How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[Tommy555]

I am reading a lot of “I believe…” Does not all heresy begin with a private interpretation? The author of Hebrews states, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (He 13.17).

All the church counsels came about because of one man’s interpretation leading others astray. Christ is the Head of the Church, and gives interpretation to the Church. It is the Church which watches in behalf of our souls. We cannot, and must not, rely upon our own individual interpretations. We then become the guardians of our own souls; we become the Church. Also, are we not told to lean not on our own understandings. The Bereans did not give individual interpretation to the Scriptures but searched the Scriptures.

How often during a sermon are we thinking, “I agree” or “I disagree.” When we do this, we are believing that we are the authority. From Genesis to the Revelation, no man was authority, everyone had to submit. Moses had to submit to God, and God appointed Moses over His people. What happened when people thought they were equal to Moses? Leprosy, the ground opening up and swallowing them, etc. We at some point must place our trust in Christ by submitting to the Church.

The question becomes, Where is the Church? Any church which is begun by one individual must be scrutinized very carefully. Once again, we as individuals are not the authority to say, That cannot be the Church because I…" I think the main question that must be answered is: Has the Catholic Church, by their traditions, contradicted Scripture? We cannot say they have just for the simple reason that we disagree. We must ask questions and have them show us why they are not contradicting Scripture. Every denomination that I am aware of, in some way, form, or fashion, has broken off from the Catholic Church. That means that they were the Church. Are they still? If not, where is the Church? There is much about their traditions (especially their Marian doctrine) that is extremely hard to swallow, but it is not our call as individuals.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tommy555,

You were doing so well … just had a little problem with paragraphs 2 & 4 … but, in my opinion… 1 & 3 were great! Let me explain… but, it is going to take me just a bit longer to do than I originally thought. This is Post 1 of 2…

I am reading a lot of “I believe…” Does not all heresy begin with a private interpretation? The author of Hebrews states, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (He 13.17).

I think you really hit the nail on the head with this one. The solid defense against ‘private’ interpretation is Divine Guidance - and I am very please to tell you that Christ promised the Catholic Church (the one He founded on Peter) that the Gates of Hell would not prevail - (Matt 16:18) The Church (and, that would be the Catholic Church) is the bulwark of our Faith

All the church counsels came about because of one man’s interpretation leading others astray. Christ is the Head of the Church, and gives interpretation to the Church. It is the Church which watches in behalf of our souls. We cannot, and must not, rely upon our own individual interpretations. We then become the guardians of our own souls; we become the Church. Also, are we not told to lean not on our own understandings.

Right up to this point - doing just fine! Actually I would have ended the paragraph with a reference to the Magisterium and the infallibility of the Pope when making pronouncement of matters of Faith or Morals. But, that’s me…

The Bereans did not give individual interpretation to the Scriptures but searched the Scriptures.

Now, this is just my take on it - but, in reading Acts 17:11 (where the Bereans are mentioned) you have to put this in some type of historical context. The Acts of the Apostles was written about 60-64AD and the Last Book of the NT was written about 100Ad. While I am not exactly sure what year Paul encountered the Bereans - the only Scripture they could have referenced was the OT - and that would be in identifying that Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised by God through the Prophets. We did not have the Canon of Sacred Scripture (courtesy of the Catholic Church) until about 400AD. So, really, for about the first 400 years, there was not a definitive set of inspired writings consisting of both the OT & NT.

While I am confidient the Bereans were guided by the Holy Spirit in their studies of the OT to confirm Paul’s teachings - I fear that their good name has been kidnapped! Today, in many circles, it is a short-hand version for Sola Scriptura. And when you reflect back that there was not a Canon until 400 - just what do you think those early Catholics used … ? The answer is Apostolic Tradition. Between 400AD and roughly 1600AD the Bible was the set of Books approved by the Catholic Church and declared to be Inspired by God.

How often during a sermon are we thinking, “I agree” or “I disagree.” When we do this, we are believing that we are the authority. From Genesis to the Revelation, no man was authority, everyone had to submit. Moses had to submit to God, and God appointed Moses over His people. What happened when people thought they were equal to Moses? Leprosy, the ground opening up and swallowing them, etc. We at some point must place our trust in Christ by submitting to the Church.

Sounds really good, Tommy555!

God bless

 

[Roy5]

Shaky and Tommy

 1. Shaky. Millions of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Fine, if they can do that. I did once, but then became better acquainted with it. It does provide inspiration and I recite favorite passages in times of stress. But there are so many fables and passages that trouble me. Two examples. I refuse to believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter the citizens of Jericho and Ai and others, or that God commanded Saul to exterminate every last Amalekite. My God would have no part in such atrocities, and how outrageous to pin the blame on him! My God gave us the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") and the Sermon on the Mount ("love your enemy"), so how could he be responsible for such crimes?

 And don't tell me that God had his reasons, that we can't question God's actions, etc. I will not believe in a God who so blatantly would contradict his own teachings.

  2. Tommy. There would be much more unity among Christians if Catholics and more dogmatic evangelical Protestants would champion a 'bigger tent' and permit more intellectual freedom. When you tell people who are steeped in the American democratic tradition that they must believe everything one church or one book or one evangelist says - well, those who treasure independent thinking are not likely to salute and say 'yes, sir!'. That's what the fascist, communist and similar ideologies required. I believe in a God who gave us a brain to use, to explore, to ponder, and to question, and over the years I have come to value that freedom of inquiry. This certainly doesn't lessen my faith in God. I recall the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick: "I could only believe in a God I cannot understand."  Frankly, I don't need all the answers as my faith is strong and "farther along we'll know all about it" (to quote an old gospel hymn). I can wait.

But, again, I respect those who have a different view, but do get a bit annoyed when they accuse us of being under the influence of the devil or blast us with other such insulting nonsense.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tommy555,

This is Post 2 of 2…

The question becomes, Where is the Church?

Glad you asked! Actually, there are several possible answers - depending on what you are actually referencing. Here is a link that I think will address all of possibilities to that seemingly simply question: newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm

I think a quick response is that the Church is where Christ is - and Christ promised He would found His Church on Peter, that He would never abandon His Church, and that He had much to tell His Apostles but they could not bear it at that time. There were only three religious groups around at the time of Pentecost - the ‘Birthday of the Catholic Church’: Greeks/Pagans - believe in virtually anything with multiple gods, Jews - Pharisees and Saducees were the main groupings but there were also Herodians, and then there were the followers of Christ - initially called followers of The Way by Saul of Tarsus when he was persecuting them, but later changed to Catholic in about 130AD and the name stuck.

Any church which is begun by one individual must be scrutinized very carefully.

Unless, of course that One Man - the God-Man and He is Jesus Christ Who founded His Church on Peter.

Once again, we as individuals are not the authority to say, That cannot be the Church because I…" I think the main question that must be answered is: Has the Catholic Church, by their traditions, contradicted Scripture?

Oooooooooooooh, Tommy555, where did that come from? These are the Apostolic Traditions that sustained the early Catholic martyrs for the 1st 400 years and thereafter. Now, if you want traditions and splintered doctrine you really do not have to look far. With over 20,000+ groups, sects, cults and organizations all claiming to be the ‘true church’ - and all with different doctrines that contradict one another, all essentially claiming Sola Scriptura because they just can not handle 2Peter 1:20 who specifically condemns ‘private interpretation’. But, in answer to your question, it was the Catholic Church with Apostolic Tradition and the guidance of the Holy Spirit that gave you the Bible (even the abridged version you have) you are now holding onto with both hands.

We cannot say they have just for the simple reason that we disagree. We must ask questions and have them show us why they are not contradicting Scripture. Every denomination that I am aware of, in some way, form, or fashion, has broken off from the Catholic Church. That means that they were the Church. Are they still? If not, where is the Church? There is much about their traditions (especially their Marian doctrine) that is extremely hard to swallow, but it is not our call as individuals.

Tell you what, Tommy555, here are three items - and, if you would please, tell me the Scriptural basis why you:

1.) reject Christ founded His Church on Peter and three times the Resurrected Christ reaffirmed Peter’s leadership role over the other Apostles to guide and teach.

2,) reject the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity

3.) reject that Resurrected Christ delegated the Power of God to forgive sin to His Apostles.

Once we address these clearly identified Catholic teachings - that have been taught by the same Catholic Church for the past 2,000 years - that are specifically in the NT, I will be happy to address your concerns about Marian doctrine.

Looking forward to hearing from you

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Roy5,

I may have misread what you wrote here … but, it sounds like you have just created your own god! (I don’t know, is ‘christened’ the proper word to use here…? ) Tell me I am wrong … I took the liberty of increasing the pitch so as to easily identify the parts that seem to be you have created your own god. This god not only conforms to your understanding but, probably should be a US Citizen, too!

Shaky and Tommy

 1. Shaky. Millions of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Fine, if they can do that. I did once, but then became better acquainted with it. It does provide inspiration and I recite favorite passages in times of stress. But there are so many fables and passages that trouble me. Two examples. I refuse to believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter the citizens of Jericho and Ai and others, or that God commanded Saul to exterminate every last Amalekite. My God would have no part in such atrocities, and how outrageous to pin the blame on him! My God gave us the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") and the Sermon on the Mount ("love your enemy"), so how could he be responsible for such crimes?

There are honestly several problems with this approach you have decided to use - but, they all orbit around you demanding that your god act the way you want him to act. The God that established the covenant with Abraham is the same God Who sent His Only Begotten Son to die on the cross for our sins. We can not imagine the ways of god - and, it really sounds very similar to someone I read about who was credited with saying, “Who is like God?”

 And don't tell me that God had his reasons, that we can't question God's actions, etc. I will not believe in a God who so blatantly would contradict his own teachings.

OK. I won’t tell you. But, who will you listen to besides yourself?

  2. Tommy. There would be much more unity among Christians if Catholics and more dogmatic evangelical Protestants would champion a 'bigger tent' and permit more intellectual freedom.

Now you have something here! Honest! There are 20,000+ sects, groups, assemblies, cults - all masquerading as churches that proclaim they are the ‘true church’. They all have different doctrines - so, it certainly seems like they have the ‘intellectual freedom’ you have been seeking. But, you know - these ‘chruches’ all contradict one another - in fact, at least as I see it - this has simply gone from ‘freedom’ to license - action without acknowledged responsibility. Shoot from the hip private interpretations and the Word of God says what I say it says!

When you tell people who are steeped in the American democratic tradition that they must believe everything one church or one book or one evangelist says - well, those who treasure independent thinking are not likely to salute and say ‘yes, sir!’.

As you will recall, Peter was selected by God the Father, and Christ gave Peter the Power to bind and to loose whatever he chose - and it would be observed both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 16:17-20) Christ did not give Peter the power to form a committee and establish a ballot and count the “Ayes” and “Nayes” before a decision was made. You may want to call this fascist or communist - but, where were you to consult when God was laying out His Plan for creation?

That’s what the fascist, communist and similar ideologies required. I believe in a God who gave us a brain to use, to explore, to ponder, and to question, and over the years I have come to value that freedom of inquiry. This certainly doesn’t lessen my faith in God. I recall the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick: “I could only believe in a God I cannot understand.” Frankly, I don’t need all the answers as my faith is strong and “farther along we’ll know all about it” (to quote an old gospel hymn). I can wait.

Now, maybe this is one of those reading comprehension things I am having trouble with - but the last sentence in your paragraph seems to negate everything that preceeded it! Weren’t you just saying you could not believe in a God that was inconsistent with His Own rules - that you had to understand this God if you were going to believe in Him. Is this what you intended?

But, again, I respect those who have a different view, but do get a bit annoyed when they accuse us of being under the influence of the devil or blast us with other such insulting nonsense.

Thanks, I respect you, too. I have not accused you of anything except idol-creation in that you seem to have made your own god in the image of your limited understanding.

God bless

 

[Pitcharan]

By your own answer are you using your God given Brain to determine that the Catholic Church is the only Church. The more I read here in these forums and the more I study the bible the more I realize I that the Catholic Church is not the Church Jesus established. Far from it.

You are mistaken; it was not determined by using my brain.(like how you are doing now) In fact when I used my brain I thought otherwise and was saved by Grace and led to the truth by the HS. Best of luck brainy brother.

 

[Pitcharan]

*Loving and trusting Jesus. You can believe without understanding.

Cinette*

Excellently put Cinette!. That is it. When you love Him you receive faith as a gift. No one can really believe otherwise though they may claim so. I take this opportunity to share this definition of Faith: it is belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision in the absence of tangible evidence. This vision or understanding as you call it is the reward of love. You can see below how ingratitude which is lack of love, blocks the gift of faith.

If you have Faith you will believe without demanding proofs. But if you lack Faith, any amount of proof will be of no avail. The gospels clearly show that even after witnessing so many miracles, many were untouched. Take the worst example of the paralytic who was healed at the pool by Jesus after having suffered for 38 years. Firstly, he vanished even without bothering to thank or know his healer. Later when he learnt that the Jews were searching for the healer in order to punish him for doing so on sabbath day, he promptly found out about Jesus and betrayed Him to them. He was warned by our Lord who told him: “Sin no more, lest greater evil befall you”. It only shows that there are people who lack faith even after experiencing the greatest miracle, but would like to believe teachings like “put to death anyone who heals on sabbath day”.

All the gospel teachings only lead us ponder: what exactly is Faith? I repeat: it is therefore belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision in the absence of tangible evidence. This vision or understanding as you call it is the reward of love.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .If you are baptized before you are of an age to believe are you saved, using only scripture to show why or why not?

davec66,

Sorry for jumping in here; but Scripture gives substantial support for infant Baptism, and the forgiveness of sins through Baptism.

John proclaimed a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Mark 1 (ESV):
3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight,’"

4 John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5 And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

Luke 3:
2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zechariah in the wilderness. 3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

Ephesians 2:
11Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— 12remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility

Colossians 2: 8 See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. 15 He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.

The circumcision without hands is the “putting off of the body of the flesh,” by “circumcision of Christ”----being “buried with Him in Baptism,” and “raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God.”

Quotes from other threads:

In Covenant Theology entire families are brought into the covenant. Entire Jewish families were brought into the old covenant. Males by circumcision, females by the faith of their father. In the New Covenant, baptism replace circumcision. As Paul states baptism is the circumcision of Christ. ( Colossians 2:11). The New Covenant baptism was better than circumcision because no one is denied baptism " For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew or Greek, there is neither slave no free, ther is neither male nor female, for you are all in Christ Jesus " (Galatians 3:27-28)

. . . .Acts 12:38-39 Repent and be baptized every one of you…for the promise is to you and to your children". This speech was made in front of thousands of Jews who circumcised their children into the old covenent. Their children would likewise be baptized into the new covenant. The Greek word here for children is “teknon” which is also used here in Acts 21:21 “and they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children (teknon) of observe the customs”

. . . . Circumcision was the sign of the Old Covenant, a sign of incorporation into Abraham’s family. All covenants signify a familial relationship. Baptism signifies the New Covenant and accomplishes entrance into the family of God; we become daughters and sons of Him. Circumcision prefigures Baptism.

. . . .I found a couple of writings from the early Church that address infant Baptism:

St. Hippolytus of Rome (c. 215 AD) “Baptize first the chidren; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.”
(The Apostolic Tradition 21) (This also lends itself to the profession of faith being necessary as we previously discussed).

Origen (post 244 AD) "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants. (Commentary on Romans 5, 9). . . . .

 

[shaky]

Shaky and Tommy

 1. Shaky. Millions of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Fine, if they can do that. I did once, but then became better acquainted with it. It does provide inspiration and I recite favorite passages in times of stress. But there are so many fables and passages that trouble me. Two examples. I refuse to believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter the citizens of Jericho and Ai and others, or that God commanded Saul to exterminate every last Amalekite. My God would have no part in such atrocities, and how outrageous to pin the blame on him! My God gave us the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") and the Sermon on the Mount ("love your enemy"), so how could he be responsible for such crimes?

 And don't tell me that God had his reasons, that we can't question God's actions, etc. I will not believe in a God who so blatantly would contradict his own teachings.

  2. Tommy. There would be much more unity among Christians if Catholics and more dogmatic evangelical Protestants would champion a 'bigger tent' and permit more intellectual freedom. When you tell people who are steeped in the American democratic tradition that they must believe everything one church or one book or one evangelist says - well, those who treasure independent thinking are not likely to salute and say 'yes, sir!'. That's what the fascist, communist and similar ideologies required. I believe in a God who gave us a brain to use, to explore, to ponder, and to question, and over the years I have come to value that freedom of inquiry. This certainly doesn't lessen my faith in God. I recall the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick: "I could only believe in a God I cannot understand."  Frankly, I don't need all the answers as my faith is strong and "farther along we'll know all about it" (to quote an old gospel hymn). I can wait.

But, again, I respect those who have a different view, but do get a bit annoyed when they accuse us of being under the influence of the devil or blast us with other such insulting nonsense.

Hi Roy

God does not contradict himself. nor does scripture contradict itself You Are misunderstanding Scripture. which is giving you a misunderstanding about God.

As regards thou shalt not ‘‘Kill’’. The True meaning means thou shalt not ‘‘murder’’
There is a big difference between Kill and murder. The KJV is a very good translation but not perfect.
The first thing i did when i saw this contradiction. I went straight to the original bible. written in Hebrew and Greek. In the old testament Hebrew: It says thou shalt not ‘‘Murder’’

It seems to me you have not had a encounter with God yet and know his Character.
About 1996 I had a direct encounter with him and he showed himself to me by showing me his nature. This was 7 years after i got baptised.
It is nice to talk to him when he talks to me.

Did you read about. where the spirit of God entered Samson and enabled him to kill over 1000 Philistines.
God Taught David how to War. David also talks about killing children in Gods name
Moses who got the 10 commandments. Sings the lord is a warrior a man of war.
ecclesiastes: Says there is a time for war and a time for peace.
The Priests are ordered to kill any stranger Approaching the temple.

Can i ask you would you allow pedophile serial killer rape and murder your child in front of you?
Also are you telling me Satan can not influence you
Also when Jesus Returns. He will war and kill many people with a army of angels:shrug:

 

[Cinette]

I am reading a lot of “I believe…” Does not all heresy begin with a private interpretation? The author of Hebrews states, “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit to them: for they watch in behalf of your souls, as they that shall give account; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief: for this were unprofitable for you” (He 13.17).

All the church counsels came about because of one man’s interpretation leading others astray. Christ is the Head of the Church, and gives interpretation to the Church. It is the Church which watches in behalf of our souls. We cannot, and must not, rely upon our own individual interpretations. We then become the guardians of our own souls; we become the Church. Also, are we not told to lean not on our own understandings. The Bereans did not give individual interpretation to the Scriptures but searched the Scriptures.

How often during a sermon are we thinking, “I agree” or “I disagree.” When we do this, we are believing that we are the authority. From Genesis to the Revelation, no man was authority, everyone had to submit. Moses had to submit to God, and God appointed Moses over His people. What happened when people thought they were equal to Moses? Leprosy, the ground opening up and swallowing them, etc. We at some point must place our trust in Christ by submitting to the Church.

The question becomes, Where is the Church? Any church which is begun by one individual must be scrutinized very carefully. Once again, we as individuals are not the authority to say, That cannot be the Church because I…" I think the main question that must be answered is: Has the Catholic Church, by their traditions, contradicted Scripture? We cannot say they have just for the simple reason that we disagree. We must ask questions and have them show us why they are not contradicting Scripture. Every denomination that I am aware of, in some way, form, or fashion, has broken off from the Catholic Church. That means that they were the Church. Are they still? If not, where is the Church? There is much about their traditions (especially their Marian doctrine) that is extremely hard to swallow, but it is not our call as individuals.

*Interesting observations Tommy!

Yes, Faith is not a matter of opinion. We can’t say “I agree” although we can say “I believe” I could write volumes in response to your post (and I have not yet looked at the postings which follow yours because I know that there will be others who will probably give you a concise and accurate answer). All I can say is that our Catholic Faith is based on Faith and Reason. You have good reasoning and my bet is if you follow your instincts and do some research you will arrive at the TRUTH.

God bless you
Cinette*

 

[BTTG]

Do all Catholics agree with this statement as posted by Jim?

“Outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation.”
VEN. POPE PIUS IX

 

[Cinette]

Shaky and Tommy

 1. Shaky. Millions of Christians, both Catholic and Protestant, believe the Bible in a strictly literal fashion. Fine, if they can do that. I did once, but then became better acquainted with it. It does provide inspiration and I recite favorite passages in times of stress. But there are so many fables and passages that trouble me. Two examples. I refuse to believe that God ordered Joshua to slaughter the citizens of Jericho and Ai and others, or that God commanded Saul to exterminate every last Amalekite. My God would have no part in such atrocities, and how outrageous to pin the blame on him! My God gave us the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") and the Sermon on the Mount ("love your enemy"), so how could he be responsible for such crimes?

 And don't tell me that God had his reasons, that we can't question God's actions, etc. I will not believe in a God who so blatantly would contradict his own teachings.

  2. Tommy. There would be much more unity among Christians if Catholics and more dogmatic evangelical Protestants would champion a 'bigger tent' and permit more intellectual freedom. When you tell people who are steeped in the American democratic tradition that they must believe everything one church or one book or one evangelist says - well, those who treasure independent thinking are not likely to salute and say 'yes, sir!'. That's what the fascist, communist and similar ideologies required. I believe in a God who gave us a brain to use, to explore, to ponder, and to question, and over the years I have come to value that freedom of inquiry. This certainly doesn't lessen my faith in God. I recall the words of Harry Emerson Fosdick: "I could only believe in a God I cannot understand."  Frankly, I don't need all the answers as my faith is strong and "farther along we'll know all about it" (to quote an old gospel hymn). I can wait.

But, again, I respect those who have a different view, but do get a bit annoyed when they accuse us of being under the influence of the devil or blast us with other such insulting nonsense.

*I tend to agree with you in regard to God - we are taught that God is love and that he is merciful.

I believe in the Catholic Church which was founded by Jesus. You speak of freedom of enquiry - I believe that we have that freedom but at the same time we have the Church to teach us and instruct us and I firmly believe that we must be obedient. I have always been very rebellious in my youth and beyond but when it comes to matters of Faith I feel the need to obey and that does not mean I have no freedom to search and inquire. Reason is important in matters of faith but there are things where no reason can explain and we have no choice but to yield to our Faith in God.

Cinette *

 

[Cinette]

Hi, Roy5,

I may have misread what you wrote here … but, it sounds like you have just created your own god! (I don’t know, is ‘christened’ the proper word to use here…? ) Tell me I am wrong … I took the liberty of increasing the pitch so as to easily identify the parts that seem to be you have created your own god. This god not only conforms to your understanding but, probably should be a US Citizen, too!

Thanks, I respect you, too. I have not accused you of anything except idol-creation in that you seem to have made your own god in the image of your limited understanding.

God bless

*Tom, I think your comments, all of them, are reasonable!

God bless all
Cinette*

 

[Pitcharan]

Do all Catholics agree with this statement as posted by Jim?

“Outside the fold of the Holy Roman Church there is no salvation.”
VEN. POPE PIUS IX

Depends on what you read from it. To me it is simply a restatement of what our Lord said emphatically:Salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22c). Catholics are really Jews, in the true sense of the word. (Rev 3:8-10).

 

[Cinette]

Excellently put Cinette!. That is it. When you love Him you receive faith as a gift. No one can really believe otherwise though they may claim so. I take this opportunity to share this definition of Faith: it is belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision in the absence of tangible evidence. This vision or understanding as you call it is the reward of love. You can see below how ingratitude which is lack of love, blocks the gift of faith.

If you have Faith you will believe without demanding proofs. But if you lack Faith, any amount of proof will be of no avail. The gospels clearly show that even after witnessing so many miracles, many were untouched. Take the worst example of the paralytic who was healed at the pool by Jesus after having suffered for 38 years. Firstly, he vanished even without bothering to thank or know his healer. Later when he learnt that the Jews were searching for the healer in order to punish him for doing so on sabbath day, he promptly found out about Jesus and betrayed Him to them. He was warned by our Lord who told him: “Sin no more, lest greater evil befall you”. It only shows that there are people who lack faith even after experiencing the greatest miracle, but would like to believe teachings like “put to death anyone who heals on sabbath day”.

All the gospel teachings only lead us ponder: what exactly is Faith? I repeat: it is therefore belief in truth by virtue of spiritual vision in the absence of tangible evidence. This vision or understanding as you call it is the reward of love.

There was a time when I used to question everything. Yes but…Yes but…Yes but… until someone quoted St Augustine and I paraphrase - you do not need to understand in order to believe but believe in order to understand. From that day I stopped being so stubborn!!

Blessings
Cinette

 

[benedictus2]

*Araniski has left the thread but if he is lurking I would like to ask a question:

If you were present when Jesus gave this teaching of the Eucharist (John 6) would you have turned your back shaking your head as the disciples did or would you have remained with the Apostles who remained?

I would really like to know this.

Blessings
Cinette*

If Araninski was present then he would have thought Jesus had gone bananas and walked away.

And as the gospel also said, He would have simply allowed him to leave.

 

[benedictus2]

Depends on what you read from it. To me it is simply a restatement of what our Lord said emphatically:Salvation is from the Jews. (John 4:22c). Catholics are really Jews, in the true sense of the word. (Rev 3:8-10).

Yes, yes, yes. There is really only one religion - Judaism. Catholic Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. So a Jew who becomes a Catholic is a truly a fulfilled Jew because he is no longer waiting for the Messiah, he has encountered Him.

 

[benedictus2]

By your own answer are you using your God given Brain to determine that the Catholic Church is the only Church. The more I read here in these forums and the more I study the bible the more I realize I that the Catholic Church is not the Church Jesus established. Far from it.

Well, now that you have made such a claim and seems to back that up with “the more I read here in these forums and the more I study the Bible”, then you must prove your point.

So here is just one question for you, Dave-Who-Uses-His-Brain, and this must be a piece of cake for you to answer with the claim to erudition that you have made.

If you believe in the Bible then you must believe that Christ established a Church (this is something very clearly stated in Matthew’s gospel).

So, can you please show by drawing precise historical lines which current Protestant church it is?

Please trace it back to the Apostles.

 

[benedictus2]

I do know that I reject certain passages of scripture as to be taken literally

How? What makes you so sure that they must not be taken literally? What is your basis for your conclusions?

 

[Cinette]

If Araninski was present then he would have thought Jesus had gone bananas and walked away.

And as the gospel also said, He would have simply allowed him to leave.

*Who knows - I might have walked away also. I often think about that.

Thank God for 2000 years of witness.

Blessings
Cinette*