Does Matthew 25 contradict Catholicism?

[Thankful10]

Hm. I think you are discussing a private path of revelation from Christ. I’m not qualified enough to discuss private revelation except to note that Christ’s mission of salvation is complete that further revelation would be anti-climatic (although some private revelations have been important points in Catholic history, such as Fatima and Our Lady of Guadalupe).

Maybe I can note something of history and Scripture that helps. After Peter declared to Christ that He was the Son of God, Christ said to him, “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:13-19) These are the central verses in Scripture (also supported by Acts 1:15-26, and others) that show that Peter was tasked to be the first leader of the Church–the first pope (although it wasn’t called that back then).

A future Pope would find the seat of his office later surrounded by war that threatened not only himself, but virtually everything and everyone in the Church. But Christ said that the gates of the netherworld (hell) would not prevail against it, and so it didn’t during World War II, while surrounded by fascist Italy and ally to Nazi Germany.

If that wasn’t a time where the Church should have fallen (the Nazis were no friend to the Catholics), I don’t know what is.

But you still appear to be “stuck” on the exclusivity of Sacred Scripture, which did not guide the early Church. The writings that you and I treasure in the New Testament did not exist in a collected form until it started to be written down, slowly, around 45 A.D, and not formalized until around the Council of Carthage in 397, if I researched correctly. Guided by the Holy Spirit, the Church took Sacred Tradition and teachings and made it into written form. Christ said that He would guide his Apostles (Pentacost) and He has done so.

If that is not true, be wary of what you read, for the Bible was penned by man. By questioning the ability of the Holy Spirit to guide the early fathers in the compilation of the New Testament, you undo the validity of Scripture. Realistically, the Bible did not drop down from the heavens; someone had to write down what the the Father and Word and the Spirit said to us. The Catholic Church as an entity to itself is inerrant, since the Holy Spirit guides it. But all the bishops and popes that have been its stewards were sinners. Yet the Church never lets the sins of some of the lesser leaders to change the Church’s path or mission.

It’s important to discern for yourself if the early Catholic Church fathers that used Sacred Tradition and the Holy Spirit to create the books and writings that formed the New Testament were as guided in the Spirit that indeed guides you.

No one here frowns on your experiences with God; please continue with what you experience. But please understand that we may charitably disagree on some particulars as we exchange thoughts on Scripture.

First I know from God that the Christian Bible is the written Word of God. Also when the Holy Spirit/Jesus teaches someone the teaching will not very from the written Word. If any teaching adds to or subtracts from scripture it is not of God.
I am not talking about private revelation. Jesus told us and it is scripture, that his people would hear his voice, and that he would give us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. If the Holy Spirit is to guide us it needs to communicate with us.
I asked you some questions in the previous post, and you failed to answer them. I believe if you would answer my questions it would bring some light to this debate.

 

[Spencerian]

So there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church and the previous teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church was not correct?

If I recall right, the Church teaches that there is no salvation other than through the Church–BUT, as it can’t see outside of its own boundaries (that is, other faiths and the mind of God) it stands to reason that those who follow lives of righteousness that do not know God may achieve salvation through means the Church doesn’t know (CCC 846).

 

[sidbrown]

If I recall right, the Church teaches that there is no salvation other than through the Church–BUT, as it can’t see outside of its own boundaries (that is, other faiths and the mind of God) it stands to reason that those who follow lives of righteousness that do not know God may achieve salvation through means the Church doesn’t know (CCC 846).

OK, but the Bible passage in question Matthew 25, doesn’t mention other things like if you eat meat on a day of abstinence then you will go to hell, or if you do good works on Sunday, such as mentioned in the passage, but do not attend Mass on that Sunday, then you will go to hell. It says more or less the contrary, that if you do the good works as mentioned there, then you will attain salvation. It says if you don;t do these good works, then you will go to hell.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

First I know from God that the Christian Bible is the written Word of God. Also when the Holy Spirit/Jesus teaches someone the teaching will not very from the written Word. If any teaching adds to or subtracts from scripture it is not of God.
I am not talking about private revelation. Jesus told us and it is scripture, that his people would hear his voice, and that he would give us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. If the Holy Spirit is to guide us it needs to communicate with us.
I asked you some questions in the previous post, and you failed to answer them. I believe if you would answer my questions it would bring some light to this debate.

When you talk about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit, you are referencing John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

He is saying this to the apostles, the men who would go on to build the Church (Catholic Church). The Holy Spirit works through the Church - that is how he teaches us all things and brings to remembrance all that Jesus said - through the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

The Bible is the product of this Church - the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. The canon of scripture was proclaimed by several Catholic Church councils. The Holy Spirit was working through the Church - that is why the Catholic Church has the authority to proclaim what the canon of scripture is. If you deny that the Church has the authority to determine the canon of scripture - then you are denying that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. If you accept that the Bible is the divinely inspiried word of God, then you must acknowledge that those who determined what was to be included and was was to be excluded from the Bible must have been working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was the Catholic Church that produced the Bible, that determined the canon of scripture - so the Catholic Church must have the authority to do so, if you accept that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Where does that authority come from - from Jesus himself, who gave Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, the keys to the kingdom and also promised the send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church after he left us.

This is why those who hold to the Bible can’t deny the authority of the Church if they know anything about where the Bible came from.

 

[Spencerian]

I’ll try to answer your statements individually this time around.

You stated “And that’s why the folks of Jonestown were sadly led to a wrong path.”
I say that is just what is happening to all the people that are allowing man to tell him or her what is to be understood in the written Word of God. You should see that if prophets were allowed to speak, and would be listened to, much of the false teaching would never have happened.

I guess my response may be rooted in Biblical history. When God sent out a prophet, he often sent only one prophet. They weren’t always welcomed and were often threatened or ridiculed. But the message was sent. It seems that God knew that multiple messengers would be confusing.

With that, why would such an entity as the one Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to properly teach without error, seem out of the ordinary, given the Scriptural basis of Christ’s granting of authority to Peter as the leader of the Church on Earth? There’s an Old Testament prophetic passage that reflects the Keys of David passed down to Eliakim, giving him authority in the king’s stead (Isaiah 22:15-25) as Christ, David’s descendant, gave to Peter. The Church is that one voice. Go to any Catholic parish in the world on Sunday and you will get the same readings, receive the one Real Presence. You will not get the same message from private revelations or from the ministers of the thousands of Christian non-Catholic traditions, unfortunately.

I have listened to your explanation of why an individual can’t be trusted to interpret the Word of God for many years. You say the Church: “have the teaching authority to always answer definitively on how to apply or interpret the Word.” Now you can’t see that is the same line that Jones used to lure his followers down the path to destruction.

Jones was one mortal man. Are you are comparing Jones with an entity that has survived to continue to teach God’s word for over 2,000 years–and compiled the very Bible (or excerpts thereof) that teaches that Word? If the Catholic Church were leading the world down the wrong path (as Jones did), wouldn’t it be reasonable to think the world would be already in the hands of the antichrist or something worse? Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare Jones to other mortal men, who have taken to teaching God’s word as best they could, but on their own personal authority?

The Catholic Church did not grant itself the authority to teach, as Jim Jones did. Christ gave the Apostles of the Church that authority (Matthew 16:13-19).

Jesus told us that he would call his people by name, and they would follow him, and no other. Jesus also gave us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide us. But people in authority of the churches can’t trust that God will make sure his people will follow him.

I’d appreciate a specific set of verses in Scripture to help understand and support what you are saying here. I also don’t understand that last sentence; are you saying that the Church (or churches) cannot assume that they are guided by the Spirit in their teachings?

Another error in your thinking is when Jesus/Holy Spirit instructs a person using the written Word; it is not a personal interpretation. Jesus told us that; if we would live his Word he would show himself to us.
How many people do you know that Jesus has shown himself to, and called him or her by name? It should be every Christian.
People who witness that Jesus speaks to them are ridiculed. This forum frowns on anyone sharing his or her personal experiences with God.
How many people do you know that are spiritual; people who live sinless lives?

Again, I’d appreciate some verses in Scripture to aid in commenting and to support your interpretation.

I am not trying to be dense here as I understand that you seem to be discussing Christ speaking to you or others in a literal voice. It may have happened, or it may have not. I am not a judge in such matters, yet at the same time, without a basis of teaching to help me understand such a message from God, I might be awfully confused.

When or if Christ or His messengers speak to a person directly (and this has happened to many saints), it is a private revelation as opposed to Sacred Scripture, which is public revelation and part of essential tradition. The Church upholds that such private revelations are valid when they don’t contradict Scripture itself, of course. We all all called by Christ, by God–it’s a matter of whether any of us chooses to listen, at that time and moment.

I know of only one person in human history that is believed to have led a sinless life: the Blessed Virgin Mary.

 

[Spencerian]

When you talk about Jesus sending the Holy Spirit, you are referencing John 14:25 “These things I have spoken to you, while I am still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

He is saying this to the apostles, the men who would go on to build the Church (Catholic Church). The Holy Spirit works through the Church - that is how he teaches us all things and brings to remembrance all that Jesus said - through the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

The Bible is the product of this Church - the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky. The canon of scripture was proclaimed by several Catholic Church councils. The Holy Spirit was working through the Church - that is why the Catholic Church has the authority to proclaim what the canon of scripture is. If you deny that the Church has the authority to determine the canon of scripture - then you are denying that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. If you accept that the Bible is the divinely inspiried word of God, then you must acknowledge that those who determined what was to be included and was was to be excluded from the Bible must have been working under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was the Catholic Church that produced the Bible, that determined the canon of scripture - so the Catholic Church must have the authority to do so, if you accept that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God. Where does that authority come from - from Jesus himself, who gave Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, the keys to the kingdom and also promised the send the Holy Spirit to guide His Church after he left us.

This is why those who hold to the Bible can’t deny the authority of the Church if they know anything about where the Bible came from.

You said this so much more succinctly than I tried to earlier. Nice post.

 

[diggerdomer]

So there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church and the previous teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church was not correct?

Yes, and no.

Yes there is salvation outside the Church (again, please refer to CCC 846 ff)

No, the Catholic Church was not in error before, but rather the meaning of the phrase needs to be properly understood theologically and historically. There is no salvation outside of Christ. When St. Cyprian coined this phrase in the 3rd century (no salvation outside the Church) there was only one Christian “Church” so it was basically equivalent, theologically, to saying there’s no salvation outside Christ. Given historical circumstances and the unfortunate Christian divisions, our understanding of the truth of that statement has to be understood in light of a reality that Cyprian and his contemporaries had no experience of.

 

[sidbrown]

Yes, and no.

Yes there is salvation outside the Church (again, please refer to CCC 846 ff)

No, the Catholic Church was not in error before, but rather the meaning of the phrase needs to be properly understood theologically and historically. There is no salvation outside of Christ. When St. Cyprian coined this phrase in the 3rd century (no salvation outside the Church) there was only one Christian “Church” so it was basically equivalent, theologically, to saying there’s no salvation outside Christ. Given historical circumstances and the unfortunate Christian divisions, our understanding of the truth of that statement has to be understood in light of a reality that Cyprian and his contemporaries had no experience of.

What did the proclamation in Unam Sanctam mean?
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“ Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
In the passage given, Matthew 25, it makes no mention of anything like this being necessary for salvation. It only mentions certain good works, if you do them, you will be saved, if you don’t then you will not be saved.

 

[diggerdomer]

What did the proclamation in Unam Sanctam mean?
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302:
“ Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
In the passage given, Matthew 25, it makes no mention of anything like this being necessary for salvation. It only mentions certain good works, if you do them, you will be saved, if you don’t then you will not be saved.

It meant exactly what it said.

So does the Church today, e.g. in CCC 846 ff.

So?

 

[sidbrown]

It meant exactly what it said.

So does the Church today, e.g. in CCC 846 ff.

So?

It is something which is not mentioned as necessary for salvation in the passage indicated (Matthew 25).

 

[diggerdomer]

It is something which is not mentioned as necessary for salvation in the passage indicated (Matthew 25).

Ok. So…what’s your question/concern? Sorry, just not sure I understand your point. Thanks.

 

[erikd]

So there is salvation outside of the Catholic Church and the previous teaching that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church was not correct?

No.

If you read the quote from the Catechism, it speaks of those who “through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel.” If you know the truth of the Church God built, there is no excuse.

 

[sidbrown]

Ok. So…what’s your question/concern? Sorry, just not sure I understand your point. Thanks.

According to Matthew 25, you will attain salvation if you perform the good works listed there.
According to the Catholic belief in order to attain salvation you must be subject to the Roman Pontiff and you must abstain from meat on days of abstinence and attend Mass on Sundays and the holydays of obligation and you must perform your Easter duty, etc. and as well, of course, you must obey the ten commandments, and for married couples, you must not use contraceptives, and more. .
Is there a contradiction between the conditions for salvation as laid out in Matthew 25 and the conditions for salvation as taught to us by the Church?
For example, if you are married, will you attain eternal salvation if you perform the good works as listed in Matthew 25, but use contraceptives? I think that the answer to this is no, but if you read Matthew 25, there is no mention made of the necessity to avoid contraception.
So the question is whether or not Matthew 25 contradicts what Catholicism teaches with regard to what is and what is not required to attain eternal salvation.

 

[RobbyS]

This does not seem to be a convincing argument against the proposition that one can be saved if one performs as indicated in Mathew 25, which makes no mention of the necessity of belonging to any one particular Church for salvation.

Act as if you had faith, and you will have faith, goes the maxim. But that means to keep on regardless. Hard to do that alone. Have to have others beside you to show the way.

 

[kimmielittle]

Hi, Thankful.

That the Catholic Church was the original Christian faith (with no “denominations” until the Orthodox Schism around 1066) is grounded not only Biblically (note Matthew 16:17-19 and, as the Apostles filled the empty office of Judas: Acts 1:16-26) but in history. This is why we as Catholics are not worried about so-called contradictions in the Bible, for our founding members wrote what was to become the New Testament and were former members of the Old Testament. The early writings of the Church Fathers (from St. Paul and beyond) confirm Catholic practices, which have changed very little since their inception.

Respectfully speaking, those who don’t believe that the Church isn’t the root of Christianity are ignorant of history, which is disappointing, for that is a denial of truth. The term “Protestant” means that someone was protesting against something. How could the Catholic Church protest against itself? It can do so only if a faction of it split off, which is what Martin Luther did, unwisely.

No Christian practice outside of the Catholic and Orthodox faiths are older than 600 years or so, starting at the Protestant Reformation. One man (and a Catholic priest at that), decided, on his own authority (and creating a human tradition of faith) that 1500 years of Christian teaching should be revised. Again, this is human history, but that event redefined Christianity for many into thousands of groups today, with very few of them consistent in their teachings as the Catholic Church is today.

There *is *salvation outside of the Catholic Church. I’m sure of it. There are too many good people from all walks of life that do the Lord’s will and aren’t aware of it from a standpoint of faith. I, however, would not want to throw my bets in achieving salvation that way, now that I follow the central Way.

 

[kimmielittle]

You are assuming that early Catholics wrote the Bible. There are many who don’t believe the Catholic Church is the true Church of God. There are many who believe that the Catholic Church was the first Protestant Church.
I would say the true Church of God would live and teach the whole written Word of God. That is the measure, which will be used to judge us on the last day. One will not be judged by what Church one belonged to.
(Matthew 7:21) “It is not those who say to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, who will enter the kingdom of Heaven but the person who does the will of My Father in Heaven. When the day comes many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, cast out demons in your name, work many miracles in your name?’ Then I shall tell them to their faces: I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!”

Hiyas
Indeed, I’m not just assuming. I feel, there is much evidence historically…such as Catholic Monks translation the Bible…Saint Paul’s writings…the canons of scriptures…Pretty convincing…to me.

 

[Thankful10]

I’ll try to answer your statements individually this time around.

I guess my response may be rooted in Biblical history. When God sent out a prophet, he often sent only one prophet. They weren’t always welcomed and were often threatened or ridiculed. But the message was sent. It seems that God knew that multiple messengers would be confusing.(1 Corinthians 14:29) “As for prophets, let two or three of them speak, and the others attend to them.”
You speak of Old Testament prophets, now the Holy Spirit gives the gift of prophets to many.

With that, why would such an entity as the one Church, guided by the Holy Spirit to properly teach without error, seem out of the ordinary, given the Scriptural basis of Christ’s granting of authority to Peter as the leader of the Church on Earth? There’s an Old Testament prophetic passage that reflects the Keys of David passed down to Eliakim, giving him authority in the king’s stead (Isaiah 22:15-25) as Christ, David’s descendant, gave to Peter. The Church is that one voice. Go to any Catholic parish in the world on Sunday and you will get the same readings, receive the one Real Presence. You will not get the same message from private revelations or from the ministers of the thousands of Christian non-Catholic traditions, unfortunately.

Jones was one mortal man. Are you are comparing Jones with an entity that has survived to continue to teach God’s word for over 2,000 years–and compiled the very Bible (or excerpts thereof) that teaches that Word? If the Catholic Church were leading the world down the wrong path (as Jones did), wouldn’t it be reasonable to think the world would be already in the hands of the antichrist or something worse? Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare Jones to other mortal men, who have taken to teaching God’s word as best they could, but on their own personal authority? You seem to forget the people who decided the true church was the Roman Catholic Church; were just men. How do you know that the men you chose to believe in were of God?
The Catholic Church did not grant itself the authority to teach, as Jim Jones did. Christ gave the Apostles of the Church that authority (Matthew 16:13-19).

I’d appreciate a specific set of verses in Scripture to help understand and support what you are saying here. I also don’t understand that last sentence; are you saying that the Church (or churches) cannot assume that they are guided by the Spirit in their teachings?

Again, I’d appreciate some verses in Scripture to aid in commenting and to support your interpretation.

I am not trying to be dense here as I understand that you seem to be discussing Christ speaking to you or others in a literal voice. It may have happened, or it may have not. I am not a judge in such matters, yet at the same time, without a basis of teaching to help me understand such a message from God, I might be awfully confused.

When or if Christ or His messengers speak to a person directly (and this has happened to many saints), it is a private revelation as opposed to Sacred Scripture, which is public revelation and part of essential tradition. The Church upholds that such private revelations are valid when they don’t contradict Scripture itself, of course. We all all called by Christ, by God–it’s a matter of whether any of us chooses to listen, at that time and moment.

I know of only one person in human history that is believed to have led a sinless life: the Blessed Virgin Mary.

When I say live a sinless life does not mean that one has never sinned. What scripture tells us is after one is baptized and receives the Holy Spirit and then comes to know God that person will no longer deliberately commit sin.
(Hebrews 10:26-31) “If, after we have been given knowledge of the truth, we should deliberately commit any sins, then there is no longer any sacrifice for them. There is left only the dreadful prospect of judgment and of the fiery wrath that is to devour your enemies. Anyone who disregards the Law of Moses is ruthlessly put to death on the word of two witnesses or three; and you may be sure that anyone who tramples on the Son of God, and who treats the blood of the covenant which sanctified him as if it were not holy, and who insults the Spirit of grace, will be condemned to a far severer punishment. We are all aware who it was that said: Vengeance is mine; I will vindicate his people. It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

 

[Spencerian]

Thankful, since your answers were made partially in my quotes, let me break out what I said in my last post, your response, and my counter-response.

My answer: “I guess my response may be rooted in Biblical history. When God sent out a prophet, he often sent only one prophet. They weren’t always welcomed and were often threatened or ridiculed. But the message was sent. It seems that God knew that multiple messengers would be confusing.”

Your response:

(1 Corinthians 14:29) “As for prophets, let two or three of them speak, and the others attend to them.”
You speak of Old Testament prophets, now the Holy Spirit gives the gift of prophets to many.

My counter-response:

You are taking Scripture out of context by using only a few verses rather than reading the entirety of the passage and the book itself, and therefore distorting its context and meaning. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is trying to guide his readers, who are church leaders there assigned to teach the Corinthians, on what matters most during a liturgy, particularly in regards to spiritual gifts of its members. Specifically, Paul instructs the leaders there to prefer the telling of the Word in a normal intelligible voice and language (the archaic definition of the term “prophecy”–note the lack of the “s” in this word) over those in the Corinth church who prefer to speak in tongues (as the Apostles did at Pentacost). Paul noted that the telling of the Word would help all, but what others spoke in tongues would only help the gatherings after interpretation, and thus help no one at the time. (See the footnotes of 1 Corinthians here.). Yes, the Holy Spirit works through its people, but still there must be specific instruction and guide to discern what is best for a gathering. This letter from Paul was not directed at all people, but specifically to the disciples at Corinth.

My response:

“Jones was one mortal man. Are you are comparing Jones with an entity that has survived to continue to teach God’s word for over 2,000 years–and compiled the very Bible (or excerpts thereof) that teaches that Word? If the Catholic Church were leading the world down the wrong path (as Jones did), wouldn’t it be reasonable to think the world would be already in the hands of the antichrist or something worse? Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare Jones to other mortal men, who have taken to teaching God’s word as best they could, but on their own personal authority?”

Your response:

You seem to forget the people who decided the true church was the Roman Catholic Church; were just men. How do you know that the men you chose to believe in were of God?

My counter-response:

I know from, again, Matthew 25, where Christ specifically appoints Peter to lead the Church, and in John 20:19-31, where Christ appeared to the Apostles and breathed on them, to receive the Holy Spirit and become the first bishops of the new Church. Scripture shows very clearly here that Christ appointed twelve specific men here to lead the Church. We Catholics trust in the Holy Spirit that guides these men and their successors today, the bishops. Pentecost (in Acts 2) shows all the Apostles affected by the Holy Spirit and by many witnesses, who hear but are not affected by the Spirit directly as the Apostles are.

I ask you: How do you know that the men who teach you (including yourself in self-interpretation) have authority to do so but, more importantly, without error? We are all touched by the Spirit, but a special touch is required to teach without error. Only the Catholic Church’s clergy have received this, and no other passage of Scripture indicates that other non-Catholic faith received a similar assignment. Our Church may be filled with imperfect people, but the Holy Spirit guides them all to keep the Word taught without error. Where in Scripture does it say that the mantle of the priest can be picked up by just anyone?

I don’t see any Scripture responses for the other items I inquired about, so I will assume that you haven’t an answer to them. (I know it’s hard to work the forum layout in a point-by-point form).

 

[Thankful10]

Thankful, since your answers were made partially in my quotes, let me break out what I said in my last post, your response, and my counter-response.

My answer: “I guess my response may be rooted in Biblical history. When God sent out a prophet, he often sent only one prophet. They weren’t always welcomed and were often threatened or ridiculed. But the message was sent. It seems that God knew that multiple messengers would be confusing.”

Your response:

My counter-response:

You are taking Scripture out of context by using only a few verses rather than reading the entirety of the passage and the book itself, and therefore distorting its context and meaning. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is trying to guide his readers, who are church leaders there assigned to teach the Corinthians, on what matters most during a liturgy, particularly in regards to spiritual gifts of its members. Specifically, Paul instructs the leaders there to prefer the telling of the Word in a normal intelligible voice and language (the archaic definition of the term “prophecy”–note the lack of the “s” in this word) over those in the Corinth church who prefer to speak in tongues (as the Apostles did at Pentacost). Paul noted that the telling of the Word would help all, but what others spoke in tongues would only help the gatherings after interpretation, and thus help no one at the time. (See the footnotes of 1 Corinthians here.). Yes, the Holy Spirit works through its people, but still there must be specific instruction and guide to discern what is best for a gathering. This letter from Paul was not directed at all people, but specifically to the disciples at Corinth.**No my response was not taken out of context. I was showing you, using scripture, that New Testament prophet was a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the prophets gave words of advice to the Body of Christ. Also to show you that more then one prophet would be involved with a congregation. **My response:

“Jones was one mortal man. Are you are comparing Jones with an entity that has survived to continue to teach God’s word for over 2,000 years–and compiled the very Bible (or excerpts thereof) that teaches that Word? If the Catholic Church were leading the world down the wrong path (as Jones did), wouldn’t it be reasonable to think the world would be already in the hands of the antichrist or something worse?Believe me the Christian Church is so wounded that it will not withstand the anti-christ. It is because the people have been following the teachings of man and not God. Wouldn’t it be more logical to compare Jones to other mortal men, who have taken to teaching God’s word as best they could, but on their own personal authority?”

Your response:

My counter-response:

I know from, again, Matthew 25, where Christ specifically appoints Peter to lead the Church, and in John 20:19-31, where Christ appeared to the Apostles and breathed on them, to receive the Holy Spirit and become the first bishops of the new Church. Scripture shows very clearly here that Christ appointed twelve specific men here to lead the Church. We Catholics trust in the Holy Spirit that guides these men and their successors today, the bishops.Yes you trust Man. **Has God personally told you to trust what the Church teaches? Remember Jesus told us his people would hear his voice.
Tell me do you believe any of the apostles would have allowed a brother to continue teaching fellow Christians, when they knew they were sexual deviants? If the bishops were truly successors of the apostles they would be walking in the powers of the apostles. And none of the bishop whom I have know ever walked in any of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. ** Pentecost (in Acts 2) shows all the Apostles affected by the Holy Spirit and by many witnesses, who hear but are not affected by the Spirit directly as the Apostles are.

I ask you: How do you know that the men who teach you (including yourself in self-interpretation) have authority to do so but, more importantly, without error? We are all touched by the Spirit, but a special touch is required to teach without error. Only the Catholic Church’s clergy have received this, and no other passage of Scripture indicates that other non-Catholic faith received a similar assignment.Who ever told you that only Catholic priest receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Jesus said his people would hear his voice, and God gave us his Holy Spirit, not just Catholic priest. Our Church may be filled with imperfect people, but the Holy Spirit guides them all to keep the Word taught without error. Where in Scripture does it say that the mantle of the priest can be picked up by just anyone?**There is nothing in scripture that give a Catholic priest special gifts. **
I don’t see any Scripture responses for the other items I inquired about, so I will assume that you haven’t an answer to them. (I know it’s hard to work the forum layout in a point-by-point form).

So you are telling me that the Catholic is teaching the Word of God without error? Now that means if I show you that it is not teaching the Word of God without error, the Catholic Church is not the true Church of God, isn’t that right?

 

[Spencerian]

So you are telling me that the Catholic is teaching the Word of God without error? Now that means if I show you that it is not teaching the Word of God without error, the Catholic Church is not the true Church of God, isn’t that right?

Yes, Thankful. That the job of the Church is to teach, and that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church from teaching error is exactly what I am saying.

Matthew 25 and successive passages of Scripture define the Church’s authority to teach.

Over time, the teachings of the Church do get clarified over time. The question of what Limbo is and where unbaptized infants go is one example. The nature of the Trinity is another, and so is purgatory.

Let’s limit your issues to the Church’s Scriptural doctrine and dogma, however, not the history of its men, including wars. As I said, the Church has had its characters of dubious quality, but the Holy Spirit has kept error from its teaching of the faith over the passage of time.

But before we go down that road regarding inerrant teaching, it is important that you and I acknowledge what men, and under what authority, compiled the works that formed the Bible.

I don’t think I have your answer to that question, and I’ve already stated the history of the Bible’s compilation, I believe. The Holy Spirit has no hands. It designated people to create the writings that form its content and then, later, to compile them into a unified codex and decide if they are truly the inspired word of God.

Without your thoughts on this, I don’t think I’ll be able to continue our discussion as the faith of the compilers and writers and authors are a critical part that defines why the Bible is part of the Church’s three pillars: Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, the teaching body–as well as the foundation for most non-Catholic Christian traditions.