Do you believe there is one true church?

[Contarini]

The Catholic Church can only speculate as to what was going through the heads (and hearts) of the Apostles as the words of Scripture came together at their dictate. I do not believe that the Scriptures were written in some hard-to-decipher Bible Code, and if one has the context, the Word, and the intellect, the Scriptures are in most areas quite clearly defined.

That’s bunk. Not because Scripture is written in code, but because it is a complex set of texts written in a variety of historical contexts long ago. Your naive hermeneutical confidence would ill serve you in interpreting Shakespeare, let alone the Bible.

And with the Holy Spirit, the Word can be applied.

Sure. The question is, to whom and under what circumstances is the Holy Spirit given? The Holy Spirit clearly does not guide all sincere believers to a correct understanding, since many sincere believers contradict each other. It is of course possible that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and not those with whom you differ. But one has to ask why you are so certain of this?

I do not consider myself a Protestant, *per se. *It is a tricky subject, given that non-denominationalism is a Protestant movement, yet the churches themselves are independently governed and profess no allegiance to the realm of Protestantism, but prefer the appropriate dub of “Christian,” their main reasoning drawn from the fact that the Word is their unbroken lineage.

What on earth do you mean by “unbroken lineage”? There is no unbroken lineage that non-denominational Protestants can claim. And calling oneself simply “Christian” is arrogant and misleading. It’s far more honest and honorable to admit your lineage.

And there is no “realm of Protestantism.” That’s a straw man.

Make of that as you wish. I may attend a Baptist church, but I believe in the equality of the Church (the Body of Believers) and Christ, the necessity of water baptism with few exceptions, the antiquity of the universe, and the losibility of salvation, which makes me something of an odd-ball at First Baptist. But I believe this not because of some persuasive argument or eloquent creed, but because the Word itself seems to attest to these things.

How does the Word “seem to attest” these things if not via a persuasive argument? When someone says that water baptism is in no way necessary, don’t you have a persuasive argument to the contrary?

And the eloquence of a Creed is totally irrelevant. If you choose to ignore the Creeds, it’s your loss.

They do have plenty of arguments calling for transubstantiation, yet I remain unconvinced due to the context of the passages. Heck, the Noahide laws, which were reinforced by Paul, strictly condemn the consuming of blood.

If you look at serious Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, they don’t teach that blood is literally being consumed. They teach that the substance of Christ’s real glorified Body is received in the Eucharist and is the reality underlying the physical manifestations of bread and wine. Catholic apologists over-literalize because they don’t themselves understand medieval theology very well–which is the strongest argument against transubstantiation I know (if its own defenders don’t understand it).

 

[Contarini]

Yeshua refers to the “Scriptures” as “the Law of Moses (Torah), the Prophets (the Apocalyptic books), and the Psalms (a generic term most likely identifying the poetic narratives as a whole)” in Lk. 24:44.

Why do you think that the Psalms are a generic term in Luke 24:44? That looks to me like a bit of special pleading concocted because otherwise your argument falls to the ground. Just because the Psalms are part of the Writings doesn’t mean that Jesus was referring to all the Writings.

Furthermore, Jesus refers to Daniel as a prophet in Matt. 24:15/Mark 13:14. Since the threefold Hebrew canon doesn’t include Daniel among the Prophets but among the Writings, this reference indicates that Jesus wasn’t following that ordering exactly. (I agree that this is not conclusive, but since you haven’t a shred of evidence that Jesus was referring to the Writings as a group in Luke 24:44, it’s fair to point to this slightly more persuasive argument on the other side.)

Neither he nor any of his disciples are ever seen quoting directly from any Apocryphal book or giving any one of them authoritative Scriptural power.

Fair enough, but He doesn’t quote from all the books of the Hebrew Canon either. Hence your desperate over-interpretation of Luke 24:44. You have to get all the Writings in somehow–but it doesn’t work.

And Paul said in Acts 24:14 that he believed everything in “the Law and the Prophets.”

Exactly. No mention of the Writings.

While the Apocryphal books were in circulation by that time, and while arguably the Canon was still open, officially it is often believed that the Jewish canon, which excluded the Apocrypha (with the possible exception of 2 Esdras, which was renounced by Trent anyway), was decided upon in the second century B.C.

Officially? No way. Often believed by Protestant apologists? Sure, but where’s the evidence? (On the other hand, the Catholic claim that there was an “Alexandrian Canon” also lacks evidence.)

Anyway, though many of the books of the Apocrypha were accepted by the Fathers, there was tremendous disagreement as to which ones were to be admitted into the Canon and which were not.

The disagreement didn’t just concern the Apocrypha, but several books of the Hebrew canon and a number of NT books. You are using selective evidence here.

Why accept 2 Peter as canonical, for instance? The more I look into it, the less ground I can see for accepting it except deference to the authority of the Church (and the fact that I personally love the passage about becoming partakers of the divine nature. . . .).

The discrepancies were a large part of the reason they were ultimately rejected. Needless to say, even the Jews, by whom and for whom those texts were crafted, did not recognize them as inspired, either. None of the Apocryphal books makes any claim of inspiration

Neither do many of the books of the Hebrew canon and of the New Testament.

and some make historical and geographical errors.

So do the undisputed books–at least that is what everyone not dogmatically committed to the contrary belief concludes. You can explain the apparent errors away if you try hard enough. You could probably explain the errors in the Apocrypha if you tried hard enough too. You can explain most things if you try hard enough!

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[jmcrae]

The Catholic Church can only speculate as to what was going through the heads (and hearts) of the Apostles as the words of Scripture came together at their dictate.

Actually, we don’t have to speculate at all. We have the writings of the men (boys, at the time) who sat at their feet, took their Catechism classes, followed them around, and went to Mass and to Confession with them. We have the history of what happened after the end of the book of Acts, as written by the participants themselves - a group of quite obviously Catholic Bishops (when the boys grew up to be men, the Apostles ordained them as Bishops in the Church) who were very clearly in full communion with their head Bishop in Rome. We have at least partial records of their Councils, and we have a great many of their letters.

At the very least, you should take a look at the table of contents of The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, which is the letters and essays of the Early Church, and of Denzinger’s The Sources of Catholic Dogma, which is the notes from all the Church Councils ever held, up to Vatican I. (The Documents of Vatican II are available separately, and also well worth reading.)

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Please realise how boring it is to hear the same thing again and again and again:

(1) Christ created One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church (although in the Nicene Creed, these are written without capital letters);
(2) Luther and his ilk kicked off the traces of the Absolute Truth of Catholicism and made an ill-fated attempt to understand what Christ meant by his life and mission;
(3) by being so moronic, they gave up any hope of salvation, redemption, forgiveness, etc etc which come only from Christ through the One True Church;
(4) and then the kicker opinion that anyone not in the Catholic faith has nothing at all to think about that has any merit.

This is a really uninformed charicature of the nature of both the Catholic Church and those denominations founded after the schism. And the charicature leads us nowhere really. We all know these four themes really well.

So can you help us move forward with something more informed, that would help us to think out of the box?

Jabulani!

Carol,

Your aruguments basically remind me of the old Idiom, “The Pot Calling the Kettle Black”. You move from thread to thread using the same old and tattered relatavistic aruguments over and over again to denounce almost all Catholic beliefs, then you chide others!.. :tsktsk: :tsktsk: :tsktsk:

Maybe you should stop the equivocation and start answering some of the questions that I and others have been put to you on this forum. Thusfar you have used your relativistic views to argue against or outright dismiss many, many Catholic beliefs e.g. the RCC as the One True Church, the inerrancy of the Bible, oral tradition, transubstantiation, miracles, Papal infallibility, etc. etc. In the next breath you claim you are on your way to becoming a Catholic. The question is why? Why do you want to join a Church whose belief’s you hold in such contempt?

Are you willing to participate in a new thread to explore relativism (your apparent belief system) and how it comports with Catholic beliefs, teachings and doctrines? In this broad forum you would have a chance to put forward and defend your views in a substantive way. I think it would help you discern where your beliefs and those of the Chruch differ. Would this not be valuable as you journey towards becoming Catholic?

Because of the chasm between your beliefs and those of the RCC, you should exercise care in representing your views as Catholic or our risk confusing others.

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Most people who leave the Catholic Church do so because they are bored. Why are you in RCIA again?

Ani,

Relativism is the biggest cause of Catholics leaving the Church, they are simply looking for a more forgiving venue…

Iowa Mike

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Contarini;2141631

Truthinator said: They do have plenty of arguments calling for transubstantiation, yet I remain unconvinced due to the context of the passages. Heck, the Noahide laws, which were reinforced by Paul, strictly condemn the consuming of blood.

If you look at serious Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, they don’t teach that blood is literally being consumed. They teach that the substance of Christ’s real glorified Body is received in the Eucharist and is the reality underlying the physical manifestations of bread and wine. Catholic apologists over-literalize because they don’t themselves understand medieval theology very well–which is the strongest argument against transubstantiation I know (if its own defenders don’t understand it).

---

Affiliation: Episcopalian

This of course is wrong. Please look at the closed thread, “Transubstantiation is a device of man” where the “Real Presence” was discussed in some detail. There you will find plenty of scripture references that support ‘transubstantiation’.

With respect to Paul. Please look to 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. In Pau’s own writings as early as 57 he teaches the “Real Presence” in a strong and unequivocal manner…

Iowa Mike

 

[Chancellare]

Ani,

Relativism is the biggest cause of Catholics leaving the Church, they are simply looking for a more forgiving venue…

Iowa Mike

Relativism as a societal force needs to be studied further. I wonder if there is a running thread on this?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Relativism as a societal force needs to be studied further. I wonder if there is a running thread on this?

Chancellare,

I think I’m going to start a thread on this (or you can). I believe relativism is a huge force today and getting stronger…hey it simply means that whatever I believe is really OK.

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

I am convinced that you are looking for a knock down drag-em-out fight, and I am not sure why. You have made a number of accusations and insinuations in words which are not appropriate on this Forum (see for example, opinions on the thread entitled Shame which suggest there are ways and ways of doing things: you are one of the posters I avoid as much as possible, but your attacks have gone on for too long now).

I am quite willing to answer all the charges, to submit all the quotations, to eat humble pie where necessary, but stick to my historical understanding of both faith and Church where necessary. I also have a question of time - I do not have time to post as others do.

I am someone who is *trying *to join the Catholic Church. Some posters do not make it easy, and in fact make the idea positively distasteful. And I do not believe that is the purpose of this Forum.

It would also help if you, like other posters who have been warned, would occasionally make a substantive observation or insight (which might require a paragraph or two rather than a sniggering or provocative one-liner) which would move the discussion along. If you have problems with my observations, then provide evidence, substance, and do so with a degree of civility which is appropriate here.

I thank you for your kind understanding.

Jabulani!

 

[guanophore]

What exactly does “Apostolic Succession” prove? Paul mentions at least a couple of his disciples who betrayed him … How does this “uninterrupted lineage” really support Catholic dogma at all? The fact that the church must have good record-keepers does little to convince me of the validity of their teachings. I have the Scriptures themselves, the Ultimate Apostolic Connection, the words written and orated by the Apostles themselves!

Did you not realize you are holding those scriptures because Catholics preserved them for you through the Apostolic succession? It is not something to “prove” I don’t think. Jesus commanded it, and it is obeyed. If you cannot have trust in the validity of the Apostolic Succession, then you cannot have trust in the validity of your bible, because it came from there.

However, if you’re basing your faith-system off of emotionalism, you are setting yourself up.

So, what ARE you basing it on?

I attended Mass … I felt like other than getting a different perspective and meeting up with some good friends, there was little to be gotten out of the service.

Also, there is a sense of emotionalism in partaking the Eucharist for us, as well. Why wouldn’t there be? The Lord’s Supper is a chance to reflect on Christ, on his life, death, and resurrection. How can you not be consumed by that? As for the literal presence, Christ is always literally present in the heart of a true believer. He was not being metaphorical about that, I feel sure. However, the Eucharist has simply been taken out of context by the Catholic Church for so long, and it doesn’t want to relinquish its cherished tradition, despite the fact that it has no Scriptural support.

I think it is the other way around, Truthinator. I think that protestant churches have taken the context out of Eucharist. What do you read in Jn . 6?

Furthermore, the lack of freedom in the services, in the whole religion, is yet another deterrent, as well.

This is a very interesting statement, and I think is at the root of the entire protestant experience.

By the way, Martin Luther didn’t remove the Apocrypha. It didn’t even become canonized as “Scripture” until Trent, which was in direct response to the Reformation anyway.

This has been addressed in another thread, and is an erroneous conclusion, as you will find if youa re interested in the history of the canon at all.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini;2141631:

If you look at serious Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, they don’t teach that blood is literally being consumed. They teach that the substance of Christ’s real glorified Body is received in the Eucharist and is the reality underlying the physical manifestations of bread and wine. Catholic apologists over-literalize because they don’t themselves understand medieval theology very well–which is the strongest argument against transubstantiation I know (if its own defenders don’t understand it).

This of course is wrong. Please look at the closed thread, “Transubstantiation is a device of man” where the “Real Presence” was discussed in some detail. There you will find plenty of scripture references that support ‘transubstantiation’.

With respect to Paul. Please look to 1 Corinthians 11:23-27. In Pau’s own writings as early as 57 he teaches the “Real Presence” in a strong and unequivocal manner…

Iowa Mike

I don’t know if your response refers to my paragraph cited above, or to Truthinator’s statement to which I was responding. I am not denying the Real Presence, and I was not particularly attacking transubstantiation in that paragraph, except insofar as the doctrine as defended by its most eminent exponents seems very different from the simplistic literalism often defended on this forum, so that one has to wonder if the concept is terribly useful.

If you question my interpretation of St. Thomas, I’m happy to debate you on the basis of the texts.

I looked through several pages of the long thread to which you referred me and did not see anything that looked like a Scriptural argument for transubstantiation.

Edwin

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Chancellare,

I think I’m going to start a thread on this (or you can). I believe relativism is a huge force today and getting stronger…hey it simply means that whatever I believe is really OK.

Iowa Mike

Hey, you got it in one!

 

[lak611]

Chancellare,

I think I’m going to start a thread on this (or you can). I believe relativism is a huge force today and getting stronger…hey it simply means that whatever I believe is really OK.

Iowa Mike

Have you started the thread? I looked in this forum, in the apologetics forum, and in the moral theology forum but did not see it.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Ani Ibi;2140653:

I am convinced that you are looking for a knock down drag-em-out fight, and I am not sure why. You have made a number of accusations and insinuations in words which are not appropriate on this Forum (see for example, opinions on the thread entitled **Shame **

which suggest there are ways and ways of doing things: you are one of the posters I avoid as much as possible, but your attacks have gone on for too long now**).**

I am quite willing to answer all the charges, to submit all the quotations, to eat humble pie where necessary, but stick to my historical understanding of both faith and Church where necessary. I also have a question of time - I do not have time to post as others do.

I am someone who is *trying *to join the Catholic Church. Some posters do not make it easy, and in fact make the idea positively distasteful. And I do not believe that is the purpose of this Forum.

It would also help if you, like other posters who have been warned, would occasionally make a substantive observation or insight (which might require a paragraph or two rather than a sniggering or provocative one-liner) which would move the discussion along. If you have problems with my observations, then provide evidence, substance, and do so with a degree of civility which is appropriate here.

I thank you for your kind understanding.

Jabulani!

Carol,

Maybe you should look inside yourself as to why to bring out the spirited defenders of the faith.

No one wants to fight with you Carol but you seem bent on everyone accepting your opinions even when they conflict with the Church in an outragious way.

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike

 

[Carol_Coombe]

Carol Coombe;2143818:

Carol,

Maybe you should look inside yourself as to why to bring out the spirited defenders of the faith.

No one wants to fight with you Carol but you seem bent on everyone accepting your opinions even when they conflict with the Church in an outragious way.

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike

You deliberately misinterpret what I have written, and you know it. I have specifically said, in a post to Guanophore which I shall refer to later, once I have spent hours wasting time on replying to you and others who insist on attacking, attacking, instead of teaching, that I have my own faith, and that I would NEVER thrust it on anyone else. You know it because I assume that it is a statement like this that makes me an abhorred relativist.

What do you mean, no one wants to fight with me? You have been doing so from the start, and now have drawn Ani Ibi into the fray. It seems that some posters follow others around in order to make life difficult, perhaps for their own pleasure. I try to avoid the kind of sniggers and jibes that are presented, but attacks are hard to avoid forever.

You know perfectly well that I look inside myself; that I have spent my life in service to others around the world. Perhaps you don’t like others to be less parochial; perhaps you don’t like others to be articulate; perhaps you don’t like others to be educated; perhaps you have time on your hands, and perhaps you don’t know what to do with it; perhaps you don’t like people who actually think for themselves by research and analysis.

I have asked you before to get off my tail, and this time I am absolutely serious. I am trying to prepare a reply to Ana Ibi’s stream of queries, questions, challenges etc etc., which would need a Pope to answer. I do not understand why either of you would assume that my views are anti-Catholic in any way: I am trying to join the Church; I do not have views on it because I am learning; what I know I have learned from my own baptism, and my life experience, my reading, my discussions, my work. That is where my ideas come from, and they are just as valid as yours, and perhaps more so because they come from real life, and because they come from a process of ratiocination.

Now please please please get off me.

In Christ, Carol

 

[jack_hawkins]

I am convinced that you are looking for a knock down drag-em-out fight, and I am not sure why. You have made a number of accusations and insinuations in words which are not appropriate on this Forum (see for example, opinions on the thread entitled Shame which suggest there are ways and ways of doing things: you are one of the posters I avoid as much as possible, but your attacks have gone on for too long now).

I am quite willing to answer all the charges, to submit all the quotations, to eat humble pie where necessary, but stick to my historical understanding of both faith and Church where necessary. I also have a question of time - I do not have time to post as others do.

I am someone who is *trying *to join the Catholic Church. Some posters do not make it easy, and in fact make the idea positively distasteful. And I do not believe that is the purpose of this Forum.

It would also help if you, like other posters who have been warned, would occasionally make a substantive observation or insight (which might require a paragraph or two rather than a sniggering or provocative one-liner) which would move the discussion along. If you have problems with my observations, then provide evidence, substance, and do so with a degree of civility which is appropriate here.

I thank you for your kind understanding.

Jabulani!

At the risk of perpetuating further conflicts - YES, I find Ani Ibi’s posts confusing - on one thread he suggests a pastoral care forum and my only conclusion is that this must be for some of the casualties created by him and others posting here perhaps? I certainly found his responses to me very far from pastoral in tone. Puzzling

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I don’t know if your response refers to my paragraph cited above, or to Truthinator’s statement to which I was responding. I am not denying the Real Presence, and I was not particularly attacking transubstantiation in that paragraph, except insofar as the doctrine as defended by its most eminent exponents seems very different from the simplistic literalism often defended on this forum, so that one has to wonder if the concept is terribly useful.

If you question my interpretation of St. Thomas, I’m happy to debate you on the basis of the texts.

I looked through several pages of the long thread to which you referred me and did not see anything that looked like a Scriptural argument for transubstantiation.

Edwin

Edwin,

If we are going to discuss it we need to do so in the totality of scripture.

I know there are a number of scriptural references because I posted them myself.

Iowa Mike

Iowa Mike

 

[hosemonkey]

Yes, I believe that there is one True Church. That is why I am Catholic.
To Carol Coombe:
If you are truly desirous of becoming Catholic, dump the intellectualism and start accepting what the Church and Christ have to offer you. I’m not saying “put the brain in neutral” but follow Our Lord’s admonition regarding child-like faith. There is plenty of time for deep examination later. Let God speak to you about the truth of His Church. He seldom shouts, He speaks in whispers that you must be still to hear. If you try to examine how the butterfly flies, you kill the butterfly. Rest in the arms of God, let him lead you. Peace.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

If we are going to discuss it we need to do so in the totality of scripture.

I know there are a number of scriptural references because I posted them myself.

Iowa Mike

Fine, but you haven’t pointed me to them. I am not going to read a very long thread when you could quite easily tell me which posts you are talking about. I skimmed about four pages and didn’t see anything.

Edwin

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Fine, but you haven’t pointed me to them. I am not going to read a very long thread when you could quite easily tell me which posts you are talking about. I skimmed about four pages and didn’t see anything.

Edwin

I was very active on that post…if you do a search for posts under my screen name they should all come up…you can scroll through them. If you still can’t find them, I’ll see if I can drum up the numbers.

Best,

Iowa Mike