are well supported by the materially sufficient source of Scripture, when properly understood and interpreted in accordance with Catholic teaching.
2a:
I find the opposite to be true. Protestants who are confronted with a Catholic who is solidly grounded in both Scripture and Church teaching will become quite disoriented with the fact that Catholic “superstitions” are actually well supported by Scripture. I also find that in most cases the Protestant argument from scripture is hyperfocused on certain passages while ignoring context. But that is the nature of the error.
2A:
Actually, what I find is that Protestants submerge themselves in the tradition of their own Christian community, which they do not even recognize to be a tradition. And their faith is formed (and deformed to greater or lesser degrees) within that unrecognized “other” tradition which is shrouded by the claim that it is simply the bible alone, when in fact it is the bible, plus a set of preconceptions. Catholics, on the other hand, who are well educated in their faith recognize the consistency, richness, and truth of their Sacred Tradition. the Tradition that even brought the teachings contained in the Scriptures through time to us intact from the age of the Apostles.
2A:
What you’ve stated is opinion. And the fact that you do not see it as such is quite sad. And you speak of Sacred Tradition as if it’s bad to have a “stack” of something that is sacred? While I would not refer to Sacred Tradition as a “stack” I would suggest to you that a stripped down version of Christianity is not necessarily a better (or a more true) version of Christianity. Indeed, the Protestant desire to strip the faith to its lowest common denominator (the fundamentals) suggests the risk of losing sight of something true, real, and perhaps necessary for salvation. But this is my opinion, after years of prayer and study. You are free to accept or reject my thoughts, posted late on a Friday night.
Peace,
Robert
- Status