Does the Catholic Church teach from the Bible?

[MarMax]

The understanding of Our Lord’s words must, MUST, be taken in context. Notice He was being asked as regards the LAW, and He answered in accordance with the LAW. No virgin: no actual marriage in Jewish law unless the husband forgives that…

He also fulfilled the LAW, so this aspect is reduced to its original Adamic understanding or else the Church finds Herself, and all Her Children, subject to Mosaic LAW— Buzzer sound! However, the 2 become 1 aspect is immutable and from the time of Adam, not Moses. The allowance of divorce was 1) lack of forgiveness present (hard hearts) 2) not God’s intent and will.

The Church is, along with the law She gives through revelation by Christ, the perfection of law and God’s will. There simply is no divorce insofar as the breaking of the Sacrament. Civil divorce, however, is a different animal. But civil marriage is not Sacramental in and of itself. It’s just a piece of paper: fiat (made up).

Otherwise, confession is moot. There would be no forgiveness for mortal sin after being baptized and incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ, and we might as well just throw down our cards and walk away from the table.

If we as men (and women) are not willing to recognize that we are married as per the ruling of the Church, we might as well not be Catholic since we can’t break from such a doctrine for selfishness. To adopt such an attitude is to tell Christ we don’t want forgiveness. It might take a long time to heal and come back together. It might never happen. But if you’re validly married, you stuck like Chuck… and Chuck is definitely stuck.

 

[IanGE]

The understanding of Our Lord’s words must, MUST, be taken in context. Notice He was being asked as regards the LAW, and He answered in accordance with the LAW. No virgin: no actual marriage in Jewish law unless the husband forgives that…

He also fulfilled the LAW, so this aspect is reduced to its original Adamic understanding or else the Church finds Herself, and all Her Children, subject to Mosaic LAW— Buzzer sound! However, the 2 become 1 aspect is immutable and from the time of Adam, not Moses. The allowance of divorce was 1) lack of forgiveness present (hard hearts) 2) not God’s intent and will.

The Church is, along with the law She gives through revelation by Christ, the perfection of law and God’s will. There simply is no divorce insofar as the breaking of the Sacrament. Civil divorce, however, is a different animal. But civil marriage is not Sacramental in and of itself. It’s just a piece of paper: fiat (made up).

If we as men (and women) are not willing to recognize that we are married as per the ruling of the Church, we might as well not be Catholic since we can’t break from such a doctrine for selfishness. To adopt such an attitude is to tell Christ we don’t want forgiveness. It might take a long time to heal and come back together. It might never happen. But if you’re validly married, you stuck like Chuck… and Chuck is definitely stuck.

There are many ways of academic Bible study. There are those who insist on absorbing a whole book, to get a “feel” for what the writer (and the Holy Spirit) was trying to convey. Others separate the book into chunks, eg. Mark (a) who Jesus was: (b) demonstrations of His power, miracles etc.; (c) His teachings; (d) His suffering, death and resurrection. Still others, like Monks, who meditate on a single verse at a time, trying to peel off the many layers of Truth. Personally, I read the whole Bible as utterly relevant into todays Computer/ space travel age as it was in Jesus’ time on earth. Or Moses, for that matter.

As to divorce and marriage: I was in the same boat as so many divorced Catholics until I was granted an annulment. But during those thirty years I studied the Bible looking for a get-out clause. Although there are references to “divorce” I could find only one reference to “marriage” in Moses’ Pentateuch, and, according to Strongs it "appears to mean ’ to dwell together’. The Hebrew word for ‘husband’ is “man” and for “wife” is “woman”. Could a Hebrew linguist please explain. There are laws in the Pentateuch which protect a woman/wife who "dwells together with a man/husband. The OT Law books go into pernickity detail on so many subjects, but there appears to be no religious marriage ceremony.
There obviously was that wedding at Cana, but was it religious or civil? Christian men and women seem to just agree to “dwell together” until the 10th century or so when the Church stepped into to make it a religious must, a sacrament. Even well into the middle ages, village couples who couldn’t afford to pay the priest to bless the marriage simply made their vows in the church porch. With such personal exchanges of vows, of course, the woman was totally unprotected and I believe civil ceremonies were brought out to protect women.
Finally, hope to divorced catholics there IS an annulment procedure. And, of course, if anyone had a civil marriage this is not recognised by the Catholic Church. Which doesn’t mean that the church condones bigamy, you still need a civil divorce to legalise the second civil ceremony in the vestry.

 

[Traditionalism]

Almost everyone in the parishes I attended has a bible out during all of mass, reading along most of the time.

 

[jmcrae]

As to divorce and marriage: I was in the same boat as so many divorced Catholics until I was granted an annulment. But during those thirty years I studied the Bible looking for a get-out clause. Although there are references to “divorce” I could find only one reference to “marriage” in Moses’ Pentateuch, and, according to Strongs it "appears to mean ’ to dwell together’. The Hebrew word for ‘husband’ is “man” and for “wife” is “woman”. Could a Hebrew linguist please explain. There are laws in the Pentateuch which protect a woman/wife who "dwells together with a man/husband. The OT Law books go into pernickity detail on so many subjects, but there appears to be no religious marriage ceremony.
There obviously was that wedding at Cana, but was it religious or civil? Christian men and women seem to just agree to “dwell together” until the 10th century or so when the Church stepped into to make it a religious must, a sacrament. Even well into the middle ages, village couples who couldn’t afford to pay the priest to bless the marriage simply made their vows in the church porch. With such personal exchanges of vows, of course, the woman was totally unprotected and I believe civil ceremonies were brought out to protect women.

Regardless of how the wedding ceremony took place prior to what we have today, the expectation even in the Old Testament was that the husband and his family were responsible for taking care of the wife until her natural death.

Even in the Book of Ruth, we see Naomi, the widowed mother of her dead sons taking care of their wives. When she becomes no longer able to do so, she releases them from their vows (essentially, she divorces them) so that they can seek out other husbands. It is credited as virtue to Ruth that she refuses to go, but takes upon herself to take care of Naomi - and when she does eventually find a husband, at her request, Boaz includes Naomi into the family, as well.

Marriage back in those days was much more complicated than it is, today. But it has always been about protecting the women.

Divorce is the leading cause of female and child poverty.

 

[IanGE]

Regardless of how the wedding ceremony took place prior to what we have today, the expectation even in the Old Testament was that the husband and his family were responsible for taking care of the wife until her natural death.

Marriage back in those days was much more complicated than it is, today. But it has always been about protecting the women.

Divorce is the leading cause of female and child poverty.

Exodus 21:10/11 is interesting. “If he ( a man) marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without payment or money.” Some protection!
I take it these were still during the polygamous days.
Deuteronomy 24.1 is the verse Jesus qualified later. A man is allowed to divorce a woman if she displeases him; he then sends her from his house. I read somewhere that this was the origin of jewellery: the divorced woman had to leave Grumpy without any of her possessions except what she was wearing. So women took to wearing all adornments that hubby gave her when he was in a good mood - ALL, the lot, all the time, just in case! Then, if the old beggar got stroppy, she could walk out with a small fortune.
24.1 also states that if the divorced woman remarries and her second husband also finds her displeasing and divorces her or if he dies, then the first husband must not marry her again. Because she has been defiled. Oh boy!
I would love to hear some Rabbinical apologist explain some of these puzzling OT verses from the original Hebrew.

 

[MarMax]

Exodus 21:10/11 is interesting. "If he ( a man) marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. If does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without payment or money." Some protection!
I take it these were still during the polygamous days.
Deuteronomy 24.1 is the verse Jesus qualified later. A man is allowed to divorce a woman if she displeases him; he then sends her from his house. I read somewhere that this was the origin of jewellery: the divorced woman had to leave Grumpy without any of her possessions except what she was wearing. So women took to wearing all adornments that hubby gave her when he was in a good mood - ALL, the lot, all the time, just in case! Then, if the old beggar got stroppy, she could walk out with a small fortune.
24.1 also states that if the divorced woman remarries and her second husband also finds her displeasing and divorces her or if he dies, then the first husband must not marry her again. Because she has been defiled. Oh boy!
I would love to hear some Rabbinical apologist explain some of these puzzling OT verses from the original Hebrew.

Tsk Tsk… you not only broke the context rule, you HAD to have done it purposefully unless you actually didn’t read it for what it says in full. Words have meaning, and many times will connect thoughts. The operative word here is the word BUT…

This is in regards to a woman being put into servitude (such as a maid), not a slave… and sometimes, she probably caught the eye of the son of the master. Let’s read IN CONTEXT: (my comments are bracketed/italics)

[7] If any man sell his daughter to be a servant, she shall not go out as bondwomen are wont to go out.<<< start with this understanding] [8] If she displease the eyes of her master to whom she was delivered, he shall let her go: but he shall have no power to sell her to a foreign nation, if he despise her.[no slavery! no foreigners shall own a Hebrew!] [9] *But [the operative word, yo] if he[the master of the house] have betrothed her [servant; now “daughter”: see end of this verse] to his son[son of the master], he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. [10] And if he take another wife for him, he shall provide her a marriage, and raiment, neither shall he refuse the price of her chastity.[Dowry, etc.]*
[11] If he do not these three things, she shall go out free without money.* [she is not to pay a price for her freedom from this period of servitude… having been made a wife, and treated as a daughter previously. No "well, yeah, you were married to my son, but originally you were a servant girl and we have X years left on this contract so you owe me for those years. NOT. AT. ALL. He, the master, upped the ante by marrying her to his son.]*

Per Deuteronomy 24:1, Haydock provides explanation and context. “Displeasing” is not “you burned the toast and your breath stinks”; displeasing is the violation of the law or otherwise:

Ver. 1. Uncleanness. Tertullian (contra Marc. iv.) reads, “if she be found guilty of any impurity,” negotium impudicum. Septuagint, “unseemly action;” and many learned commentators suppose that Moses only allows a divorce in cases of adultery, or in those which render the woman dangerous to a family, as if she had the leprosy, or some other infectious disorder, or was likely to corrupt the morals of her children, or if she were barren. The Pharisees were divided among themselves in determining the sense of this law, (Calmet) and they endeavoured to inveigle our Saviour, by proposing the question to him. If it were lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause, quacumque ex causa, or for any reason whatsoever, Matthew xix. 3. (Haydock) — Our Lord does not take notice of the limitation here added by Moses; (Matthew v. 31.) nor do the Pharisees, when he asks them, What did Moses command you? (Mark x. 3.) Whence it seems, that the liberty which was taken was very great, and that the limitation was not regarded. Our Saviour, nonetheless, alludes to it, when he admits that Moses permitted a divorce, in case of adultery. But he recalls them to the institution of marriage, and will no longer allow people to marry again, even in this case, as Moses had been forced to permit the Jews, on account of the hardness of their heart. (Calmet) — Before this permission, the Jews were therefore, it seems, much addicted to this practice. — Bill. The law does not command divorces; but in case the parties come to such a determination, it requires a bill to be given to the woman. The Jews require the greatest formality in drawing it up, and witnessing it, and they say the divorce must take place upon a fountain or river. (Schikard. Jur. iii. 9.) — Munster gives this form of a bill: “The 4th day of the month of Sivan, of the year 5293 from the creation of the world, in this place and in this city of N, T.* N, son of N, had a mind to divorce, and has divorced N, daughter of N, who hitherto has been my wife; and I grant her leave to go whither she has a mind, and to marry whomsoever she pleases, so that no one shall hinder her. In witness whereof, I have given her this bill of divorce, according to the ordinances of Moses and of Israel.” The Jews still assert their right to put away their wives. (Buxt. Syn. xxix.) (Calmet) — But it is sinful for them, or for any other, to marry the woman divorced, till the first husband be dead. If they do, they are guilty of adultery, as our Saviour and St. Paul repeatedly inculcate. (St. Augustine, de Adult. Conj. i. 11.) (Worthington)*
Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id517.html

Amazing what happens when you view it in context, eh? Even more amazing when you seek out more learned answers from more learned men who consult the Fathers’ writings and commentaries. Catholicism ain’t Protestantism. Quit trying to make it so.

If you find this gruff, it dang well is gruff and on purpose too!

I’m sick of people pitting the Old Testament against Happy-Clappy nonsense understandings, as if Jesus changed everything. NO SIR. If you can’t handle the Old Testament, don’t read it. Get a grasp on the New Testament first, and keep in mind not everything is like the Pant-Suit committee of hand-holding Social “Justice” morons says it is. In fact, it’s generally the opposite of such insipid and saccharine understandings.

Catholicism is hard. It’s harder if you insist on misreading Sacred Scripture like the Protestants and militant Atheists.

Dominus Vobiscum.

 

[PJM]

=smiddle;9353835]Before you jump at my throat, I know that this is where we get our dogmas, rules, etc. My question pertains more to Sunday school.

It was just pointed out to me, by a Baptist, that all we (Catholics) do is read the same Bible stories at church, so we never really learn anything new. Naturally I jumped to defend the Church, but after I thought about it, it’s kind of true.

In Sunday school, not once did we ever look at or read from the Bible. We were taught how church and the sacraments work and how to complete them, not why we even do them in the first place. In eighth grade, about 3 weeks before my confirmation, I was given a Bible. That was great, except for the fact that we never opened them, except to write our names on the inside cover.

This does not make any sense to me, especially since how powerful the Bible is. It has really opened my eyes and helped me better understand my faith. My friends that are Baptist, Protestant, etc. know the Bible very well, and they can recite verses as quickly as they can prayers.

I think the teachers should stress reading the Bible and actually understanding why we do things and where we got them from, instead of reviewing what to do at confirmation everyday.

Sorry:blush:

Your baptist friend in not correctly informed.

The CC uses a “three year cycle” of Bible readingd…A; B, C

Within a three year period if one were to attend daily Mass ONE WOULD HAVE THE ENTIRE BIBLE READ AND EXPLAINED TO THEM:thumbsup: can you Baptist friend match that?

What your “Sunday school” was doing was picking up where the bile leaves off and by explaining the Sacraments ect. THEY WERE indirectly teaching the bible.

We my dear friend are THEE Bible Church; not just “a bible church”

***Have your frIend read:

Mt. 16:19-20
Mt. 10:1-8
Mt. 28:16-20
John 17:15-19
and John 20:19-22***

EACH OF THESE passages ARE CHRIST SPEAKING, COMMANDING AND PROTECTING ONLY WHAT THE CC TEACHES. THE command TO TEACH CHRIST FAITH IS granted only TO THE CC THROUGH THE APOSTLES. And yes I can prove this biblically.

Ought we read the Bible more? YEP! Let us pray that it happens.

As a sidenote many, even most parishes offer bible study classes too.

LOOK for a private message from me,

God Bless,
pat /PJM here on this FORUM

 

[IanGE]

Tsk Tsk… you not only broke the context rule, you HAD to have done it purposefully unless you actually didn’t read it for what it says in full. Words have meaning, and many times will connect thoughts. The operative word here is the word BUT…

This is in regards to a woman being put into servitude (such as a maid), not a slave… and sometimes, she probably caught the eye of the son of the master. Let’s read IN CONTEXT: (my comments are bracketed/italics)

Per Deuteronomy 24:1, Haydock provides explanation and context. “Displeasing” is not “you burned the toast and your breath stinks”; displeasing is the violation of the law or otherwise:

Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id517.html

Amazing what happens when you view it in context, eh? Even more amazing when you seek out more learned answers from more learned men who consult the Fathers’ writings and commentaries. Catholicism ain’t Protestantism. Quit trying to make it so.

If you find this gruff, it dang well is gruff and on purpose too!

I’m sick of people pitting the Old Testament against Happy-Clappy nonsense understandings, as if Jesus changed everything. NO SIR. If you can’t handle the Old Testament, don’t read it. Get a grasp on the New Testament first, and keep in mind not everything is like the Pant-Suit committee of hand-holding Social “Justice” morons says it is. In fact, it’s generally the opposite of such insipid and saccharine understandings.

Catholicism is hard. It’s harder if you insist on misreading Sacred Scripture like the Protestants and militant Atheists.

Dominus Vobiscum.

Please do not belittle my 21 years of searching for the Truth or the preceding 25 years of devoted Catholicism, which did not help in times of trouble. OR the following 30 years of living IN and WITH the Holy Spirit, who is still my teacher and I continue to learn FROM HIM! Please read John chapter 16, especially V.13: “but when He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into ALL Truth.” Yes, Catholicism is hard, seemingly built on fear: full of 'thy shalt nots lest you go to hell". Christianity is beautiful, a Gospel of Love and promises of Heaven. I speak from experience: I used to drag myself to Sunday Mass because I was terrified of incurring a mortal sin and the attendant one foot in Hell. Since being Born Again, I rush eagerly to join together in worship of our God with my brothers and sisters. I long to hear His Word being read and preached and most especially to join with Jesus in Holy Communion. And don’t call me a Protestant, even the so-called Protestant churches are not too happy with the Holy Spirit and the signs. Individuals of all “Protestant” persuasions who are Born Again are a delight in our prayer groups. Just like baby John the Baptist who leapt in his mother’s womb when the pregnant Mary visited, the inter-linking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in everybody leads to joyful praise. Jesus said "wherever two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there also I AM (one of the great I AMs of the NT.) I feel strongly called to ecumenical gathering together of all Christian churches and the Spirit in me hurts at this awful division. It hurts when Catholics scornfully use the term “protestant” AND vice-versa.
When I was newly born again a gaggle of Hari Krishnas was parading through our town, singing Hari Krishna whines and clinking bells. One of them offered me the Baghvad Gita (I think) and I was just about to lash out “I’ve read it and its a load of cod’s wallop”, when the Lord said gently to me: “they are searching for me, Ian, just as you did.” Roger Wilco, Lord!

 

[Zekariya]

Please do not belittle my 21 years of searching for the Truth or the preceding 25 years of devoted Catholicism, which did not help in times of trouble. OR the following 30 years of living IN and WITH the Holy Spirit, who is still my teacher and I continue to learn FROM HIM! Please read John chapter 16, especially V.13: “but when He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into ALL Truth.” Yes, Catholicism is hard, seemingly built on fear: full of 'thy shalt nots lest you go to hell". Christianity is beautiful, a Gospel of Love and promises of Heaven. I speak from experience: I used to drag myself to Sunday Mass because I was terrified of incurring a mortal sin and the attendant one foot in Hell. Since being Born Again, I rush eagerly to join together in worship of our God with my brothers and sisters. I long to hear His Word being read and preached and most especially to join with Jesus in Holy Communion. And don’t call me a Protestant, even the so-called Protestant churches are not too happy with the Holy Spirit and the signs. Individuals of all “Protestant” persuasions who are Born Again are a delight in our prayer groups. Just like baby John the Baptist who leapt in his mother’s womb when the pregnant Mary visited, the inter-linking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in everybody leads to joyful praise. Jesus said "wherever two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there also I AM (one of the great I AMs of the NT.) I feel strongly called to ecumenical gathering together of all Christian churches and the Spirit in me hurts at this awful division. It hurts when Catholics scornfully use the term “protestant” AND vice-versa.
When I was newly born again a gaggle of Hari Krishnas was parading through our town, singing Hari Krishna whines and clinking bells. One of them offered me the Baghvad Gita (I think) and I was just about to lash out “I’ve read it and its a load of cod’s wallop”, when the Lord said gently to me: “they are searching for me, Ian, just as you did.” Roger Wilco, Lord!

1. Do you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its teachings? If so, you are Catholic. If you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its teachings, you are not Catholic. Of course non-Catholics are not required to call themselves protestant.
2. All Christians that reject the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church are technically “protestant” in the current use of the word. There are protestant denominations that accept the Charismatic movement and there are protestant denominations that reject the Charismatic movement. There are protestant denominations that accept infant baptisms and there are protestant denominations that reject infant baptisms.

I hope that I was clear in my explanation.

 

[pgnat1]

1. Scripture
2. Tradition

 

[IanGE]

1. Do you believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its teachings? If so, you are Catholic. If you do not believe in the authority of the Catholic Church and its teachings, you are not Catholic. Of course non-Catholics are not required to call themselves protestant.
2. All Christians that reject the Catholic Church or Orthodox Church are technically “protestant” in the current use of the word. There are protestant denominations that accept the Charismatic movement and there are protestant denominations that reject the Charismatic movement. There are protestant denominations that accept infant baptisms and there are protestant denominations that reject infant baptisms.

I hope that I was clear in my explanation.

Hi Zakariya, I am puzzled: Melkite Catholic Christian? Which takes precedence? For me, Christian, because I follow Jesus. Martin Luther wrote - a long time ago - “if the clergy will not act with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit will act with the Laity”. Which has happened.

 

[Zekariya]

Hi Zakariya, I am puzzled: Melkite Catholic Christian? Which takes precedence? For me, Christian, because I follow Jesus. Martin Luther wrote - a long time ago - “if the clergy will not act with the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit will act with the Laity”. Which has happened.

Since when do Catholics believe that Martin Luther’s teaching takes precedence over the Scriptures and the teachings of Christ’s Church? Do you not believe that Christ gave the authority to St Peter and St Peter to his successors?

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.” - The Athanasian Creed

 

[DebChris]

The Catholic Church recognizes the charisms as special graces of the Holy Spirit. These graces are not limited to the clergy, but are manifested among the laity as well. It is not ordination that makes an individual a saint nor is it any of the charisms that we as individuals may possess. It is faith. It is not faith alone, but the actions that are manifested as a result of our faith.
It is not enough to say, “Lord, Lord” in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. We are called to do God’s Will. This requires a humble heart and a listening spirit, as well as a willingness to obey the promptings of the Holy Spirit at work within us.
This is where I like the prayer of Thomas Merton in which he recognizes that he does not always know God’s Will, but believes that our desire to please God does indeed please Him.

 

[mskejj]

Please do not belittle my 21 years of searching for the Truth or the preceding 25 years of devoted Catholicism, which did not help in times of trouble. OR the following 30 years of living IN and WITH the Holy Spirit, who is still my teacher and I continue to learn FROM HIM! Please read John chapter 16, especially V.13: “but when He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will guide you into ALL Truth.” Yes, Catholicism is hard, seemingly built on fear: full of 'thy shalt nots lest you go to hell". Christianity is beautiful, a Gospel of Love and promises of Heaven. I speak from experience: I used to drag myself to Sunday Mass because I was terrified of incurring a mortal sin and the attendant one foot in Hell. Since being Born Again, I rush eagerly to join together in worship of our God with my brothers and sisters. I long to hear His Word being read and preached and most especially to join with Jesus in Holy Communion. And don’t call me a Protestant, even the so-called Protestant churches are not too happy with the Holy Spirit and the signs. Individuals of all “Protestant” persuasions who are Born Again are a delight in our prayer groups. Just like baby John the Baptist who leapt in his mother’s womb when the pregnant Mary visited, the inter-linking of the indwelling Holy Spirit in everybody leads to joyful praise. Jesus said "wherever two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there also I AM (one of the great I AMs of the NT.) I feel strongly called to ecumenical gathering together of all Christian churches and the Spirit in me hurts at this awful division. It hurts when Catholics scornfully use the term “protestant” AND vice-versa.
When I was newly born again a gaggle of Hari Krishnas was parading through our town, singing Hari Krishna whines and clinking bells. One of them offered me the Baghvad Gita (I think) and I was just about to lash out “I’ve read it and its a load of cod’s wallop”, when the Lord said gently to me: “they are searching for me, Ian, just as you did.” Roger Wilco, Lord!

Are you aware that Jesus is speaking to the Apostles in John 16:13 when he says he will send the Holy Spirit to guide them into ALL TRUTH. The Holy Spirit will guide the leaders of the Church into all truth…not each one of us. If that was the case, we would not have so many different versions of what is true and what is not true in the Christian Churches today. You have to read that verse in context.

 

[mlz]

Ok, please understand that I’ve only read some of the first posts as time does not permit me to read ALL of the posts.

I am a new Catholic, having been raised Protestant all my life up to now. I am so grateful God led me to the fullness of my faith. BUT…to the defense of my protestant brothers and sisters in Christ, honestly, I have found more protestants interested in reading and knowing scripture than my very dear new Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ. (sorry, but true) I love the Catholic faith, believe me or I would never have converted. Why this happens and who is to blame isn’t really the issue or problem rather what should we do…! Let’s decide to help this. I for one need to step up my involvement although a “newbie”, but also, let us all pray, pray, pray. Fast also. If this is so important to talk about online, then we all need to DO something about this…not just spend time defending, although there are definately defenses to be made. Still…problems exits and the blame game gets us nowhere. In fact the enemy LOVES to get us to argue and fight about the issue rather than RESOLVE IT! Pray if you can’t do anything constructive yourself (although you have need to ask what is it I need to do to help this situation). Don’t think of prayer as a “last resort”. Prayer is so very, very, very (did I say very?!!) important. Pray…Lord, help us. We need to ask H IM to help…He knows best the answers. Pray for the youth, pray for parents, for families, for priests, for teachers. Criticism is only helpful if positive action is the result…Let’s move forward and either pray of read scripture ourselves or offer our time and talents to lead groups, Sunday School, youth groups. Be an example as small as it seems. Learn from our Lord. Read His Word and be faithful. I love being a Catholic, but I love the great background that encouraged me to read scripture which is part of why I ended up becoming Catholic. (Praise God!) My prayers that He leads us all.

Love in Christ,
mlz

 

[IanGE]

Are you aware that Jesus is speaking to the Apostles in John 16:13 when he says he will send the Holy Spirit to guide them into ALL TRUTH. The Holy Spirit will guide the leaders of the Church into all truth…not each one of us. If that was the case, we would not have so many different versions of what is true and what is not true in the Christian Churches today. You have to read that verse in context.

For 45 years I was TOLD that Jesus spoke to the apostles or whoever and therefore to the Church leaders. On 28 September 1981(at 7.45PM) the Holy Spirit fell on me and I immediately spoke in tongues (and later demonstrated the other gifts) by the grace of God. Also that night I was astonished to KNOW that the whole Bible was written as a love letter to little old ME!!! The Catholic church stepped out of line by demoting the Spirit-written, infallible, Bible to the same weight as fallible doctrine. Other divisions are similarly man-made. The Holy Spirit UNITES: whenever Charismatics (of all backgrounds) meet there is unity (mostly). Jesus says, "where two or more shall join together IN MY NAME (and only in HIS NAME) there also I AM. Also, where two or more (meeting in My Name) shall agree, it is also done in Heaven. We have found that it is not just a (yeah, yeah, get-on-with-it agree or a forced agree or else I’ll go to hell, but vibrate together: My God you are absolutely right! Although all true believers are given the authority to heal or drive out demons in the name of Jesus, it seems to work better when a bunch of Born Again believers agree/vibrate together. That way, if it doesn’t work, you can blame the other chap for not truly believing!
In our circle we have one who has cancer-healing faith; my friend’s wife has toothache-healing faith. Me? Migraines, I’m afraid. Although we have learnt that we suddenly get a by-proxy pain. My first time was a sudden throbbing headache while in a prayer group: somehow I knew it wasn’t my migraine and asked. A young lad admitted this migraine had been attacking him for days: I laid hands on him in the Name of Jesus and the pain left BOTH of us! Another time I felt my hands contracting like claws; I asked and a lady doctor burst into tears. She showed us her hands and said, “that’s why I had to give up being a surgeon.” I laid hands - again in Jesus Name. I guess Jesus wanted her to go back to operating! BTW For those with the authority to use Jesus’ Name: command, don’t ask, unless you’re faith isn’t up to cancer or whatever level! And if your faith isn’t up to driving out demons, for Heaven’s sake, don’t go there. In Acts 19: 13 -16, some Jews went about trying to drive out devils. They would say “In the name of Jesus, whom Paul preaches about, I command you to come out.” The evil spirit in a man replied: “Jesus I know and Paul I know but who are you?” and beat them up so badly they went home bleeding.

 

[IanGE]

I agree: a terrible formula to be devised by a Vatican Council. By their fruits you will tell: those words caused a major mondial schism: half the Christian world protested with hands raised in scandalised horror. The Holy Spirit UNITES: at least He unites those who accept Him.

 

[agnes_therese]

And shows a profound misunderstanding of Tradition.

 

[Zekariya]

I second that.

 

[IanGE]

And shows a profound misunderstanding of Tradition.

For my part it displays a deep MISTRUST of tradition. The fifth Lateran council was called to try and undo the harm caused due proclamations by bad popes, notably the Borgias and the two Popes in Rome and Avignon. And ended up making a proclamation that divided the Christian church forever. Worst of all the Vatican STILL believes and acts as if it were equal if not above the infallible Word of God. Once they drop that allegation and put Jesus God back in His rightful place at the top of the firmament, “protestants” would flock back, I’m sure: at least people would - dunno about clergy who who have placed themselves above “laity” and would fear for loss of self-proclaimed power. In Peter’s speech to the Jerusalem council (Acts 11: 16/17): “Then I remembered what the Lord had said: “John baptised with water, but you will be baptised with the Holy Spirit”. So if God gave them (the Gentiles) the same gift as He gave us, who believed in Jesus Christ, who was I to think I could oppose God?” And of course his much opposed statement in 1 Peter 2:9: “But YOU are a chosen people, a royal priesthood…” I fully accept the Pope as elected leader of the Roman Catholic church as I accept “call me Dave” as elected Prime minister of England. Free speech allows me to question Dave’s speeches and laws, but there the metaphor ends. Criticism of the Pope sentences me to hell-fire, doom and degradation it seems!