Confused??!!

[Alexandra_Kent]

Hi,

Ok I know I am a little late on this, but going back to the issue of abandonment…God will never abandon you.

Fight to believe this. I mean really fight by telling yourself that over and over. No matter how hard it is, just keep telling yourself that. Don’t enter into debates on it with yourself, just insist it.

It is what St. Therese of Lisieux had to do to the end of her life. And guess what? He did not abandon her! But boy was she ever tempted to believe he would. She said it was so awful the thoughts she had that she was afraid to even speak them, and so she did not elaborate. It was a real trial but she just kept insisting.

I once heard Mother Angelica say that God just loves us. It is so simple. Jesus just stands there with open arms and loves us, warts and dirt and grime and faults and sins and all. He just loves us and waits for us to turn to Him with trust and love.

It is not God that would EVER abandon us. We EXIST because He is thinking of us right now and at every moment. It is our weakness that is the problem. Our doubts, all of the lies that creep in to try to tell us otherwise.

But God is a rock and so faithful and nothing could cause Him to ever abandon us. Even if we were the worst sinner ever He still would not. It would be against His nature. Love cannot stop loving. It loves always and forever without ceasing. It is just up to us to throw ourselves into it and say “yeah I am not worthy to be here, but I am loved anyways and that makes it all the more amazing!”

 

[guanophore]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

Luther was a man quite full of himself, and believed that his own opinions were of more value than 1500 years of adherance to One Faith.

“He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved” -Martin Luther

"If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.”

Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.”

I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.

There are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose."

This arrogance and attitude of rebellion and condescension is at the very root of the Reformation.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, protestants do not believe that Peter was granted any authority to start the church.

This is good. I am always glad to hear that Catholic Teachings have been retained among our separated brethen.

The Apostles understood that Jesus was the builder of the Church, and that they were the foundation stones upon which He was building.

The authority granted to the Apostles is quite clear in Scripture, as are the unique duties given to Peter and no other.

Given that this is a Catholic Forum some might think it disrespectful to do this. It’s not my intention to cause any difficulties here. If you would really like to hear the Protestant view, send me a pm and I’ll be happy to provide it for you.

God Bless

I will add my chime to the others that have affirmed that there is no better place for you to exegete.

However, lets be honest, there is no such thing as a “protestant view”. There are actually hundreds of thousands of Protesant views. We are happy to have you present the one you espouse.

We will also be praying that you will have some of the misconceptions you have about the Catholic faith corrected while you are here.

 

[ForeverGrace]

This is good. I am always glad to hear that Catholic Teachings have been retained among our separated brethen.

The Apostles understood that Jesus was the builder of the Church, and that they were the foundation stones upon which He was building.

The authority granted to the Apostles is quite clear in Scripture, as are the unique duties given to Peter and no other.

I will add my chime to the others that have affirmed that there is no better place for you to exegete.

However, lets be honest, there is no such thing as a “protestant view”. There are actually hundreds of thousands of Protesant views. We are happy to have you present the one you espouse.

We will also be praying that you will have some of the misconceptions you have about the Catholic faith corrected while you are here.

This is why I don’t argue with some Catholics. It’s also why I made the remarks I did about condescension. . I think you may have misread my statement regarding Peter. We do not view Peter as the the person who started the Catholic church.

 

[SteveVH]

This is why I don’t argue with some Catholics. It’s also why I made the remarks I did about condescension. . I think you may have misread my statement regarding Peter. We do not view Peter as the the person who started the Catholic church.

I think the point guanophore is making is that Catholics don’t believe this either. We believe Christ started the Catholic Church on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

This is why I don't argue with some Catholics.  It's also why I made the remarks I did about ***condescension***. .

I apologize if my response seemed condescending. That was not my intention.

Do you really think you do not have misconceptions about Catholicism?

Is it unrealistic for me to hope that the misunderstandings you appear to have will be corrected?

I think you may have misread my statement regarding Peter. We do not view Peter as the the person who started the Catholic church.

No, I did not misread it. I am just stating that Catholics don’t believe this either.

 

[Sufjon]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

Hi GTNJNightingale: I am always fascinated by this subject, and I was hoping to get some clarification if I may. In your first sentence you say that Protestants don’t believe that Peter had authority on what was God’s word in the bible and what books and such. I have two questions on that if I may:

-Is it a fact that Protestants as a rule believe that Peter had no authority, or is it possible that they believe that they are indeed following Peter as well as Catholics are? Is it not true that there has been evolution in every existent church surviving today as compared to the church as it existed in the time of Peter? Are any exactly the same as what Peter left behind, or have all taken on certain new aspects since the time of Peter? How are the differences in 21st century Protestant churches from the church in the time of Peter more profound than some of the differences in the 21st century Catholic church from the church in the time of Peter? To be more to the point, Protestant churches could be said to be different permutations of the original church that peter knew, but the same could be said of the Catholic church.

-For my second question you mentioned that Protestants don’t believe that Peter had authority on what was God’s word in the bible, and what books and such. Can you tell me what bible existed in the time of Peter? Had someone at that point located and compiled Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and the rest of the bible as we know it into one corpus of work in the time of Peter? Is it known for certain that all of gospels or any of them for that matter had even been written in his lifetime? If the case can be made that they were, and I’m interested to know about that, what evidence is there that he had knowledge of their existence, had access to a copy of them, read any of them, or even knew the language that the originally existed in?

Thanks for your time and patience.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[mark_avery]

It could be said that the catholic doctrine, is a little off line to the protestants who seem to summarize such,because…
The work of the holy spirit as i`m sure you know,is as mystical as one could imagine,i bring this up just to explain that i have been in a situation many years ago where i have heard what i then thought was the voice of our lord through the holy spirit or from somehow.

I was baptised in an evangelical church an epoch from today,so the point being;and i`ve heard many say and have noticed that they claim and i mean many if not most admit with such confidence that they hear our lord so very clearly,which is a little disturbing for me having had to back track some way to again be in line with the correct interpretation of obedience…

I naturally have much much heart felt angst for them,because the voice as i heard then was a real nuance and very convincing.

To me now, it begger`s belief that there is a division at all,and would not want to stand or refute the teachings of Paul and so also the pope.

He is such an obvious sign (the pope) and whether there is an argument to whether the catholic church has built upon the orthodox way or not,it seems difficult to understand why that would not,or should not with the spirituss help not of been the design anyway.

I mean the catholic church is very reverent and powerful to say the least,and such a beacon of hope for all…

 

[ForeverGrace]

I apologize if my response seemed condescending. That was not my intention.

Do you really think you do not have misconceptions about Catholicism?

Is it unrealistic for me to hope that the misunderstandings you appear to have will be corrected?

No, I did not misread it. I am just stating that Catholics don’t believe this either.

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the issue of Peter. Your explanation is fine with me.

To answer your question about misconceptions, No you won’t be able to change my mind as I find that there is no way to justify from scripture what Catholics believe. I’m also just as convinced that I won’t change your mind. I respect what you believe.

This is not a judgment of you. We all come to our beliefs based on the information we have and the information we believe is valid and authoritative. It’s not possible to come to agreement if we can’t agree on the starting point upon which all else must rest.

In His Grace…

 

[GTNJNightingale]

Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism the only true version of Christianity? Being a Christian simply means you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church. If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.

the Catholic church full well acknowledges that we as human beings are corrupted and greedy and all those other things… and a true catholic wouldnt deny that . WE ARE ALL SINNERS. even those in the catholic church!..HOWEVER …the doctrine of the church…the word it self is not corrupt … no matter where Martin Luther was looking he would have seen greed and corruption… it is true he saw those things in there church and thats why he did what he did. but perhaps he wasnt seeing it in the church rather finding it in himself. and decided to run with it… I am sorry you are proud to be a heretic.

 

[GTNJNightingale]

Luther was a man quite full of himself, and believed that his own opinions were of more value than 1500 years of adherance to One Faith.

“He who does not receive my doctrine cannot be saved” -Martin Luther

"If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an *** are the same thing.”

Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.”

I know quite well how much skill, hard work, understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation. They know it less than even the miller’s donkey for they have never tried it.

There are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose."

This arrogance and attitude of rebellion and condescension is at the very root of the Reformation.

I love this because this really is the truth with no sugar coating added. i just wish that everyone else could see this as well!

 

[guanophore]

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the issue of Peter. Your explanation is fine with me.

I am relieved to hear this. It does show that you are open minded.

To answer your question about misconceptions, No you won’t be able to change my mind as I find that there is no way to justify from scripture what Catholics believe.

That is just my point, Forever. You are suffering misconceptions about what Catholics believe.

You also do not seem to be aware that the NT is a Catholic collection of books, written by, for, and about Catholics. there is nothing in the Bible that is not Catholic. For that reason, no Catholic teaching can contradict the Bible. What is contradictory in this case, is your perception about what is written. You are interpreting what you are reading in a state of being separated from the Apostolic Teachings for 500+ years, so your understanding of what is written is a significant departure from what the authors believed and taught.

That being said, no Catholic teaching needs to be “justified from scripture”, since the Catholic faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. The NT is a product of the Catholic faith, not the Source of it. Jesus is the Source.

This is not a judgment of you. We all come to our beliefs based on the information we have and the information we believe is valid and authoritative. It’s not possible to come to agreement if we can’t agree on the starting point upon which all else must rest.

I agree. I think you are suffering some prejudices about Catholics.

One of those “starting points” where we differ is that “Bible Christians” extract their faith from what they understand of the pages of Scripture, where Catholics RECEIVE their faith through the paradosis, and find the faith reflected in the Scriptures.

 

[guanophore]

I love this because this really is the truth with no sugar coating added. i just wish that everyone else could see this as well!

The problem with human beings attempting to “reform” God’s Church, instead of letting the HS do that work, is that we are all alike prone to sin.

Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church.  If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.:D

Indeed he did see it, as it takes one to know one.

Anyone who reads Luther’s works will see the same corruption in him as he saw in the Roman clerics of his day.

There is no doubt that human beings are always in need of reform. Where the problem came is the idea that the doctrine of Jesus needed “reform”.

Are you suggesting that Roman Catholicism the only true version of Christianity?

Catholicism is not “Roman”, but yes, it contains the fullness of the faith. All denominations are defined by the nature and extent to which they reject Catholic Teaching.

Being a Christian simply means you follow the teaching of Jesus Christ. Martin Luther saw immorality, greed, and corruption in the Church. If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.

Indeed it does. But where can the teaching of Jesus Christ be found? Why is it that there are as many different interpretations of scripture as there are belly buttons? Why did Jesus fail to keep His promise to lead His Church into all Truth?

If I am a heretic I am a proud heretic.:D

You might wish to reconsider this position.

Prov 16:18
18 Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[ignatius777]

My Question is if the protestants do not believe that peter had authority (the pope today) on what was authentic to Gods word in the bible and what books n such…(which Jesus had spoken out of his mouth that Peter did have authority). than who is Martin Luther and what authority did he have to take away from?? there whole thing is refuting the churches authority…well fine ok but then what authority did Martin Luther have??? doesnt this sort of Defeat the motive to reform in the first place?

There is nothing to be confused about. The effects of Martin Luther are precisely the reason we need a pope or other authorities to aid us in our understanding of scripture. It is ultimately up to each of us to decide what we believe and WHOM we will believe but as catholics and unlike protestants we dont leave interpretation entirely up to each individual lest w ebrea koff into 1,000s of denominations all claiming to have the “truth” of the gospels. Well then I guess there are 1,000s of “truths” since they all disagree sufficiently enough with each others beliefs as to not be one church.

I have had protestants on other christian forum sites tell me that catholics listen to men not the word of God yet they all are a direct outcome of the effects of Martin Luther. Now the last time I checked there was still only one God and Luther was never anything more then a man. So dont be confused be certain that you live in the one true church…catholicism