Evangelical vs Protestant

[bigbaldone]

Very true, Paul,

And just for the record, the cut and paste was not something that is bad, rather I was addressing his attack on Catholics for doing so, while ignoring his own practice.

You are correct that it is not relevant, and I believe that the rest of the material in your post was necessary to hear, at least for me.

 

[benedictus2]

It is unclear which one Narrow Path is but hopefully he stays engaged and learns, even if he is not posting regularly himself. Many people get converted to Catholicism based at least partially on forums that provide answers like this one. Many here provide testamony to that. The more the spirit calls, the more he will find himself here looking for answers. (even if he fights initially. I have seen it happen that people go from virally anti-catholic to wanting to convert virtually overnight, once the spirit makes inroads.) In any case, give him a break. Its a big decision to change Faiths - your soul is on the line. - and there is often angst involved… Keep the faith.

Great Post and all very true!

 

[Cinette]

“Essentials” of Protestantism have devolved a LOT since the day of Luther, and they are devolving a lot in front of our eyes within our own generation. Non-denominationalism on the one hand (strengthened greatly by the modern movement against organized religion) and liberalism on the other are two great waves of the Protestant future, and these are devastating doctrinal “essentials” within our own lifespan . . . though they themselves are only the most recent phases of a continually devolving process of the disintegration in essentials for Protestantism. The enormity of the number of divisions in Protestantism has caused people to learn to think little of the differences, to see these as non-essential because it is virtually impossible to get by in our world while seeing as a big deal all the differences of doctrine that in the past would have been seen as shocking abominations between differing denominations. Because we need to “get by,” our understanding of the vital importance of doctrine diminishes and our acceptance of differing doctrinal viewpoints grows ever broader with each passing generation. That’s what’s been happening for about 500 years within Protestantism, and a lot of Catholics get caught up in that kind of perspective too because it’s all around them, and living in it, that’s what they become accustomed to.

It’s very sad, but historically, this is what’s happening. Many of your “essentials” will not be seen as essentials in mainstream Protestant thought in four, three, or maybe even two generations, if the current trends continue as they have been for centuries. Liberalism and relativism are eroding them horrifically, and non-denominationalism looks set to deal the knock-out punch.

Don’t get me wrong- I know that non-denominationals and liberals and people of a broad variety can have real relationships with God. But Protestantism is and has always been a disintegrating religion, and if you look at Protestantism from a historical vantage point, and look at its big future movements today, you’ll see how modern viewpoints of “essentials” are transitory and much, much sparser than they ever have been in Protestant history, and much, much sparser than the new big Protestant movements in liberalism and to some extent in non-denominationalism make it still.

He is a heretic if he rejects the Marian dogmas. The existence of heresy and confusion does not mean truth is unclear. Sometimes people just don’t know the truth, and sometimes they know and reject it even though it’s clear. When they reject it while Catholics, they sever themselves from the Church at least to the extent that they deny it. The Lord said that He made the wisdom of the wise foolishness; we must rely on Christ, and He brought us all that the Catholic Church gives.

There are heretical Catholics and there are faithful Catholics who remain united in truth. The fact that some leave the truth does not mean the Church is not one, for those that leave the truth leave the Church, and it remains a spiritual and unspeakably precious unity. Just as Jesus prayed to His Father before entering the Passion, “I pray that they may be one as you and I are one.” That is the grace He pours out to the Church through the Eucharist, union for all in the faith and in the Spirit. Christ’s Body is not divided; it is one glorious, majestic and powerful united entity.

It is sad that many Protestants try to rebut teachings that are unspeakably glorious, teachings such as the unity of the Church in faith, and really infallible interpretations of truth from Rome! How glorious, how unutterably glorious, if Christ really DID speak through Rome infallibly rather than leaving everyone in confusion and endless doctrinal disintegration, if the Church WAS really one as Christ and His Father are one, rather than divided in opinion and speaking with millions of opposing voices on matters of religion, rather than with Christ’s voice, Christ who said that whenever He speaks, it is His Father that speaks through Him: that is the majesty of the unity Christ and His Father shared, total oneness in voice, in doctrine, in opinion, in thought and in essence. That is what He manifests in the unity of faith and Spirit of His Church, and in their one action with one Head, which is represented in human form in the Pope in order that the Church might live as one continually rather than shatter millionfold, and might preserve and protect it against the devil’s lies.

Hi Lief!

I am in bed with flu and going through this thread carefully and have just come across your postings (Page 6) which are informative and very interesting indeed. As I have a headache and feel misty I have to read carefully and slowly and mastigate all the information.

I am also very grateful for Paul C’s participation and I hope and pray that those who do not agree at least READ and mastigate the content of your postings if they wish to be honest with themselves.

Blessings
Cinette

 

[CoachSTL]

As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing. In fact, I have ALREADY ANSWERED these statements:

“Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.”

We are going around in a circle now. I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread. Surely, I can expect in the minds of Catholics. As long as they keep posting and have the last word they have now “won” the debate. How tragic! So the posts following this one will no doubt include Catholic antagonizing, etc. But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

Read my prior posts for answers to all of the points that were just raised.

Peace to you - Usemelord, Joe370, Joe C, Bigbaldone and Little Miss Benedictus2!

Perhaps I will see you guys (and girls) on the other side of eternity…and if I do, I . promise that I won’t say: “I told you so.”

May the grace, love and peace of Jesus Christ dwell in your hearts forever.

Narrowpath,

I have been reading your posts and I am impressed with your diligence to defend your belief. I guess, if you are still reading, which I assume you are doing so, is that you must feel very isolated. There isn’t one person defending the Christian faith on this forum that only has love in their heart for you and wants you to see and feel the fullness of it. Surely, you can see that the division between what people beleive about His Teaching is not the purpose of Jesus’ teaching. Christians should be united in one faith, not divided.

It make sense that Jesus would have made it clear to us on matters of authority before He left this earth. Surely, you can see that this banter between people of His faith is not what Jesus intended. Surely, He would have told the Apostles that one day their will be a booked created and that this book shall be called the Bible, and that this book shall be the pillar and foundation of truth, and a believer of me is only to read the book and let the Holy Spirit be his guide in all matters of faith and morals until the end of time, or until I create another authority.

If the Bible was to become the authority, than why did Jesus not tell the Apostles this during his tenure here on earth? Surely, Jesus would not want us bantering over this so vehemently.

 

[Cinette]

Narrow_path and Paul C: Thanks for your observations and comments. Narrow_path cited Scripture from I Cor. and this, I believe, is where the concept of Purgatory comes from. Simply stated, we all leave this earthly existence is varying degrees of states of Grace, and, therefore, need to be “purified by fire.” Before beginning my RCIA journey I can recall having an interview with the gentleman heading up the RCIA program and during that interview he asked if I had any specific questions. Yes, “Where does the concept of Purgatory come from? That word cannot be found in the Bible, so why shouldn’t I believe that it is nothing more than something fabricated by the Catholic church?” He didn’t hesitate for a second and responded by saying, “You won’t find the word ‘Trinity’ in the Bible either.” Then he handed me an article explaining the whole notion of Purgatory which was, importantly for me, based on Scripture. As I explained yesterday, my wife is not one to be very demonstrative about her faith. That’s just her nature. However, she does do works of kindness for our neighbors (who are not Catholic) such as making meals for a neighbor recovering from cancer, and another friend from church recovering from back surgery. She does not want to be noticed or recognized for what she does. This reminds me of the Scripture where men are on the street corner wanting to be noticed for their acts, and we hear, “Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven.” As such, I have to believe that my wife’s unselfish acts of mercy and her sincere heart for the Lord stand her in good stead. Now, all I have to worry about is me!

Hi Usemelord!

Here are the works of Mercy:

The Spiritual Works of Mercy

• to admonish the sinner
• to instruct the ignorant
• to counsel the doubtful
• to comfort the sorrowful,
• to bear wrongs patiently,
• to forgive all injuries
• to pray for the living and the dead

The Corporal Works of Mercy

• to feed the hungry
• to give drink to the thirsty
• to clothe the naked
• to ransom the captive
• to harbour the harbourless
• to visit the sick
• to bury the dead

Your wife is doing good works. Through her love and her kindness she may not only be comforting and helping others but she may also be sowing precious seeds. Remember we do not always reap what we sow.

Let me tell you a little story:

The affluent Mrs Smith died and went to the gates of Heaven where she was met by none other than Jesus himself. Jesus greeted her and said “Let me take you to your place here.” As they walked along they passed beautiful mansions with magnificent gardens and then more modest mansions and then smaller houses also with gardens. Mrs Smith was beginning to get nervous as they passed these and then came some very modest bungalows and finally they reached a row of shanty huts and Jesus stopped at the end of the row and pointed to a hut which he said was Mrs Smith’s. "Oh no! That won’t do at all my Lord,"said Mrs Smith as she snuggled into her fur coat “that won’t do at all!” "Well, said Jesus, “this is the best I could do with the material you sent me.”

God bless you and your wife.

Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Hi everybody!

I am lagging behind (Page 9) but am finding this thread so interesting that I do not want to skip anything.

I want to add something. Narrow Path said he knows a lot of Cafetaria Catholics and unfortunately that is a lamentable thing. You see, just as Protestants pick and choose and move around there are Catholics that do the same. I know Protestants that choose “churches” to suit them - the right “fit” - it might be because they have a terrific preacher, the youth group is fantastic, the church is conveniently down the road, they have friends that go to that Church and many other reasons.

If you are not properly Catechised chances are you will fall away because the Catholic Church doesn’t play games - the Church does not compromise and does not seek to be popular.

Regarding converts, we have been enriched with many extremely knowledgeable and well formed Protestants who have seen the light. There is a ministry in the United States called the “Coming Home Network” which is to lend assistance to Pastors from Protestant churches who have issues, questions and who need help. Many of them have serious financial issues - bonds, children to educate etc. yet they want to come home to the Catholic Church. Every week Marcus Grodi interviews former Protestants (most were pastors) who have come home to the Catholic Church - his programme is now in its 12th year! Many outstanding theologians have been on his programme to share their stories.

I once saw on the Coming Home Website an article about 92 pastors who came into the Church over a period of 10 months. I think this was in 2002. There was one pastor who converted and brought with him 54 members of his congregation. An Anglican priest in the UK brought 36 members of his Church and there are many similar stories.

I was away from the Church for 27 years because of my ignorance.

This is not like a fan club - some support this soccer club, others another - people go wild following the soccer games. Stadiums costing millions are being built all over the world. In South Africa alone, where the 2010 world cup is going to be held millions are being spent on stadiums. I look at this and think it would be wonderful to see the same enthusiasm for the Lord as you find at the games (in the US you have American football, baseball and basketball). All this captures people and they live for the games!

We are also influenced by the media and the secular world. Whether we like it or not, we are often drawn into material things. Relativism is rife. We are forgetting about the purpose of our lives and going after the material world. All this leads to sin.

So Narrow Path, yes you will find Catholics who do not know their faith - there are plenty of them. However, through EWTN, Catholic Answers and a new breed of Catholics we are experiencing a more qualitative following which tends to have an influence on the people at large. And of course we have been enriched by many, many splendid Protestants who join our ranks every day. They are doing an enormous amount of good work in the Church.

What more could we wish for? The thing is we really need to be united because there are evil forces against which we should be struggling. If we were one united Christian force imagine the good we could do in this world. Divided we fall.

God bless you all
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Reply # 2

If you want exegesis here are my refutations which are BIBLICAL which you have not answered to;

My post No 101

Hi narrow path,

Care to share what biblical data there is that states that Christ did NOT establish the Church upon Peter?

You mean the petra/petros NON DEBATE?

Do you know that Jesus was speaking in Aramaic and that Matthew 16:18 went : “You are kepha and upon this kepha I will build my Church”, so a straight English translation really went "You are rock and upon this rock I will build my Church?"

Do you know that the only reason you have the petra/petros debate is because when they translated Aramaic into greek they had to give Simon the name Peter because the Greek language has gender for things and petra is a feminine name so they rendered Kepha into Peter because this is the male equivalent of Petra?

Hi Benedictus!

In Portuguese Peter is Pedro and rock is pedra (feminine)
In French Peter is Pierre and rock is pierre (feminine)

I am going to a Greek coffee shop today and will ask Harry (the Greek owner) about petra/petros.

I wonder why Protestants are so bent on insisting that Jesus did not mean what he said when he changed Simon’s name to Peter and gave him the keys and told him that what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven and extlicitly said that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth? Why is that so difficult for them to understand? Or is it that they do not want to understand?!

God bless you
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

A question for all.

What if a person is an atheist but is good and kind and generous and gives to the poor, cares for the homeless and the hungry and can always be called upon to assist the needy?

What if a person is an atheist but has been imprisoned and tortured and placed in solitary confinement because his belief in liberty and his outspokenness against Fascism?

What would happen to such a person? Eternal damnation?

Blessings
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

Said by narrow_path: No, we are not agreed. I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ, nor would it have been necessary.

**I will keep my responses short, for I know that there is only one of you and many of us. By the way, the path to heaven for Catholics, especially Roman Catholics is not just narrow, it’s non existent according to you, when you said:

“I don’t know any other way to break this to you, but I do not believe the RCC was established by Christ.”
**

You really are sure of your self; very impressive; I ask respectfully, where do you get this self assurance - from your bible or your church? Narrow_path, what was the name of Jesus’ established church for the first 1000 years of Christianity?

In fact, I do not believe the RCC EVEN EXISTS from purely a biblical perspective.

**In fact, I do not believe the P.C.'s EVEN EXIST from purely a biblical perspective; is that a fair assessment???
**

Sure, we have men that have called themselves “Popes” in church history; but this does not prove anything. The real issue is a BIBLICAL one, and I have already elaborated on why I do not believe in the one “true church.”

**You believe that all churches comprise the one true church - is that correct? Well, except the RC.C. Again, you said: I do not believe the CC was established by Christ. Try and sell that idea to scholars/historians.
**

Due to this, you and I have a completely different concept of what the Body of Christ or Church actually represents. I believe it represents ALL who have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ - regardless of denominational affiliation (sometimes no denomination at all…especially with death bed conversions).

**We do agree; I believe the same; I just happen to believe that the C.C. which includes the C.C. in Rome, is part of Jesus’ Mystical Body to which He is the Head and Savior; you don’t!!! **

You believe the Church to be a HEIRARCHICAL INSTITUTION in which worshipping the Lord in the same building somehow means there is Unity among the members on an individual basis.

**Jesus’ established church is not a building per se: Jesus’ established church are all Jesus’ brothers and sisters in Christ united and one, with both teacher and pupil - agreed? The hierarchal system was established as early as the 2nd century, due to the rapid growth of Christianity. We see this in all institutions the world over. Did she, as the bride of Christ, actually start straying from the guidance of the Holy Spirit in her very infancy? If that were the case, then Christianity is nothing more than a man made religion.
**

This is inconsistent with how God operates (had He actually chosen to makes these decrees). So God is making decrees and ignoring them?

**Yup…Just kidding! LOL…We are bound by His decrees; He is not! If God wants to change His Divine mind, I’m pretty sure He can.
**

I believe the origins of these decrees are man-made with most of the material borrowed from early church fathers.

**So, most of Gods decrees are not His at all; you mean like sola scriptura, given to the P.C.'s by Martin Luther? The ECF’s gave you your bible; that is a historical fact, believed by all Protestant scholars; it is not disputed by any of them.
**

It is great to learn from those who have gone before us, but I simply am not willing to take the writings of the fathers and use it as infallible, God-breathed information. Rather, I’ll stick with the words of Christ and the apostles as they have been preserved for us.

**Preserved by whom for 1500 years??? I would be on board with you if not for the following:

1. The Holy Spirit was sent to Jesus’ established church on Pentecost to direct, teach and guide her in perpetuity, and He is still guiding her, as per sacred scripture, and that church was referred to as Catholic by both the eastern church leaders as well as the western church leaders, by the turn of the 1st century; if you need proof, just ask!
2. The Holy Bible which I love, treasure and read everyday, did not fall from the sky in the 4th or the 16th century. It was compiled, bound and officially canonized by the C.C. leaders. Prove me wrong and I will leave the C.C. **

I certainly enjoy debating with you and will get to your other comments as soon as I can.

God bless…

:thumbsup:Who can argue with your presentation which is biblical and solid?

I wonder what Narrow Path and other Protestants believe what Jesus meant when he said:

• Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose…??
• You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church
• What did Jesus mean when he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter?

I wonder what explanation they have for that?

Cinette

 

[paul_c]

A question for all.

What if a person is an atheist but is good and kind and generous and gives to the poor, cares for the homeless and the hungry and can always be called upon to assist the needy?

What if a person is an atheist but has been imprisoned and tortured and placed in solitary confinement because his belief in liberty and his outspokenness against Fascism?

What would happen to such a person? Eternal damnation?

Blessings
Cinette

You should pull this out and make it its own thread.

The fact that the athiest has been imprisoned because of his belief in liberty has no real implication on his salvation, in my mind. That is simply something that happened to him .

As for the concept of the moral athiest, we are called to Love God first and then our Neighbor as ourself. It would seem that the Athiest has only done one of the two. I wonder what makes such a person turn away from God? is it pride? envy?

I think the reason we are called to love God first is that love of God is love of creation, love of order, love of reason, love of what is right. If you can’t love what God represents, it calls into question whether you can really love at all.

Jesus warns us on the Sermon on the Mount about the importance of motivation when we do good works. He tells us that praying, giving alms and fasting are valuable when you do it for love of God but when doing it for the applause of the crowds, you will get no reward in heaven because the reward for you was the applause you sought. Just so, if a person does good deeds for the applause of the crowd and not just because its the right thing to do, it looses all its luster.

That said, it is impossible for us to judge anyone else’s heart. We don’t understand another’s motivations or thier challenges. God will judge perfectly. let’s be content with that

 

[Cinette]

Little miss Benedictus2 and Paul C-

Apparently two issues need to be re-addressed: The establishment of the Papacy and who gave us the Bible. I have already addressed the latter giving definitive biblical examples as to why I do not believe the RCC gave us the Bible……but this has been ignored and replaced with unimpressive pro-Catholic rhetoric. My reply will be to both of you concerning the establishment of the papacy. So, let’s start with the famous Matthew 16 passage, shall we?

Mat. 16:13-20 “When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.”’

There are many factors in the Greek text to consider. EVERY time Peter is referred to in the passage it is in the second person (you), conversely “this rock” is in the third person. Therefore, they do not agree with each other and do not refer to the same thing. Also, Peter (petros) is a masculine singular term and “rock” (petra) is a feminine singular term—once again, they do not have the same referent. Therefore, in context, petra here refers to Peter’s CONFESSION OF FAITH that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God—which was mentioned just prior to these words so it would make perfect sense for Jesus to reiterate them. In fact, the entire context of Matthew 16:13-20 is all about JESUS not Peter! The key issue of discussion is the identity of Jesus Himself! Jesus asked the disciples about who the people say He is (verse 13). Peter then declared correctly that “Jesus is the Christ” (verse 16). So, to prevent a premature disclosure of His identity, Jesus warned them not to tell anyone the He was the Christ (verse 20). So, petros and petra are the words that the Holy Spirit inspired and placed into this verse—not kepha. There simply is no inspired Aramaic and it is mere conjecture to think so. If the Holy Spirit had wanted kepha to be used, it would be there……but it is not. However, even if it were, the context would still be the same.

Before I put too much on the table, I give you an opportunity to respond…

Narrow_Path!

We may at times complain about the round about and colorful way in which Jesus expresses Himself. Thus, rather than say “you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church” He could have said, as we would have said it “you are Peter and on you I will build my church”. The first version is more imaginative and poetic, the second merely prosaic but clearer.

“you are Peter“ is certainly in the second person but “this rock” is certainly not in the third person simply because it is in no person at all. “This” is a demonstrative pronoun and “rock” is a noun. The third person would be: “ he is”. Now if Jesus was not referring to Peter who or what was He referring to, a rock on the ground? Hardly. To say that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock, does not make sense.

To assume that in the text “rock” refers to Peter is plausible. To assume that “rock” refers to Peter’s PROFESSION OF FAITH might also be plausible to the extent that having been provided by God it would confirm Peter as the right choice on which to build the Church of Christ, as has in fact happened.

The appointment is further confirmed when Jesus says: ”I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven …” I think it is fair to presume that Jesus was still speaking to Peter.

In Portuguese and French one may refer to the third person thus, when speaking to Benedictus: “Does Benedictus wish to have a cup of tea?” This would be used more as a politeness because I would not say this to my husband. I could also say “A minina” instead of Benedictus “Does “a Minima” wish to have a cup of tea?” (Minina is “Miss” and a is the article and would be a little less formal). You see, you cannot think in one language when speaking in another because you can make some terrible mistakes. A person can be fluent in English and Portuguese but unable to translate effectively - it requires a deeper knowledge and an understanding of the culture.

 

[Cinette]

You should pull this out and make it its own thread.

The fact that the athiest has been imprisoned because of his belief in liberty has no real implication on his salvation, in my mind. That is simply something that happened to him .

As for the concept of the moral athiest, we are called to Love God first and then our Neighbor as ourself. It would seem that the Athiest has only done one of the two. I wonder what makes such a person turn away from God? is it pride? envy?

I think the reason we are called to love God first is that love of God is love of creation, love of order, love of reason, love of what is right. If you can’t love what God represents, it calls into question whether you can really love at all.

Jesus warns us on the Sermon on the Mount about the importance of motivation when we do good works. He tells us that praying, giving alms and fasting are valuable when you do it for love of God but when doing it for the applause of the crowds, you will get no reward in heaven because the reward for you was the applause you sought. Just so, if a person does good deeds for the applause of the crowd and not just because its the right thing to do, it looses all its luster.

That said, it is impossible for us to judge anyone else’s heart. We don’t understand another’s motivations or thier challenges. God will judge perfectly. let’s be content with that

I understand your reasoning but…

The person who died atheist was someone I knew and loved dearly and I know he was not this way for self glorification.

The one who suffered in solitary confinement was a communist and he is dead also so I cannot ask him but I remember him and another of his colleagues/comrades as being simple and good people. I cannot ask them since they are both deceased.

However, I know a man whose wife is Catholic and he often comes to the talks and presentations at the Parish and the Jesuit Centre. He speaks well of the Church - in fact he defends the Church and mentions the acts of charity and the good works performed but he has told me “I have tried but I just don’t believe in God.” I am sure his wife prays for him daily. But this is a gift which God has supposedly denied him - maybe at the moment of death!

We will have to ask God that when we hopefully reach our eternal destiny.

Thank you
Cinette

 

[Cinette]

As I suspected, there is no information provided by Catholics in this forum (whom I presume are copying and pasting from websites like crazy just to not look silly) that I consider convincing. In fact, I have ALREADY ANSWERED these statements:

“Of course not. I respectfully ask: Why would I take your word for it, that there is only 39 books in the O.T.? Jesus charged His church ambassadors with the mission of teaching all that He commanded, and He sent the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth regarding all that He commanded. I trust Jesus and the authority He conferred on the church He built.”

We are going around in a circle now. I was hoping it would last a little while longer, but unfortunately this will be my last post on this thread. Surely, I can expect in the minds of Catholics. As long as they keep posting and have the last word they have now “won” the debate. How tragic! So the posts following this one will no doubt include Catholic antagonizing, etc. But make no mistake: an objective look at the contextual evidence SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. This is what I am going on. Not the tradition of men, just Scripture which God Himself provided and preserved for us - not a religious institution.

Read my prior posts for answers to all of the points that were just raised.

Peace to you - Usemelord, Joe370, Joe C, Bigbaldone and Little Miss Benedictus2!

Perhaps I will see you guys (and girls) on the other side of eternity…and if I do, I promise that I won’t say: “I told you so.”

May the grace, love and peace of Jesus Christ dwell in your hearts forever.

To Narrow Path

In undertaking to understand a Bible text, it is enlightening to consider its source. Knowing the source will confirm the version correct or otherwise. It seems obvious that revelation is language independent. If revelation comes to a Frenchman who speaks no other language, it will come in French. It is likely that revelatory words spoken by Jesus would come in the language spoken by the interlocutors.

Naturally, God’s revelations came in the most appropriate language. Some people seem to think that inspired words in Aramaic have less value than the same words in Greek. What matters in the text under examination are the words spoken by Jesus. Of the fact that they were uttered in Aramaic there is no doubt, so the correct thing to do is to examine the text in the light of the Aramaic version. To think that the Greek version translated from the Aramaic version is the inspired version whereas the words spoken by Jesus are a second rate attempt, seems to me to be beyond belief

It is unlikely that revelation would have appeared in modern English, although some people seem to think it a pity that it did not happen.

Blessings
Cinette
.

 

[paul_c]

I understand your reasoning but…

The person who died atheist was someone I knew and loved dearly and I know he was not this way for self glorification.

The one who suffered in solitary confinement was a communist and he is dead also so I cannot ask him but I remember him and another of his colleagues/comrades as being simple and good people. I cannot ask them since they are both deceased.

However, I know a man whose wife is Catholic and he often comes to the talks and presentations at the Parish and the Jesuit Centre. He speaks well of the Church - in fact he defends the Church and mentions the acts of charity and the good works performed but he has told me “I have tried but I just don’t believe in God.” I am sure his wife prays for him daily. But this is a gift which God has supposedly denied him - maybe at the moment of death!

We will have to ask God that when we hopefully reach our eternal destiny.

Thank you
Cinette

As I said, you can not judge another person’s heart, for either good or bad. There is so much we can never know. We don’t even know the full judging criteria.

But I will leave you with this… The basic Catholic tenet of salvation is that it involves God’s grace and also our own free will. God gives us the grace to find him if we seek him and heaven is open to those that choose to do God’s will. And that door is always open, even at the doors of death so there is always hope as long as we live…

 

[Cinette]

As I said, you can not judge another person’s heart, for either good or bad. There is so much we can never know. We don’t even know the full judging criteria.

But I will leave you with this… The basic Catholic tenet of salvation is that it involves God’s grace and also our own free will. God gives us the grace to find him if we seek him and heaven is open to those that choose to do God’s will. And that door is always open, even at the doors of death so there is always hope as long as we live…

Paul - I believe that too.

“Are you saved” is not in our vocabulary. Catholics understand salvation and never say someone is saved or not saved. I have had Protestants who have said “I know so and so is not saved” or"She is saved". I once responded with “Thy shall not judge…” and got a big lecture on how Catholics are not saved, whore of Babylon, etc etc etc.

We do not demonstrate hatred or indulge in criticism of Protestants. The CC has been the subject of books full of lies by Protestants and Fundamentalists who make money out of their lies.

Right now we have to deal with the media and the lies about Pius XII. Voltaire said that if you spread lies continuously some of it will stick. I came across a documentary on Pius XII and it quoted Golda Meir, Einstein, the New York Times (of 50 years ago) the Washington Post (ditto) and others who praised Pius XII for his role during WWII.

I have also noticed that when I know of an incident and I see it reported in the media, it never corresponds to the facts that I know. Also I have been watching the Holy Father’s trip to the Holy Land on EWTN and then I watch it on Sky and CNN and they are always looking for drama and gossip… and they are always digging for controversy - always!

So we have to remember God’s advice…“Do not be afraid” and bear in mind that He will be with us always and that the HS will guide us. We need to pray and give thanks for our blessings in all circumstances.

Cheers
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

I wonder why Protestants are so bent on insisting that Jesus did not mean what he said when he changed Simon’s name to Peter and gave him the keys and told him that what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven and extlicitly said that the Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth? Why is that so difficult for them to understand? Or is it that they do not want to understand?!

Oh come on Cinnette. You know why. If they admit that Christ changed Simon’s name to Peter then they would have to admit that we are right and they wrong. THAT is scary.

This is where their reasoning always fails. So when you given them good logical answers they exit. But the Spirit is always stronger than our determination to remain in darkness if we truly love Christ.

 

[benedictus2]

A question for all.

What if a person is an atheist but is good and kind and generous and gives to the poor, cares for the homeless and the hungry and can always be called upon to assist the needy?

What if a person is an atheist but has been imprisoned and tortured and placed in solitary confinement because his belief in liberty and his outspokenness against Fascism?

What would happen to such a person? Eternal damnation?

Blessings
Cinette

I don’t think so. This is what Matthew 25:31-46 is all about.

The same applies not just for Atheists but people of other faiths who have followed the “Whatsoever you do…” command.

It is different however if one is already being Evangelized and still refuses to believe in Christ. God alone knows how willful the denial is. Honest ignorance is different to wilfull refusal to believe.

 

[benedictus2]

As such, I have to believe that my wife’s unselfish acts of mercy and her sincere heart for the Lord stand her in good stead. Now, all I have to worry about is me!

You don’t have to worry about you. That’s God’s job and He’s got you right there on the palm of His hand.

 

[benedictus2]

:thumbsup:Who can argue with your presentation which is biblical and solid?

I wonder what Narrow Path and other Protestants believe what Jesus meant when he said:

• Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loose…??
• You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church
• What did Jesus mean when he gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter?

I wonder what explanation they have for that?

Cinette

AAAhhh Cinnette. The girations and convolusions they do to get around that. And when that doesn’t work, completely ignoring it is their final answer.

 

[Cinette]

I woke up this morning and checked my emails to see if there had been a response from Narrow Path to the final postings. Nothing - NADA!

I have seen others on other threads who came back to respond but not Narrow:nope:

For someone who claims to be formed in a seminary I find his arguments very poor. His interpretations are frail to say the least and he has not effectively refuted the powerful postings by Paul C, Joe, Benedictus and others. Even his statement that “this rock” is in the third person is laughable - his grammar is very poor indeed! My response to that was,

*“you are Peter“ is certainly in the second person but “this rock” is certainly not in the third person simply because it is in no person at all. “This” is a demonstrative pronoun and “rock” is a noun. The third person would be: “ he is”. Now if Jesus was not referring to Peter who or what was He referring to, a rock on the ground? Hardly. To say that Jesus was referring to himself as the rock, does not make sense.

To assume that in the text “rock” refers to Peter is plausible. To assume that “rock” refers to Peter’s PROFESSION OF FAITH might also be plausible to the extent that having been provided by God it would confirm Peter as the right choice on which to build the Church of Christ, as has in fact happened.*

Narrow response to Benedictus was to claim that she had not supported her arguments with scripture but “merely with Catholic rhetoric”!! This is astounding!!

Narrow thinks he can argue with 2000 years of history. If the Catholic Church and the Papacy was of human making it would have collapsed long ago in a pile of human frailty!!

Narrow thinks he can argue with St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas and all the powerful witness of the Church Fathers! Narrow is not even an ant against the GIANT of the Church, the Magisterium, Apostolic Succession, etc.

In discussing language, I had this to say:

**It seems obvious that revelation is language independent. If revelation comes to a Frenchman who speaks no other language, it will come in French. It is likely that revelatory words spoken by Jesus would come in the language spoken by the interlocutors.

Naturally, God’ revelations come in the most appropriate language. Some people seem to think that inspired words in Aramaic have less value than the same words in Greek. What matters in the text under examination are the words spoken by Jesus. Of the fact that they were uttered in Aramaic there is no doubt, so the correct thing to do is to examine the text in the light of the Aramaic version. To think that the Greek version translated from the Aramaic version is the inspired version whereas the words spoken by Jesus are a second rate attempt, seems to me to be beyond belief!*
*

Narrow thinks he can argue the petros/petra debate but his interpretation does not hold water - it is weak to say the least.

The Catholic Church has stood the test of time. It is a testimony to Jesus’ promise that the Holy Spirit would guide us into all truth and that He would be with us always.

Despite abuse and corruption, which will always be with us, the CC has remained firm. What man made institution can make this claim? Narrow’s church - to what does it date back? He doesn’t tell us. He comes here to “debate” and the only “solid” argument he has to offer is to refute and scoff at the postings of others. Then he butts out!! Not a very good and convincing debator I would say!:nope: