Fallacies of sola scriptura

[Nathan_Wagar]

But that’s just it! The Gospel passages you list refer precisely to the Pharisees’ oral traditions making void the Scriptures, not to mention that the P’s were those who had the “authoritative” interpretation: they functioned as the appointed keepers & guardians of God’s truth. Response: Jesus didn’t have a redonkulous problem with the Pharisees’ interpretations, he endorsed their view of the afterlife, for instance, contrary to the Sadducees. He had an issue with their hypocracy, with assigning yokes they did not themselves carry. And you’re absolutely right, they sat on Moses’ seat, and for that reason Jesus said to do EVERYTHING they tell you. Except Jesus is the New Moses, as well as the new David, with the keys, gave the keys to Saint Pete, seeing the flow here?
Honestly, just try this simple experiment in 3-D sometime: sit down with a Calvinist, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, an Anglican, an Episcopalian, a Pentecostal, a Charismatic, an Emergent, & an LDS, and assuming these people were all of sound mind and overall decent character, as well as possessing goodwill and average intelligence, they’d all be able to agree on the basic meaning of these verses**.

Jesus wept.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not lie.

Of the fruit of that tree thou shalt not eat.

“One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

(**IOW, they’re not going to say something like “Jesus wept” = “Jesus guffawed” or “Thou shalt not steal” = “You can go ahead and take whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want.”) Those verses are a mere sampling of thousands more that those same people would not “twist.” Response: That’s right. A mere sampling. Interesting that you pick absolutely nothing that has to do with matters of salvation, where the different opinions become glaringly obvious. And speaking about twisting single words is interesting, because many do just that with Luke 1:43. Or “until” regarding Mary. Or a host of other things. I’ve even heard bickering over whether lying means lying, or actually presenting false witness against a neighbor in court, as it did to the Jews. Your argument is fallacious.
I myself have been relying on Scripture for more than 3 decades, and never yet has it “led me astray.” On the contrary, I have “sniffed out” falsehoods based squarely on my knowledge of the Word (for example: Prosperity “Gospel,” Left Behindism, the Harry Blackaby fad, the Prayer of Jabez fad, the Purpose Driven Church fad, etc. etc.). From this and other similar posts of yours, it seems that you don’t trust God’s Spirit thru His Word to do exactly what it claims, that is, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Tim. 3:16) **Response: Actually your interpretation did steer you wrong, or you’d be Catholic. Interesting that of all the varying intensities of the Greek word, Paul picked “profitable” and not “all-sufficient.” Hey here’s another verse ripped out of context for you to chew on:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort…” I’ll let you look that one up. I venture to say this was a prophecy for the 1500’s.

Interesting you should mention one of the Commandments. Apparently they were so easy to understand that the people still had to go to Moses and ask for him to get God’s interpretation about something until he got exhausted and established men with his authority to share the load. 'Course, he didn’t need the Holy Spirit because the Big Guns were right upstairs, so to speak. It’s funny though, wasn’t all Israel called a royal priesthood? Shouldn’t they all have been to privately interpret for themselves, since they were “all priests”? And wait a minute! Why was Israel even there at all? Shouldn’t the Ten Commandments have come first? When was there a time where there wasn’t already a community of believers with an established hierarchy that passed their authority through the generations and interpreted the words of God? This is despite the fact that God was following them in an intimate fashion, but apparently that wasn’t all they needed. Apparently, God decided there should be a HUMAN FACE for them to see. This might, just MIGHT, be the reason Jesus left a visible vicar in his stead when he ascended… Oh but I ramble… **

 

[Lutheranteach]

Hi all, I and 24 other people were given an owners manuel for a 57 chevy. We went our seperate ways and agreed to meet 1 year later to see who had built a 57 chevy that was like the original 57 and had all its functions down to the last jot and tittle. Well one year later we gathered to see our new 57s. As you might have guessed no 2 cars looked or acted, or ran as any other of the 25 cars. They all had differing looks and all did things differently. Now we all had the same owners man. and each person read and interpeted it differently, and each argued that his way was what was meant by the manuel, and the confusion and distrust between us lead us to go our different ways shattering, the team and in most cases causing a deep resentment and distrust of each other. The moral of this little story is, the book is not enough. One must have the schematics [the church], the engineers[the magisteriam], the machinery ,[sacred Tradition], to build a 57 that is truly what the maker of 57s intended it to be like. Not everyone who has an owners manuel for a 57 chevy, can build one. Blessings. Garland

and if I have NO confidence in the current engineers when it comes to answering my questions about building that Chevy?

 

[QuickCat]

Quick Cat wrote:
“I was curious to see how many Bibles I could see in the hands of the folks. There was not one Bible visible in anyone’s hand. I wondered how many of those dear souls ever really STUDY the Word of God…” "​

Quick Cat, I do not recall ever reading in the bible that Early Church [catholics], brought their scriptures to the “breaking of the bread” [eucharist]. As it wasn’t a practice then, still it’s not a practice now.

During the order of the Holy mass we have: the introductory rites, the entrance, the greeting, the rite of blessing, the penitential rite, the kyrie, the gloria, the opening prayer… after that we move into the liturgy of the Word with Bible reading, gospel and the homily. Then the mass follows with the profession of faith, general intercessions… etc., etc…

Soooo, contrary to your believe, Catholics do have bible readings during our worship hour. We might not have a bible in our hands at the time but we do listen to the Word of God in each and every Holy mass. Pax et bonum. --macaronte

Just having “Bible readings” does not constitute Bible study. Paul writes that we are approved of God as we STUDY and RIGHTLY DIVIDE the WORD of TRUTH! It has been my experience that my Catholic friends [Protestant as well] are not well versed and grounded in the Word of God.

 

[po18guy]

But that’s just it! The Gospel passages you list refer precisely to the Pharisees’ oral traditions making void the Scriptures, not to mention that the P’s were those who had the “authoritative” interpretation: they functioned as the appointed keepers & guardians of God’s truth.

Honestly, just try this simple experiment in 3-D sometime: sit down with a Calvinist, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Lutheran, an Anglican, an Episcopalian, a Pentecostal, a Charismatic, an Emergent, & an LDS, and assuming these people were all of sound mind and overall decent character, as well as possessing goodwill and average intelligence, they’d all be able to agree on the basic meaning of these verses**.

Jesus wept.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not lie.

Of the fruit of that tree thou shalt not eat.

“One thing I do know, that though I was blind, now I see.”

(**IOW, they’re not going to say something like “Jesus wept” = “Jesus guffawed” or “Thou shalt not steal” = “You can go ahead and take whatever you want, whenever you want, where ever you want.”) Those verses are a mere sampling of thousands more that those same people would not “twist.”

I myself have been relying on Scripture for more than 3 decades, and never yet has it “led me astray.” On the contrary, I have “sniffed out” falsehoods based squarely on my knowledge of the Word (for example: Prosperity “Gospel,” Left Behindism, the Harry Blackaby fad, the Prayer of Jabez fad, the Purpose Driven Church fad, etc. etc.). From this and other similar posts of yours, it seems that you don’t trust God’s Spirit thru His Word to do exactly what it claims, that is, “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…” (2 Tim. 3:16)

You condemn Jesus’ oral teaching tradition? Apparently, the bible is insufficient to help you make a distinction between the Pharisaic tradition and Jesus’ oral teaching tradition. Please answer the points from scripture.

 

[jerryb1020]

Did you know that the 12 apostles DID NOT know that our Lord Jesus Christ was to die, be resurrected and ascend into heaven during the time frame of the gospel accounts? In Luke 9:6 they were sent to preach the gospel. What was the content of that gospel they were to preach? Did you know that even on the day of Pentecost that Peter preached the cross as bad news in that he accused the Jews of murdering their Messiah? Did you know that our Lord Jesus Christ, in His earthly ministry, came ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And that he was speaking to Israel in John 6 and told them that it is the “Spirit that giveth life, the flesh profited nothing; THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.”

QuickCat,
With all due respect, you did not answer the question, which is: ‘if Christians believe that Christ died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because it is in the Bible and it is there because the Apostles believed, shouldn’t all Christians believe everything that the Apostles believed?’

If you say no, then I would ask how you can claim to be a Christian.
If you say yes, then I would ask how you deal with all the things that the Apostles believed. practiced and taught their successors, as shown in Acts, the Epistles, and the mountain of writings of the early church fathers. Specifically, how do you deal with the evidence that Christ said ‘This is My Body’ and "this is My Blood’ and the ample evidence that He meant it literally, not symbolically.

Please answer the question.

JB

 

[paul_c]

Just having “Bible readings” does not constitute Bible study. Paul writes that we are approved of God as we STUDY and RIGHTLY DIVIDE the WORD of TRUTH! It has been my experience that my Catholic friends [Protestant as well] are not well versed and grounded in the Word of God.

Th Catholics that write on this website are very well versed in Scripture. You should have noticed that as they used scripture over and over to demonstrate that many of your positions are actually contrary to scripture.

 

[QuickCat]

I’m sorry, but this seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

When Jesus says:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

… do you believe that “he means just that,” or do you try to discount it as being somehow symbolic (although He goes on to repeat it when challenged, over and over)?

Disingenuous? How? Our Lord, in John 6, is speaking to the Jews in the synagogue [vs 59]. This is during His earthly ministry to Israel. He is not addressing the Body of Christ. He is obviously speaking allegorically. He would not tell them to “eat His flesh” {literally] and then tell them that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” “The words that I speak un to you THEY ARE SPIRIT…”

Karl Keating once told me that “Catholics don’t know anything about rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” I believe what he said. BTW, lots of Protestants don’t either.

 

[QuickCat]

QuickCat,
With all due respect, you did not answer the question, which is: ‘if Christians believe that Christ died, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven because it is in the Bible and it is there because the Apostles believed, shouldn’t all Christians believe everything that the Apostles believed?’

If you say no, then I would ask how you can claim to be a Christian.
If you say yes, then I would ask how you deal with all the things that the Apostles believed. practiced and taught their successors, as shown in Acts, the Epistles, and the mountain of writings of the early church fathers. Specifically, how do you deal with the evidence that Christ said ‘This is My Body’ and "this is My Blood’ and the ample evidence that He meant it literally, not symbolically.

Please answer the question.

JB

At some point in time an individual becomes aware of the fact that there is a God. At that time he can choose whether or not he desires a relationship with God. If he goes on positive volition God will always send someone to him with the gospel by which he must be saved. The Holy Spirit will take the place of the individual’s dead human spirit and make the gospel clear to that person. If he believes the gospel [1 Cor. 15:1-4] he is saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption of his body [Eph. 1:13]. You will notice that this sealing takes places upon believing the gospel by which you are saved. At this time the Holy Spirit also baptizes you into the Body of Christ [1 Cor. 12:13]. I have answered the question concerning John 6 in a previous posting. Do you not know that the gospels record the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. And don’t you know that Acts is a book of transition from Peter ministering to Israel to Paul becoming the chosen vessel of the Lord to the Jew first, kings, and the Gentiles?

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

Iand B: God’s grace is not confined to his sacraments.

I might also add that the Sacraments are the primary vessel to which grace is confirmed (after Mary that is). Furthermore, the world receives graces in accord with how well Her (the Church) members are observing the Covenant. Christ died for the Church (" 'This cup is the new covenant in My blood.") and as a result, God will take path (the narrow gate) which He established very seriously, so to rely on alternative ones would be a failure. Although God can operate outside the covenant, we can only speculate on its effects.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Disingenuous? How? Our Lord, in John 6, is speaking to the Jews in the synagogue [vs 59]. This is during His earthly ministry to Israel. He is not addressing the Body of Christ. He is obviously speaking allegorically. He would not tell them to “eat His flesh” {literally] and then tell them that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” “The words that I speak un to you THEY ARE SPIRIT…”

Karl Keating once told me that “Catholics don’t know anything about rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” I believe what he said. BTW, lots of Protestants don’t eitherCan you explain this one a bit better for me?

The greek recorded in the bible for “eat” means to eat (phago, in verse 51 and 53) and “to chew, or masticate” (trwgwn or trogon I believe is the transliteration)which is used twice, rapid fire, in verses 54 and 56. He says that “[His] flesh is true food and [His] blood is true drink”. The jews asked what you state as fact “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” His reply makes it OBVIOUS that this is not allegory.

When His disciples begin to grumble, He tells them the Spirit give life, the flesh gives nothing (trust in God, not the flesh/yourself). The words He has given them are Spirit and Life, yet there are some of you who do not believe. Then many of his disciples abandoned him. Where is the confusion here?

Who do you want to align yourself with, the apostles or the disciples who abandoned Christ? Would you say “this is hard teaching, who can accept it” or “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God”… I choose to follow the teachings of Christ passed to me through the Scriptures and sacred Tradition by the Catholic Church.

 

[richardacombs]

I’m glad to see that this topic has generated so much interest and most responses have been in the spirit of Christian brotherhood, whether we agree or not.

To make a summary of the two major positions: those favoring *sola scriptura *basically say that writers of the Bible should be understood exactly for what they say—for example when Paul says that he was apostle to the gentiles, that’s exactly what he was; those opposed to *sola scriptura *believe everything in the Bible must be understood within the verse, chapter, book, testament, and, in fact, the context of the entire Bible as directed by Tradition and the guidelines of the magesterium.

The position that Bible writers mean exactly what they say, period, is tenuous at best. Of course Paul was apostle to the gentiles, but he was apostle to the Jews as well. On almost all his recorded missionary journeys, he stopped at synagogues first, always attempting to convert his fellow Jews then turning to the gentiles. So, actually, Paul was apostle to the Jews and then to the gentiles.

In the Letter to the Romans, Paul makes impassioned declarations, offering his life, wishing that, somehow, he could turn the hearts of his fellow Jews to Christ.

All this comes down to the fact that most everyone posting believes the Bible is the inerrant word of God. The crux of dissension is the interpretation of the scriptures, which was the initial point; somewhere, someone, some guiding group must set out a set guidelines. This is not a rigid orthodoxy: interpretations of the Bible can still vary widely, but within the guidelines set by that group. The guidelines in the Church are set by the magesterium.

If all a Bible reader needs is contained in the Bible, why do so many readers come up with different and irreconcilable interpretations?

The same arguments go on within the Church as outside the Church, but different Catholic Biblical interpreters stay within the guidelines established by Tradition and the magesterium. In the end the Church’s different interpreters may be at far sides of the same question, like predestination, but they find their common ground in the direction of the Church. Some stress the sole soverignty of God’s eternal design, while others emphasize the grace of free will.

As Chesterton points out in Orthodoxy, the Church balances the poles of Christian dialectics. Biblical interpreters can, and often do, stress only one side of a theological paradox: humanity’s fallen nature or the sublime forgiveness and unity found in Christ. Humans are fallen–seemingly perpetually degenerating further into an abyss of sin, but at the same time Christians are new creatures, temples of the Holy Ghost, unified with Christ and other believers. It is the Body of Christ.

 

[jerryb1020]

At some point in time an individual becomes aware of the fact that there is a God. At that time he can choose whether or not he desires a relationship with God. If he goes on positive volition God will always send someone to him with the gospel by which he must be saved. The Holy Spirit will take the place of the individual’s dead human spirit and make the gospel clear to that person. If he believes the gospel [1 Cor. 15:1-4] he is saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption of his body [Eph. 1:13]. You will notice that this sealing takes places upon believing the gospel by which you are saved. At this time the Holy Spirit also baptizes you into the Body of Christ [1 Cor. 12:13]. I have answered the question concerning John 6 in a previous posting. Do you not know that the gospels record the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. And don’t you know that Acts is a book of transition from Peter ministering to Israel to Paul becoming the chosen vessel of the Lord to the Jew first, kings, and the Gentiles?

QuickCat,
Since you have avoided answering the simple question ‘shouldn’t we believe everything the Apostles believed’ twice, I gather that you don’t believe we, as Christians, should or need to believe everything the Apostles believed, is that correct?

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Quickcat I was wondering if you could respond to my critique of your…unique interpretation of John 6 as well as other statements? I’ll repost the same thing again, minus a statement not pertinent to your post:

Did you know that the 12 apostles DID NOT know that our Lord Jesus Christ was to die, be resurrected and ascend into heaven during the time frame of the gospel accounts? In Luke 9:6 they were sent to preach the gospel. What was the content of that gospel they were to preach? Did you know that even on the day of Pentecost that Peter preached the cross as bad news in that he accused the Jews of murdering their Messiah? Did you know that our Lord Jesus Christ, in His earthly ministry, came ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And that he was speaking to Israel in John 6 and told them that it is the “Spirit that giveth life, the flesh profited nothing; THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK TO YOU THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.”

**Response: The gospel they preached was most likely the same one he preached during his life: repentance and baptism. Peter followed suit. The fact that the baptism baptises into Jesus’ death is a nice side effect, and more was taught as more was understood by the fledgling Church, which has interesting implications for the definition of dogma, but I digress. Interestingly, this statement I do not believe is completely true anyway, because at the end of Luke, Jesus taught them from the Scriptures, but they recognized Jesus in the breaking of the bread, and ONLY at the breaking of the bread. Interesting, I’m seeing parallels with the liturgy of the Word and the liturgy of the Eucharist, but again I digress.

Perfectly logical to assume that Eucharistic teaching was expanded, since Paul seems to have a rich theology later. This Eucharistic theology in Luke would seem to be part of this gospel…

As for the comment about verse 63 that many protestants try to desperately hold on to, I am not sure how you mean to imply that Jesus used increasingly graphic physical language throughout the second half of the bread of life discourse, then says “but I didn’t mean it, it’s all a symbol.” That explains why it was such a hard saying, in fact the first time he lost many disciples. Oh wait, it doesn’t.

1 Corinthians 2:12-15: " Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gift bestowed on us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one."

Saint Paul’s use of “judged spirituality” in 1 Corinthians 2:14 is not in a context distinguishing literal interpretation from a symbolic interpretation, rather it distinguishes the natural man who does not understand God from the spiritual man who “judges spiritually.” Judging spiritually does not mean judging symbolically. Protestants like to act as if this one verse cancels out everything Jesus just said, ignoring the shift to exclusively literal language and the fact that apparently the followers understood Him literally as well because they left. The thing is, if Jesus did mean all of it symbolically based off this one verse they are misconstruing, then that would be saying that Jesus negated the whole point of this very long sermon, basically saying “eat my flesh, but you’ll find it a waste of time.”

And lastly, since the kingdom of David included Jew and Gentile, and Jesus is the new David, Im not exactly sure how the implications that Jesus had gentiles in mind all along in the gospels is not EMBARASSINGLY obvious, but hey, I’m just a digressing machine. **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[FathersKnowBest]

FathersKnowBest:

QuickCat:

Didn’t know that I was evading “it”! I would say that in order to understand what the writers mean we must just read what they wrote. When our apostle [Paul] says, “Follow me as I follow Christ,” he means just that. When Paul writes that, “…you are complete in Him [The Lord Jesus Christ],” he means just that. When he says, “He hath forgiven you ALL treaspasses…,” he means just that. When Paul says that he is the pattern for those who follow after, he means just that. Etc., etc.

I’m sorry, but this seems somewhat disingenuous to me.

When Jesus says:
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."

… do you believe that “he means just that,” or do you try to discount it as being somehow symbolic (although He goes on to repeat it when challenged, over and over)?
Disingenuous? How? Our Lord, in John 6, is speaking to the Jews in the synagogue [vs 59]. This is during His earthly ministry to Israel. He is not addressing the Body of Christ. He is obviously speaking allegorically. He would not tell them to “eat His flesh” {literally] and then tell them that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” “The words that I speak un to you THEY ARE SPIRIT…”

You’ve exactly proven my point. You DO “try to discount it as being somehow symbolic.”

Without getting too far off-subject, let me make just a couple of points about your argument. If you’d like to discuss this further, then please start a thread and let me know where to look for it.

1. What did Christ mean by “the flesh” in that statement? Well, it could either mean HIS flesh, or it could be a common Jewish idiom for the time, referring to worldly, as opposed to spiritual, things. This would make great sense considering Our Lord’s juxtaposing “the flesh” and “the spirit” in that same passage.
   If you believe the latter, then you are interpreting scripture with scripture, and following the beliefs of the whole Church. See John 1:13; John 3:6; John 8:15; Ro 7:5; Ro 8:3-13 (used 9 times!); 1Co 3:1,3; Ga 3:3; Ga 4:29; Ga 5:13, 16, 17, 19, 24; Ga 6:8,12; Php 3:3,4; Col 2:23; 1Pe 2:11; 1Jo 2:16.
   On the other hand, if you think that Christ was referring to HIS flesh as being to no avail, then you are renouncing His sacrifice and you are not a Christian.
2. It astounds me how men, 1500 years removed and culturally distant, think they “know” what Christ “meant” more than those who were with Him when He said this, and who were His disciples until this “hard saying” was spoken. FidesSpesCarita has already quite adequately addressed Jesus’ response to their objections.
   Yes, Jesus was speaking to Jews in the synagogue in Capernaum, but they were HIS DISCIPLES (verses 60, 61, 66). Also, how men think they “know” what Christ “meant” more than the very disciples of the Apostles, who could have asked the Apostles straight-out if there was any chance that they misunderstood what Jesus meant in this regard. What hubris!

Either way, you’ve proven my point that you don’t “just read what they wrote” despite your claims above to do so.

 

[sonichuiscool]

We Catholics should be included among this list if the declaration that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for us is your sole criterion.

Of course you are!

Who said you were supposed to get anything out of the worship of God? Worship of God and Christ is a giving of self to God, who is deserving of all love. There is no promise of prosperity in the Word. No Promise of Earthly happiness. No promise of anything. Catholics worship Christ because He is Christ, not to get anything out of it. If we do receive graces, happiness, wisdom from the mass, WONDERFUL!!! but not necessary.

You are correct, but notice I’m not advocating the prosperity gospel. Fellowship isn’t a peripheral issue, it is central. My pastor is hardly entertaining, but he is quite relevant. By removing everything except the mass, Catholics are working at minimal power. The reason there is a thread lamenting one Catholic convert’s lack of fellowship is that the magisterium has ignored these things for too long.

Worship isn’t supposed to be boring or irrelevant or private either - it’s supposed to be worshipful.

There is nothing in the Catholic Church that disagrees with the Bible. Heck, we compiled it, why would we disagree with what we already agreed upon?

Ok, I’ll grant that the CC did approve the Bible for the sake of the argument, but that isn’t the problem - it is in the interpretation. While the Bible mentions nothing about a Mediatrix of All Graces, and goes so far as to insist that Christ is the only mediator, the Catholic Church now affirms that Mary is a co-redemptrix. The Catholic Church adds to the Bible, and under the guise of Tradition tries to manipulate its true meaning. This is standard opinion among Protestants. I don’t think we can have a good argument over this, it is pretty black and white.

Why search for others who feel as you do instead of searching yourself and bending to the truth? I used to surround myself with atheists, when I was one. When I went searching for the truth I surrounded myself with people who fit my outlook at the time. Yet the only complete, honest, truths I could find were here, in the Church founded by Christ upon Cephas. I will take real food over milk any day of the week. Church shopping is just trying to find the best tasting milk, without ever wanting to eat real food.

So you would go to a local Parish that is liberal over one in the next town that is conservative and has a good priest?

The mass is not an evangelical tool: it is a tool of worshipping our God. I cannot disagree that there are some (many) protestants who do a better job following Christ than some (many) priests. Yet that does not take away from their authority.

It does to seem to call it into question. I don’t mean to hit an exposed nerve, but just because someone has authority in a philosophical realm does not mean it carries over onto real life. Just because engineers said the bumblebee can’t fly doesn’t mean it can’t. Just because Catholic epistemology says it is the best vehicle for salvation does not mean that it is - in the world, the protestant churches as a whole do much better to lead people to Christ. In light of this huge disparity, it might be time to re-evaluate your commitment to the Catholic Church and investigate those who put Christ at the center of all things, as philosophically unsound as you might see them.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

You are correct, but notice I’m not advocating the prosperity gospel. Fellowship isn’t a peripheral issue, it is central. My pastor is hardly entertaining, but he is quite relevant. By removing everything except the mass, Catholics are working at minimal power. The reason there is a thread lamenting one Catholic convert’s lack of fellowship is that the magisterium has ignored these things for too long.
Cant argue the last point, ignoring fellowship, but as far as removing everything other than the Mass, I disagree. The thing that we are lacking is organized fellowship. Y’all do that WAY better at the current moment. God does use the foolish to shame the wise.
Worship isn’t supposed to be boring or irrelevant or private either - it’s supposed to be worshipful.

The Mass is worship. It is not boring, or private, and it most certainly is NOT irrelevant. And no, I am not getting offended, despite my tone. I just get…snippy sometimes, please dont take offense.

Ok, I’ll grant that the CC did approve the Bible for the sake of the argument, but that isn’t the problem - it is in the interpretation. While the Bible mentions nothing about a Mediatrix of All Graces, and goes so far as to insist that Christ is the only mediator, the Catholic Church now affirms that Mary is a co-redemptrix. The Catholic Church adds to the Bible, and under the guise of Tradition tries to manipulate its true meaning. This is standard opinion among Protestants. I don’t think we can have a good argument over this, it is pretty black and white.

Yeah, this is one that will continue to be an issue until history takes a bigger role in the argument. And I havent had to discuss early Christian history or thought in a LONG time, so I will leave this one alone as well

So you would go to a local Parish that is liberal over one in the next town that is conservative and has a good priest?

As long as it is still Catholic I would go to another town. In fact I do. But it is the same Church in the Catholic case, versus an evangelical trying out the pentecostal, lutheran, methodist, SDA, etc. etc. churches. A difference of type, not degree.

It does to seem to call it into question. I don’t mean to hit an exposed nerve, but just because someone has authority in a philosophical realm does not mean it carries over onto real life. Just because engineers said the bumblebee can’t fly doesn’t mean it can’t. Just because Catholic epistemology says it is the best vehicle for salvation does not mean that it is - in the world, the protestant churches as a whole do much better to lead people to Christ. In light of this huge disparity, it might be time to re-evaluate your commitment to the Catholic Church and investigate those who put Christ at the center of all things, as philosophically unsound as you might see them.

I understand your point. However, you miss the point that the best vehicle for salvation is is that vehicle which is the most true. In this case, the Catholic Church has the affirmation from Christ (I wont get into this again, you know where that is heading). As a Church, we have spent the past hundred, maybe two hundred, years being too passive. IMHO the Church took it for granted that people would search for the truth rather than accepting whatever they were given. Who spread the Gospel throughout the world for 2000 years? Yet, for the past century or so, the Church has been losing sheep to the protestant faiths due to many reasons, but primarily poor Catechesis (again IMHO). Since the Pentecost, the Catholic Church has always had at its center Christ, and despite the popular painting of the Church otherwise, that has always been apparent (albeit not apparent in all of its members). So, I have re-evaluated my commitment to the Catholic Church, and found it absolutely correct. My faith is placed in that institution (yeah I know its supposed to be a dirty word) which Christ built on earth upon Cephas. I cannot buy into the SS, OSAS, five sola type of Church. Why eat a burger when you have a five course meal at home?

 

[Victorious]

I’m seeing quoted and re-quoted the comment that the Apostles did not know Jesus was to die, rise and ascend to heaven. This is FALSE. Jesus told the Apostles several times in the Gospels that these things would happen. Today’s Gospel reading is a prime example.

 

[paul_c]

Disingenuous? How? Our Lord, in John 6, is speaking to the Jews in the synagogue [vs 59]. This is during His earthly ministry to Israel. He is not addressing the Body of Christ. He is obviously speaking allegorically. He would not tell them to “eat His flesh” {literally] and then tell them that “the flesh profiteth nothing,” “The words that I speak un to you THEY ARE SPIRIT…”

Karl Keating once told me that “Catholics don’t know anything about rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” I believe what he said. BTW, lots of Protestants don’t either.

Come on Quick Cat, lets lookat the body of christ discourse from John 6:
48 I am the bread of life.
49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59 These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61 Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
62 What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64 But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65 And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
66 As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Quick Cat, are you one of the one’s who think this teaching is too hard?

 

[paul_c]

At some point in time an individual becomes aware of the fact that there is a God. At that time he can choose whether or not he desires a relationship with God. If he goes on positive volition God will always send someone to him with the gospel by which he must be saved. The Holy Spirit will take the place of the individual’s dead human spirit and make the gospel clear to that person. If he believes the gospel [1 Cor. 15:1-4] he is saved and sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption of his body [Eph. 1:13]. You will notice that this sealing takes places upon believing the gospel by which you are saved. At this time the Holy Spirit also baptizes you into the Body of Christ [1 Cor. 12:13]. I have answered the question concerning John 6 in a previous posting. Do you not know that the gospels record the earthly ministry of our Lord Jesus Christ to Israel. And don’t you know that Acts is a book of transition from Peter ministering to Israel to Paul becoming the chosen vessel of the Lord to the Jew first, kings, and the Gentiles?

I think this is the most amazing understanding of the Bible that I have ever heard. You actually discount everything except Paul’s letters as being for the Jews only. You are greatly decieved if you think the Sermon on the Mount is not applicable to everyone…

 

[inkaneer]

That’s a brilliant point! Although if someone has it in his or her head that a heretical viewpoint is truth, there are greater forces at work than either the Church or the Bible. All I am saying is that practically, the Bible does seem to do a better job of suppressing divergent viewpoints.

Well I don’t know . I mean here we are almost 500 years into the world of sola scriptura and there are over 40,000 sola scriptura denominations out there with 'divergent viewpoints". Seems to me we did a far better job before Luther came around.

Well, I’ve been on the receiving end of that dissent! My missions leader was quick to give me the boot when I told him I believe in evolution, and although I disagree wholeheartedly with his scientific view, I still believe he is a Christian. He also believes I am a Christian. That being said, priests who hold more liberal viewpoints (and I’m talking liberal here theologically, although they are liberal in politics as well, being mostly Irish working-class democrats) are still heading up their parishes around my town.

If any of those priests are preaching anything contrary to the magisterium of the church they are sinning by violating the vow of obedience they took upon being ordained. They should be reported to their bishop. I came across one such priest who offered communion to anyone at a wedding. Afterward I confronted him and told him he was in violation of the magisterium and that I was reporting it to the bishop which I did. The priest was removed as pastor of that church.