I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

[jericho777]

And what does that prove? Numbers always climb and decline…and? You are pinning blame on the CC and that is not the root of the problem. Problem starts with those Catholics are who avid believers of relativism,materialism,etc,etc. They are not in need of Christ,but only what suits their personal agendas and egos…plain and simple.

Not blaming anyone just telling you the reality of the area. 30% is more than numbers climbing and falling. There is a serious decline in the CC. Glad to see it’s not your problem. There are other reasons they have left and I will leave it at that. Do you even care there gone or will you try to get them back? Really they don’t need Christ?

 

[JHow]

…Let me say this over the last 10 years there are about 30% less catholic churches in the area. There are more also scheduled for closing. Obviously there is a large population that is in need of Christ. We are there trying to reach the lost and bring them into the Kingdom of God.

This fact (assuming it is correct) probably says more about your state than the relative strengths of catholicism and other religious groups. Catholic populations are growing in other areas, buoyed by immigration. Your state is barely growing in population. The “no-affiliation” group is growing as a proportion of the population, but overall numbers are small when you compare 6.5 M people in Mass. versus 35M in California. The country as a whole is experiencing a major population shift southward at this time.

 

[JHow]

Scripture is the word of God without question. By default it carries the most authority. Paul is telling Timothy to look to the scriptures to be his spiritual fountain of knowledge. When you find something better than the word of God for instruction please let me know.

Okay, but where and how did Paul get his information? Scripture clearly doesn’t contain the whole of christian doctrine.

 

[Nicea325]

Not blaming anyone just telling you the reality of the area. 30% is more than numbers climbing and falling. There is a serious decline in the CC. Glad to see it’s not your problem. There are other reasons they have left and I will leave it at that. Do you even care there gone or will you try to get them back? Really they don’t need Christ?

My friend I can turn blue in the face evangelizing them and in the end it is called free-will. God does not force Himself on anyone and you and I both know that is a fact. God respects everyone’s freedom and conversion comes within.

God Bless

 

[jericho777]

No…God is THE authority. What you are claiming is that THE BIBLE is the final authority,thus by default it is the final authority and that my friend is false. I’ll ask again:

Where does Jesus who is God explicitly teach the written word is the ONLY and FINAL authority?

God is THE authority. The bible is His written instruction for His people. Jesus is the WORD that was made flesh. He is the Word incarnate. Short of Him writing more scripture the bible stands as the final word as far as instruction goes. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Nicea325]

God is THE authority. The bible is His written instruction for His people. Jesus is the WORD that was made flesh. He is the Word incarnate. Short of Him writing more scripture the bible stands as the final word as far as instruction goes. Does that make sense to you?

I understand what you are saying and the CC & EO (If I am correct) believe Scrpture does hold authority,but NOT the final authority. What about Christ Church? Does it not hold any authority? Did the Incarnate God only give the Holy Bible “the” final authority and nothing else?

 

[akasseb]

We mourn our divisions, yes, but we don’t consider them a fatal disorder.

Yes, but Jesus does:

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:20-21).

Here are a few facts: 1) Jesus is saying that the unity of Christians will be a witness to His salvific mission, 2) There are thousands of denominations, and 3) The West is best classified as post-Christian. One can almost make a perfect syllogism out of this.

 

[joe370]

jericho777 - Let me be even clearer we start a church by the call of Jesus. Just As Paul was called directly by God apart from the 12.

So I, like any Christian, can start a church by the call of Jesus in the same way Paul was called by God to start churches? Okay…

Yes the Christian churches are part of the body of Christ.

I agree that Christians outside the CC are part of the Body of Christ via their baptism, as does the CC:

“… All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Yes, what about you and the EO? You have differing doctrines from them. Do you have anything to say about that? They have just as much claim as you all to being the “true Church.”

Sure friend. I unequivocally agree that the EOC has just as much claim to be called the true church and it is up to each and every Christian to decide for themselves which one rightfully makes the claim.

The CC is one church and the EOC is entirely different church and both of these distinct churches can trace their origin all the way back to the apostolic age, and both of these churches have differing doctrines and they both, obviously, can’t be right. Obviously God did not continue to guide both the EOC and the CC into all truth once the one CC divided in the 11th century, giving way to the EOC and the CC; that much I believe we agree on, I think? The question is: did God continue to maintain doctrinal truth in one of these churches after the great east west schism? I say yes! What do you think?

You may ask as many questions as you like. It just seems like you can never understand an others position.

I’m trying brother. We’re just having a friendly exchange; no need to be so defensive, unless of course I am misinterpreting your intonation. If so then disregard my last comment…

This is how I learn about what you believe and test what I believe. This is a good faith building exercise.

I understand; sounds like a good exercise…

Let me say this over the last 10 years there are about 30% less catholic churches in the area.

Kind of sad don’t you think? I hate to see catholic or protestant churches shut down…

There are more also scheduled for closing. Obviously there is a large population that is in need of Christ. We are there trying to reach the lost and bring them into the Kingdom of God.

 

[joe370]

jericho777;8432196]Scripture is the word of God without question. By default it carries the most authority…

I understand your position, I think, but the holy Bible (a collection of books, like any other book) - cannot interpret itself - right?

All books have zero authority without someone to read it, interpret it and teach authoritatively, based on what they took away from the book, including the holy Bible - Right?

Where can that human authority be found today, as was the case for the first 300 years of Christianity, or does that human authority no longer exist?

 

[Bran_Stark]

Yes, but Jesus does:

“I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:20-21).

*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. * Romans 4: 3-6

These people clearly believe different things, but St. Paul does not condemn them.

 

[jericho777]

Okay, but where and how did Paul get his information? Scripture clearly doesn’t contain the whole of christian doctrine.

God gave Paul his information. Why would you think God left out any doctrines when He says in 2 Tim 3:16All Scripture is God-breathed. He doesn’t say anything is so. He also doesn’t point Timothy to any other source for consideration including Jewish tradition. Please tell me what doctrines you feel are missing from scripture? Why wouldn’t God want necessary doctrines recorded in scripture? If you believe in tradition why not accept the Jewish traditions from the OT?

 

[jericho777]

My friend I can turn blue in the face evangelizing them and in the end it is called free-will. God does not force Himself on anyone and you and I both know that is a fact. God respects everyone’s freedom and conversion comes within.

God Bless

Thanks we won’t ever stop trying.

 

[joe370]

*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. * Romans 4: 3-6

These people clearly believe different things, but St. Paul does not condemn them.

What if Paul had been discussing something like the holy Eucharist or some other doctrinal matter, when opinion was obviously in flux regarding the matter - as opposed to matters of food?

He seems to correct doctrinal abuse:

“Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord…For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep.”

 

[jericho777]

I understand what you are saying and the CC & EO (If I am correct) believe Scrpture does hold authority,but NOT the final authority. What about Christ Church? Does it not hold any authority? Did the Incarnate God only give the Holy Bible “the” final authority and nothing else?

Jesus is the living word of God so the word is alive. The Word is Jesus and has His authority. The church is under Christ’s word because Christ and the Word are one in the same.

 

[jericho777]

So I, like any Christian, can start a church by the call of Jesus in the same way Paul was called by God to start churches? Okay…

If He is calling you, go for it.

Sure friend. I unequivocally agree that the EOC has just as much claim to be called the true church and it is up to each and every Christian to decide for themselves which one rightfully makes the claim.

The CC is one church and the EOC is entirely different church and both of these distinct churches can trace their origin all the way back to the apostolic age, and both of these churches have differing doctrines and they both, obviously, can’t be right. Obviously God did not continue to guide both the EOC and the CC into all truth once the one CC divided in the 11th century, giving way to the EOC and the CC; that much I believe we agree on, I think? The question is: did God continue to maintain doctrinal truth in one of these churches after the great east west schism? I say yes! What do you think?

So you think the EO church is in error. I don’t think they will agree with you on who is being guided by God.

I’m trying brother. We’re just having a friendly exchange; no need to be so defensive, unless of course I am misinterpreting your intonation. If so then disregard my last comment…

And friendly it will stay. Glad were able to have a great discussion.

 

[jericho777]

I understand your position, I think, but the holy Bible (a collection of books, like any other book) - cannot interpret itself - right?

Technically no, but the bible is more than a collection of mere words or books. It is God’s word. There is the whole methodology of hermeneutics to decipher its meaning. I believe it is quite knowable. You may have your own criterion for knowing His word.

All books have zero authority without someone to read it, interpret it and teach authoritatively, based on what they took away from the book, including the holy Bible - Right?

Laws also lack authority unless someone/thing can enforce them. God ultimately enforces His words by bringing them to pass. That’s one way I see the truth of His word.

Where can that human authority be found today, as was the case for the first 300 years of Christianity, or does that human authority no longer exist?

I don’t think it is or ever has been a matter of human authority per se. More like what the word has to say based on hermeneutics apart from human will or intentions.

 

[joe370]

Jericho777 - If He is calling you, go for it.

Well, like Dr. Frazier Craine says: “I’m listening caller…” LOL One thing is for sure, God isn’t gonna call me in the same way He called Paul, if He does call…

So you think the EO church is in error. I don’t think they will agree with you on who is being guided by God.

It’s not so much about me thinking the EOC is in error, for I could be wrong, for the HS is not forever guiding me into all truth. When in doubt I defer to what I believe to be the church established by Jesus.

And friendly it will stay. Glad were able to have a great discussion.

Cool…

 

[joe370]

Jericho777 - Technically no, but the bible is more than a collection of mere words or books. It is God’s word…I don’t think it is or ever has been a matter of human authority per se. More like what the word has to say based on hermeneutics apart from human will or intentions.

There is the whole methodology of hermeneutics to decipher its meaning. I believe it is quite knowable. You may have your own criterion for knowing His word.

Hermeneutics as you know, is the science of interpretation, especially of Sacred Scriptures. (For the longest time I had no idea what that word meant)

We know that Jesus is no longer here with us, (physically) - as He was with the Apostles, to interpret His Word. We are only left with human authority now, regarding the science of interpretation - right?

Laws also lack authority unless someone/thing can enforce them.

That’s my point!!!

God ultimately enforces His words by bringing them to pass. That’s one way I see the truth of His word.

Jesus ascended almost 2000 years ago; He is no longer here, other than spiritually, to enforce anything regarding the science of interpretation of sacred scripture - right? Who did God leave the world with (regarding the methodology of hermeneutics) - to decipher the meaning of sacred scripture?

 

[PbloPicasso]

I am not surprised at all by your response, and you’ll notice that I did say in my original post that most Catholics would disagree with the assertion that the catholic church includes other branches. In terms of that specific point, when Anglicans, and Lutherans recite the Creed as they do every Sunday and say** they believe in the catholic church, they are not saying they believe in the Roman Catholic Church, but in the universal church** of which they are part. Doubtless you will say that they are flawed: you may not agree but that’s the way it is!

Incidently, the term Roman Catholic was not introduced by Henry VIII, it only began to be used during the 17th century.

Yes, this is true. Methodists also recite the Creed as well. I will not say that they are flawed, but they have forgotten through their ancestors the fact that the term Catholic was used to describe the Church, even by name. The term Catholic is not as important as the understanding of its meaning. If that makes sense to anyone. What I mean is that There is only one Church established by Christ. The Church’s authority is drawn directly from Christ. Anyone that left without permission in the form of being blessed has performed a grave act and pays the price for their misgiving. Anyone that breaks without apostolic authority is not described in a positive light throughout history either. However, their descendants suffer from their ancestors rebellion, rejection, or misgivings.

When you read St. Ignatius of Anticoh, he clearly says it all. He calls the Church “Catholic”. He talks about the authority of the bishop. He talks about a lot of things that if you take the time to follow the entire thoughts through to results, you might come up with the same thoughts I have about the subject. Ignatius, along with other ancient church fathers, gives no room for anyone rejecting Christ by rejecting the bishop. He says nothing is to be done without the bishop. This was written around 107 A.D. in a letter to the Smyrnaeans on his [St. Ignatius’] way to be executed.

 

[akasseb]

*Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. * Romans 4: 3-6

These people clearly believe different things, but St. Paul does not condemn them.

First of all, this is chapter 14 and not chapter 4. Second of all, reading the Bible in early 17th century English does not make it holier. Rather, it creates cognitive dissonance. Third of all, Paul (throughout the Pauline corpus) was concerned with convincing Christians that Jewish works of the Law were no longer necessary (i.e. whether one follows Jewish dietary law is of no importance in the Christian life). Fourth of all, the issues Paul addresses in these verses are general and regarding disciplinary issues. There is plenty of room for diversity in disciplinary matters within the Catholic Church. For example, England recently reinstituted meatless Fridays for the Catholic faithful. American Catholics are only required to do some act of penance. Fifth of all, Paul’s words are not a license for a Christian to create their own version of the truth. As mentioned by a previous poster, Paul had very harsh words for those with heterodox views of important doctrines (i.e. the Eucharist).