How do I answer this one?

[Fidelis]

In the older days religion had much more hold and sway.

No argument there.

It was a way to control and manipulate tribes…and then nations.

Nice theory, but how can you prove the motivations of untold numbers of people in innumerable places over the span of tens of thousands of years?

In fact, there are any number of possible reasons one could give for the emergence of religion – among them authentic divine revelation.

Assigning motives to other peoples actions without proof (especially bad motives) is poor reasoning, and in eveyday life, uncharitable.Stating it as a historical fact without any substantiation is ignorance bordering on arrogance. .

Only in the modern age, with so much sharing of information are we starting to lose our ignorance and slowly become free of religion and it’s laws. Basically that law was made to try and keep control

Or, people have freed themselves from the laws of religion because their hearts are evil and they choose to follow their own selfish and base passions or vain understanding. But that’s speculation too.

 

[patrick457]

Only in the modern age, with so much sharing of information are we starting to lose our ignorance and slowly become free of religion and it’s laws. Basically that law was made to try and keep control

I know I would sound rather cynical in this post, but I don’t think there is any real way to “get out of religion” - by religion, I mean “a set or system of beliefs” that a person has in general, whether it is formally codified or not. IMHO, non-faith is a new (anti-)faith and a new law unto itself. Rather oxymoronic, I agree, but in this world, if often happens that things sometimes become what they loathe to be - I believe that this would eventually apply also here. The wheel reinvents itself after all; such is life on earth.

Thus, I think that if, say, this belief eventually supplanted organized religions - which we will liken to fetters here for the moment - mankind would not really be released from bonds, but will just put another new set of chains: it may be brand new, and it may look different, but still it is a chain. Mankind may have thrown away all the belief systems they are used to, but they had just put another - the religion of anti-religion - in its stead.

I’m musing that those who practice organized religion would be termed ‘ignoramuses’ in this new, enlightened world. But even if the term used is different, I think that it would not be different from our forefathers’ calling certain people ‘heretics’, for in this world, those ‘dumb’ enough to revert themselves back to ‘stupidity’ are the heretics. Even if we may not realize it, we would actually be no different from our ancestors. They might not burn them on stakes anymore, but they would probably do something more nasty, as man is sometimes wont to do as he progresses technologically.

So to sum, I don’t think we’ll be really enlightened or finally break free of our purported ‘ignorance’. We’ll still be the same human beings - probably more broken, with only a different set of (non-)beliefs. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” But that’s just my idea.

You’ve probably guessed that I’m very cynical and pessimistic. Indeed I am, on many things.

 

[inkaneer]

In the older days religion had much more hold and sway.

It was a way to control and manipulate tribes…and then nations.

Only in the modern age, with so much sharing of information are we starting to lose our ignorance and slowly become free of religion and it’s laws. Basically that law was made to try and keep control

I think it is the other way around. Rather than the church using religion to manipulate or control people it was secular government doing the controlling and using religion to do it. Look at the emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire and their manipulation of the Orthodox church. King Henry VIII of England is a prime example. The German princes during the protestant revolt is another. The French kings during the so called 'Babylonian captivity" of the popes even another. The separation of church and state popular in this country was to keep government out of religion rather than religion out of government. Think about it.

 

[rdscheirer]

Israel conrtrolled the Dead Sea Scrolls- not the Catholic Church.
There will always be problems because of translation but I think all taht stuff doesn’t matter when you bet down to the real message.
“Love the Lord God with all your heart, mind and soul, and love your neighbor as yourself”

 

[Monte1945]

The church had possesion and controlled access to them. I was just on timemagazine.com These are a couple of links but there are a lot more. This was brought about by scholars wanting to do reasearch but were denied access by the church. They have had stories on The History Channel, Learning and Discovery etc Check it out.

Sorry, but Time, History Channel, etc. are entertainment. They love a conspiracy theory because it sells. Just look at DaVinci Code. None of those sources cite bona fide scholarly sources.

Yes, I was involved with some spectucular moments of American History and fifty years later… The History Channel did a two hour story on that moment and if I had not been
there I would not have known the two incidents were the same… The whole concept
of what happened was changed by their version of it… This has happened with two or
three of their stories… Amazing… makes one seriously doubt that any of taught
history can be believed…

 

[Fidelis]

Yes, I was involved with some spectucular moments of American History and fifty years later… The History Channel did a two hour story on that moment and if I had not been
there I would not have known the two incidents were the same… The whole concept
of what happened was changed by their version of it… This has happened with two or
three of their stories… Amazing… makes one seriously doubt that any of taught
history can be believed…

Exactly. I have been also been directly involved with many, many incidents that made the local and/or national news, and when I watch or read the news reports later, I am appalled how someone on the scene who was supposedly gathering facts could be so entirely inaccurate about what actually happened. I have really learned to take with a huge grain of salt anything that comes on the news or ‘history channels’ as gospel. There is simply too much room for honest human reporting mistakes, as well as sloppiness, laziness, bias and downright propaganda.

 

[jericho777]

I have been slowly working my way back to the Catholic faith but as the members of my present church try and talk me out of it, I find myself in a battle to defend my decision. Lately the tactic has been “Why would you want to return to a church that persecuted people for reading the bible in their own language”?

I have done my own research and it would “appear” that this might be true. What I would like to know is if this is TRUE or not? Did the church enact laws and formally prosecute and persecute people for owning a bible?

Lost again I think you are answering your own question when you post these statements from the CC. There is great backing from the members here for the church’s actions. They are making exceses nothing more. The word was never forbidden in the OT and was available to all. Regular people would read scripture in the synagogue. Their claim people were unable to read is non sense. Why did they not teach people to read then they would have no excuse? Only two groups did not, do not want scripture to be read by people communists and the CC. That should tell you something.

 

[beeliner]

"jericho777:

I would like to apologize to all for the tone and manner of my post. It is not my goal to hurt or offend anyone. It was unchristian how I tried to make my point. I would like to reengage the discussion in a more positive fashion. Thank you

Lost again I think you are answering your own question when you post these statements from the CC. There is great backing from the members here for the church’s actions. They are making exceses nothing more. The word was never forbidden in the OT and was available to all. Regular people would read scripture in the synagogue. Their claim people were unable to read is non sense. Why did they not teach people to read then they would have no excuse? Only two groups did not, do not want scripture to be read by people communists and the CC. That should tell you something.

jericho, you are approaching the point of trolling here. First you apologize, then a few posts later you simply repeat the same nonsense.

It all had to do with AVAILABILITY.

The first English language NT authorized for Catholics was released in 1582.

The first English language OT authorized for Catholics was released in 1609.

The first English language OT+NT authorized for Protestants was released in 1611.

The Protestants were in such a hurry to catch up with the Catholic Church in making an ACCURATE translation available to all that the original KJV was riddled with errors, requiring dozens of revisions over the following half-century.

Previous Protestant Bibles were unauthorized and in most cases clearly heretical. While Tyndale’s bible was, for example, a pretty good translation for its time, his sole purpose in producing it was to wrap it around his own heretical commentary.

Also, have you ever even attended Mass in a Catholic Church? Are you not aware that there are all manner of scriptural readings throughout the service, just as there were before mechanical printing made the Bible available to all? When the Mass was in Latin, these were printed in the vernacular in the missal or read aloud in the vernacular by a lector.

Educated Catholics, though, didn’t really need that, we could follow the Latin quite well. (And just as an aside, my father could talk rings around me in Latin, and he was a Protestant who learned it in a public high school in a small Illinois town. It was hardly a secret language!)

Also, you claim that ‘regular’ Jews were able to read scripture in the synagogue. Were those scrolls in the vernacular or in Hebrew? Hmmm?

 

[Fidelis]

Lost again I think you are answering your own question when you post these statements from the CC. There is great backing from the members here for the church’s actions. They are making exceses nothing more. The word was never forbidden in the OT and was available to all. Regular people would read scripture in the synagogue. Their claim people were unable to read is non sense. Why did they not teach people to read then they would have no excuse?

I’m sorry Jericho777, but you are are only showing your historical ignorance here. Not all Jews could read in biblical times, most being taught to memorize a large amount of the Scriptures. The average Jew was too busy trying to eke out a living to sit and study the Scriptures like many of of can today. They were taught by rabbis and, in the rare times the average person wanted an interpretation of the Law, they depended on the Scribes. That’s why Jesus told them to do what what Scribes and Pharisees taught (while not imitating their bad actions).

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

From A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

This has been the case over most of history. The world has not approached anything like universal literacy until the last century. Before that, relatively few people had the schooling to read, or the time to study.

Here is an article that may help you get up to snuff if you want to get a more accurate picture of these things and not work off of misinformation and personal predjudice:

Some Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura

 

[jericho777]

I am not trolling you are blatantly justifying the churches bad behavior and vilifying people for wanting to read the word of God.

You are saying Jews could not read that’s a poor justification for the church’s’ actions. My point is whether Jews were literate or not they had access to Gods word without reservation it was not a crime! As you said they memorized it. Whether from memory or writ they had and used it. Average people would read in the synagogue. Jesus was a prime example of this (they did not know he was God).

The church had the means and ability to make known Gods’ word but chose not to. How is it that Protestants were able with less resources and threat of death to make known the word of God to all wanted it. The KJV may not be perfect but any errors do not change any doctrinal issues. It’s better to have a KJV than no bible.

FYI I was a cradle catholic 24+ years so don’t patronize me.

It didn’t matter if Jews read Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek they still had something they could read for themselves. It was unprejudiced by another it was first hand for themselves to read. They were not forbidden with serious penalties.

 

[Fidelis]

You are saying Jews could not read that’s a poor justification for the church’s’ actions.

That wasn’t my entire justification – it was that **most people everywhere up until recent decades **could not read.

My point is whether Jews were literate or not they had access to Gods word without reservation it was not a crime! As you said they memorized it. Whether from memory or writ they had and used it.

And it’s never been a crime to read the Bible in the Catholic Church (only someone ignorant of history would believe so). It HAS been forbidded at one time or another to read heretical poorly translated VERSIONS of the Bible. To not acknowledge this is to be ignorant of history.

Average people would read in the synagogue. Jesus was a prime example of this (they did not know he was God).

Sorry, you are wrong again. Jesus was a teacher–a rabbi-- so he was trained. Most other people couldn’t. Can you think of one example from the Gospels of Jesus’ disciples or those who was not a rabbi or a scribe reading something?

The church had the means and ability to make known Gods’ word but chose not to. How is it that Protestants were able with less resources and threat of death to make known the word of God to all wanted it. The

Maybe because the printing press wasn’t invented until right before the Protestant Revolution?

Truly, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

FYI I was a cradle catholic 24+ years so don’t patronize me.

Nobody is patronizing you here, unless you feel that someone sincerely trying to give you information is patronizing. It matters not **how long **you were a Catholic. It is painfully obvious that you were poorly catechized.

It didn’t matter if Jews read Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek they still had something they could read for themselves. It was unprejudiced by another it was first hand for themselves to read. They were not forbidden with serious penalties.

You obviously did not look up the biblical quotes or the article I provided. It is clear you are not looking to get all the facts, but only cling to your ignorance and predjudice. Unless you change that it is useless for anyone to reasonably discuss these things with you. You do, however, have my prayers. Farewell.

 

[Subrosa]

How about this? State that they are holding onto outdated precepts and that for whatever reason, those restrictions no longer are valid. Then show them Article 25 of Dei Verbum, the Vatican II document on Holy Scripture…

1. Therefore, all the clergy must hold fast to the Sacred Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study, especially the priests of Christ and others, such as deacons and catechists who are legitimately active in the ministry of the word. This is to be done so that none of them will become “an empty preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it inwardly” (4) since they must share the abundant wealth of the divine word with the faithful committed to them, especially in the sacred liturgy. The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful, especially Religious, to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the “excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 3:8). “For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.”(St.Jerome) Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for “we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying.”

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Subrosa

 

[jericho777]

That wasn’t my entire justification – it was that **most people everywhere up until recent decades **could not read.

And it’s never been a crime to read the Bible in the Catholic Church (only someone ignorant of history would believe so). It HAS been forbidded at one time or another to read heretical poorly translated VERSIONS of the Bible. To not acknowledge this is to be ignorant of history.

Sorry, you are wrong again. Jesus was a teacher–a rabbi-- so he was trained. Most other people couldn’t. Can you think of one example from the Gospels of Jesus’ disciples or those who was not a rabbi or a scribe reading something?
Maybe because the printing press wasn’t invented until right before the Protestant Revolution?

Truly, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.
Nobody is patronizing you here, unless you feel that someone sincerely trying to give you information is patronizing. It matters not **how long **you were a Catholic. It is painfully obvious that you were poorly catechized.

You obviously did not look up the biblical quotes or the article I provided. It is clear you are not looking to get all the facts, but only cling to your ignorance and predjudice. Unless you change that it is useless for anyone to reasonably discuss these things with you. You do, however, have my prayers. Farewell.

1 But they were not forbidden by law to own or translate scripture.

2 The OP shows that

3 Jesus was not regarded as anything special he was only regarded as a teacher by those who followed him not by the religious leaders. He was not considered a learned man. Lk 4:14-28

4 It doesen’t matter about the printing press the Church had 1500 years to share the word of God. Even after the printing press it was still forbidden.

5 You are not trying to sincerely give me anything. Your tone and arrogance is evident. No I was very well catechized thanks to the 8 years of nun taught grammar school.

6 Yes I did read your bible quotes but they were talking about the return from the Babalonian captivity and the people had forgotten the word of the LORD. It was Ezra’s job to reteach the word of God.

The way you said you are praying for me makes me wonder what you are really praying.

 

[jamanne]

The main thing I would suggest is that you read Steven Ray’s “Crossing the Tiber”. He is a convert from an evangelical baptist church, and addresses many of these issues you have regarding the Bible, much more completely, accurately and well-researched than you will get from this forum.

I will say that there were already Catholic translations of the Bible out in the vernacular before Martin Luther. It was heretical, mistranslated Bibles that were destroyed. As Steven Ray says “The Church burned Bibles because She loved the Bible, and she wanted there to always be the true, accurate Word of God for the people to read.”

I will also say that the Bible was not kept in Latin so people could not read it. The Bible remained in Latin so long because only the educated people could read at this time, and educated people read Latin! The vernacular was spoken, but very few “common people”, if you will, were literate.

Again, I turn you to “Crossing the Tiber”. I think many of your questions and concerns will be put to rest there.

May the Holy Spirit lead you home, my friend! You are on the right path.

Peace, love and blessings,
Frank

p.s. It would probably be more beneficial to you to talk to a priest and do some reading on your own, rather than try to talk to people from your Church who are harboring some unfair, anti-Catholic views. Remember, you do not owe them an explanation. God bless you

I was raised by the sisters of Notre Dame and an explanation we were given in regard to the bible and Tridentine Mass being in Latin it was for the same reason the medical community and Botanical scientists use Latin ,that is to make sure everyone was reading from the same page regardless of their native language.as I believe Latin is a dead language and as such is n’t subject to words changing meaning according to trends and time IE Gay (happy )(Homosexual)and i’m sure you can think of many more just my two cents worth anne C

 

[Fidelis]

1 But they were not forbidden by law to own or translate scripture.
4 It doesen’t matter about the printing press the Church had 1500 years to share the word of God. Even after the printing press it was still forbidden.

I don’t know how many times I can repeat the same point, but:

Are Catholics allowed to read the Bible? Let’s look.
Pre-reformation literature is saturated with Bible quotations… For those who could not read, the Church provided a knowledge of the Bible by means of mystery plays, illustrated editions of parts or the whole of it in paintings, sculptures, and stained glass windows: The statuary of one great cathedral is known as the “Bible of Amiens.” Of the Bible in pictures, the Synod of Arras (1025) said: “The illiterate contemplated in the lineaments of painting what they, having never learnt to read, could not discern in writing.” To the man of the Middle Ages the Bible was a living reality.
Today, priests are obliged to read Scripture in their Office, or daily prayers, for about an hour and a half every day. The laity are more than encouraged, they are urged to read the Bible. By Pius VI (1778), by Pius VII (1820), they were earnestly exhorted to read it, by Leo XIII a special blessing was given to all who would read the Gospels for at least a quarter of an hour daily. Benedict XV (himself the founder of the Society of St. Jerome for distributing the Gospels in Italian, which sells great numbers every year) sent, by the Cardinal Secretary of State, the following message to the Catholic Truth Society: “It was with no little gladness of heart that the Holy Father learned of the work of the Society and of its diligence in spreading far and wide copies of the Holy Gospels, as well as of the other books of the Holy Scriptures, and in multiplying them so as to reach all men of good will. Most lovingly therefore His Holiness blesses all who have put their hand to this very excellent work; and he earnestly exhorts them to persevere with ardor in so holy an enterprise.” . . .

What has caused the general impression that the Church does not wish her children to read the Bible? 
Her claim to guide and teach them in the reading and interpretation of it: Danger is incurred in many ways by putting the Bible, without guidance, into the hands of children or the unlearned. (No one would maintain that the Old Testament in its entirety is suitable for the young even to read; again, some explanation is absolutely necessary for many parts of both Old and New Testaments.)
Her refusal to allow her children to use false and incomplete translations. At one time Bible translations were falsified in the interest of certain heresies. William Tyndale, for example, always substituted the word "congregation" for " Church" and "ordinance" for "tradition" because of the Catholic connotation attached to these words. He also translated "Little children, keep yourselves from images"; instead of using the more accurate rendering " idols."...
The harm done by bad translations and by want of an interpreter may be specially seen if we examine the efforts of various Bible societies and non-Catholic missionaries in the last century. In China, India, and elsewhere, they either altered the Catholic versions or wrote new ones in various dialects before they had acquired real knowledge of the language into which they were translating; these they scattered broadcast, without explanation. Educated natives declared that in many cases the translations were so bad as to make absolute nonsense and in other cases were even b.asphemous. They derived from them nothing but contempt for Christianity. Moreover, the way in which these sacred books were distributed shocked all, especially the Mahommedans, who declared nothing would induce them to give the Koran to anyone unless they were certain it would be treated respectfully. These Bibles were often used as wrappings for drugs and other merchandise, wallpapers, or covers for cartridges (See Marshall’s Christian Missions, vol. 1., chap. 1).
It may, perhaps, be allowed that at some periods and in some countries this caution of the Church has been carried to excess, but in the long run the realization of the existence of difficulties and of the need of an interpreter has preserved the Bible for Catholics when others are losing it.

Read more here and here.

3 Jesus was not regarded as anything special he was only regarded as a teacher by those who followed him not by the religious leaders. He was not considered a learned man. Lk 4:14-28

He was despised only by his enemies, the religious authorities, not by his disciples and the crowds.The crowd in the synagogue of Nazareth ddidn’t question his credentials: they were only “amazed at his teaching.”

5 You are not trying to sincerely give me anything. Your tone and arrogance is evident.

As is yours, in addition to your obstinant ignorance.

No I was very well catechized thanks to the 8 years of nun taught grammar school.

An 8th grade religious education, even a good one, serves you well only until 8th grade.

6 Yes I did read your bible quotes but they were talking about the return from the Babalonian captivity and the people had forgotten the word of the LORD. It was Ezra’s job to reteach the word of God.

We see no other pattern in the Old Testament for the average person learning the Word of God.
Did you also read the article? Or the ones I just posted? You haven’t commented on those.

The way you said you are praying for me makes me wonder what you are really praying.

All I said is that I will pray for you, which I will do. Farewell.

 

[Abu]

Christ’s Church gave us the Bible and only She can protect the truths contained therein

The Scriptures do not have all that Christ taught us: “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

We only know which books belong to the Bible through the authoritative decision of the Church in the fourth century. Anyone is able to have a Bible today, as I have, because the Catholic Church collected the writings and made an infallible declaration on the canon of the Scriptures as to which books are the inspired Word of God. Most non-Catholic Bibles are missing seven books and thus many also miss out on vital truths as they follow the error of “Scripture Only”.

From the earliest times popes and councils, saints and scholars have encouraged Bible reading. Until some years after the printing press was invented, Bibles were scarce and expensive because copied by hand - so often there could be only one book in a town but, nearly everyone who could read could read Latin. Catholic monks faithfully copied the texts, and the production and use of translations, corrupted to support false teachings, was condemned. Without the Holy Mass, Protestants had only the Bible for spiritual growth and came to see it as the only way to God, missing out on many essential truths, and splitting into some 50,000 differing denominations. Also, the Scriptures privately interpreted cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems - this results in uncertainty and lack of unified Christian action at times. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating].

Johann Gutenberg, a Catholic, produced the first printed Bible, with the Church’s approval, in 1455. Luther was not born until 1483. There were 18 German editions of the whole Bible before the Catholic monk Luther posted his 95 theses in 1517, and there were German, Flemish, Italian, Spanish, and Polish editions before Luther left the Church. The first English edition appeared in 1525. James I in England authorised the “King James” version only in 1604.

Christ’s Church has declared that the Sacred Scriptures are without error as they are inspired by the Holy Spirit, while individual opinions and interpretations are not without error. Error is incompatible with truth.

 

[jericho777]

I don’t know how many times I can repeat the same point, but:

He was despised only by his enemies, the religious authorities, not by his disciples and the crowds.The crowd in the synagogue of Nazareth ddidn’t question his credentials: they were only "amazed at his teaching."As is yours, in addition to your obstinant ignorance.An 8th grade religious education, even a good one, serves you well only until 8th grade.We see no other pattern in the Old Testament for the average person learning the Word of God.
Did you also read the article? Or the ones I just posted? You haven’t commented on those.
All I said is that I will pray for you, which I will do. Farewell.

After that I made my confirmation in my senior year and went to mass faithfully till I was 24.

 

[Fidelis]

After that I made my confirmation in my senior year and went to mass faithfully till I was 24.

It’s never too late to go back and to humbly start to learn the Catholic Faith from an adult level. You’d be amazed to find out both what the Church really teaches, and the truth about some of the misconceptions you’ve picked up since you were gone.

 

[Abu]

jerico777

Our Lord did not give us a book or collection of writings about His teaching, but chose apostles with a leader (St Peter) to whom alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom separately, the charge of binding and loosing, and of confirming his brethren – on whom He built His Church. These apostles taught and then gave us SOME of this teaching in writing, inspired by the Holy Spirit. A successor of Our Lord’s chosen St Peter declared which writings make up the Word of God; so without the authority of His Church we would not even know the teaching of Jesus.

Since you would not even know some of what Christ taught without the Catholic Church and Her Scriptures, now that you know better, you have the opportunity to start to think with the mind of Christ and His Church. Jesus of Nazareth redeemed us. We are saved through co-operation with Him through His Church as St Paul teaches: “I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of His Body which is the Church.” (Col. 1:24). What is lacking in Christ’s suffering is precisely what only we can do – take up our cross and suffer, repent and ask forgiveness, following the dictates of our conscience.

We see here that Christ’s Catholic Church (the Bride of Christ) is His Mystical Body through whom all salvation comes. Understanding the meaning of salvation for those nominally outside of Christ’s Church is not the only vitally important fact – private interpretation of the Scriptures cannot always guide us on contraception, on remarriage, on capital punishment, IVF, cloning, marriage only between the opposite sex, and many other modern problems - this fact results in uncertainty, confusion and lack of unified Christian action at times.

Christ did not go to the extent of building His Church on St Peter with all of the means for salvation – in teaching, ruling and sanctifying, for anyone to pay fast and loose with His Body.

She is the only means of salvation provided by Christ and those who come to see this will ensure their assent to Her teaching and join in Her sacrificial worship and Her sacraments for their salvation. Those who don’t yet see this may be saved by following their conscience in endeavouring to know and follow the will of God; some will come home, or return, to Christ’s Church.

 

[jericho777]

It’s never too late to go back and to humbly start to learn the Catholic Faith from an adult level. You’d be amazed to find out both what the Church really teaches, and the truth about some of the misconceptions you’ve picked up since you were gone.

LOL I don’t know what I’ve been thinking all this time. It just hit me I was 28 when I left the church. I was 24 when I got married Sorry about that.

Before I left I was involved in church home study groups.