Is the Catholic Church as an authority a circular argument? (Edited Title)

[PC_Master]

Clearly James urges them to call for the elders (presbyters/priests) and then confess.

No – the elders are to anoint and pray for those who are sick. Confession is clearly to be given to one another.

Jesus commissions the apostles to retain or forgive sins.

That’s a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe this was an authoritative binding and loosing concept as is commonly paralleled with the old testament.

The Apostles passed this authority on to the bishops, and they to the presbyters. Why would you NOT want to confess to someone who had been given authority by Christ to forgive them?

It isn’t a matter of wanting to or not wanting to – it’s a matter of whether or not it was necessary.

How did the Father send Christ?

 With the authority on earth to forgive sins.
 
 Christ sends the Apostles with that same authority.

He also sent Christ as an infant, with a divine nature and spirit, capable of living a perfect life, for the purpose of dying for the sins of the world. Does that mean that he sent the apostles for the same reasons and in the same way?

 Drawing parallels is a dangerous thing sometimes.

How do you imagine that the Apostles will be able to decide to forgive or retain?

They don’t – only God can forgive sins anyway.

In other words I am saying that if I want to send the present thread to a person who does not understand English, I have to translate it into a language (s)he understands.
For a future reader in the XXV century, many notes will be necessary, in order to be informed about the context within which we’re writing.

 This is true -- but I don't think this can be used to rationalize the differing practices and beliefs of some Roman Catholics. Differing rites, for example.

Well, this is a question about adding more than contradicting, if a get.

I consider it both, but either way, you end up with something now considered necessary that was not so for the apostles.

I am referring to Ignatius. Episcopacy is cristal clear in his writings.

I’ll have to re-read that.

Timothy can be regarded as a scriptural witness to the birth and apostolic legitimacy of episcopacy.

Not really. For it to be such, you have to assume that the passages are indeed speaking to that effect, and not to some other effect.

 

[bookgirl32]

So if God guaranteed the revelation of absolute truth, and guaranteed that it would be available, and guaranteed that it would be protected, then, again, tell me what your authority is, yourself? I mean, I know the HS is your authority, but what is your gaurantee that your interpretation is correct?

We need to deal with interpretative authority first b/c you interpret the scriptures differently than the Church. If the Church holds teaching authority, than so does it’s interpretation. Catholics are fine with offering scriptural basis b/c that’s how Protestants want it, but we understand everything through the authority of the Church.

Not at all. In context, Paul was speaking of spiritual gifts (starting in I Corinthians 12 and continuing through 13). He was saying that if one is to desire a single gift, love is the best to have, for reasons explained in chapter 13.

I understand what he was saying, thank you. My point was that putting things in order of importance does not automatically make them opposed. Which you just proved yourself, above.

 

[bookgirl32]

PC,

I think I’m done. If I were debating sola scriptura with you that would be one thing, but you’re not coming from any static point here. Once you think that the teaching of truth will be available, clearly and publicly, to all, I’ll come back. I can’t argue with your own personal interpretation of whatever you think the Holy Spirit is telling you, even outside of scripture. It’s been entertaining though, thanks!

 

[tdgesq]

PC,

I think I’m done. If I were debating sola scriptura with you that would be one thing, but you’re not coming from any static point here. Once you think that the teaching of truth will be available, clearly and publicly, to all, I’ll come back. I can’t argue with your own personal interpretation of whatever you think the Holy Spirit is telling you, even outside of scripture. It’s been entertaining though, thanks!

It actually is good old sola Scriptura, but fairly well hidden. You had some great points though. Especially the one about oral tradition and the Old Testament. You could have asked the same question about Nicaea I and the other early Christian ecumenical councils. No answer would be forthcoming that makes any sense from history and logic. At the end of the day you are correct. It is merely his own personal interpretation, the most circular of all possible authorities.

 

[pneuma07]

Dear all,

          I am probably going to have a time out from posting on the forum.

See you !

 

[utunumsint]

I think I`ll do the same.

God bless Everyone,
Ut

 

[PC_Master]

It actually is good old sola Scriptura, but fairly well hidden.

My guess is that you don’t actually understand what sola scriptura is, or that you totally don’t comprehend what I’ve been saying. Read more closely before making such claims.

pneuma/ut > I think we’ve pretty much hit a brick wall in terms of this. We’re pretty much rehashing the same points over and over, with neither side giving satisfactory answers to the questions posed. I think both sides have merit, so I’ll definitely be rereading Clement, Ignatius, and other similar works in the near future. Perhaps I’ll have something new to post after that. Thanks for your contributions thus far, and for the general levelheadedness you approached this with.

 

[guanophore]

Why do you assume that because I understand the holy spirit differently that, the holy spirit is actually sending different messages?

To keep with the leading/following analogy – if a shepherd leads two sheep, and they end up in different places, does that mean the shepherd actually led them in two different directions? Of course not! It simply means that at least one of the sheep didn’t follow the shepherd.

It’s not a question of where the holy spirit leads – it’s a question of how well we follow.

I think this is very well said, and I agree. This is precisely why the Church is so founded in the revealed truth that came previously. Does this reasoning not help you understand why Catholics resist the innovations of the Reformation?

Scriptural basis would include some reference that shows specifically that confession to a priest or other specific leader is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. I don’t see how interpretive authority really enters into it, unless you’re going to present what scripture says as an ambiguity.

James 5:14-17
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.

I don’t see that the scripture indicates “a specific leader” here. The elders (presbyters - from which the word “priest” is derived) are clearly considered “righteous men” whose power has great effects. When we put this passage togehter with others regarding the forgiveness of sin the picture is more clear. Should that be part of this thread?

I think we’re just going to have to agree to disagree here. I personally see no evidence of the kind of authority you suggest they have. You assume, with no real written evidence to support it, that everyone implicitly knew that Jerusalem was in charge, and that the apostles and elders made a decision that was binding on all the faithful.

I am mystified that you see no “evidence”.

Acts 2:41-42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

Are you saying that you don’t see that the Teaching of the Apostles was authoritative?

14 Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Sama’ria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, 15 who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit;Acts 8:14-15

Or are you saying that they did not reside in Jerusalem? Or are you saying that they were not “in charge”?

Yes – you assume they were an authoritative body, and so you see legislative action on their part. I see that they were a body of spiritually mature individuals being consulted by those in dispute, and I see the result as an attempt at spiritual guidance to their brothers.

I guess I can’t see how these things are mutually exclusive… Jesus said that “all authority has been given” and as he was sent, he sends them (with all authority). He gave them the power to bind and loose (legislate), and appointed them to shepherd the sheep (specifically Peter).

Are you suggesting that the very next generation of Christians misunderstood the Apostolic authority?

Clearly you have not read Galatians 1 & 2 recently. If anything, they’re anti-authority.

1. Paul claims to be an apostle not of or by men, but by Christ and God the father. (Gal 1:1) He tells the story of his commissioning by Christ – never does he say he was commissioned by the church.

It is my understanding that ALL the Apostles were commissioned by Christ. how does that invalidate the authority of the Church?

1. The first two chapters of the letter seem to be defending the gospel that he taught, showing its validity over the others (perhaps Judaizers) being taught. (Gal 1:6-7)

I still don’t see how this is in any way separated from the Authority of the Church.

 

[guanophore]

1. Paul says that not even an angel from heaven has the authority to preach another gospel. (Gal 1:8)
2. Paul repeatedly disclaims any authorization of or source of his teachings from earth. (Gal 1:11-12) He emphasizes that after his appointment by Christ as an apostle, he did not go to Jerusalem to see the other apostles (Gal 1:16-17), and even when he did (three years later), he only saw Peter and James, and no others (Gal 1:19).

None of the Apostles were “authorized” by anyone other than Christ.

Now, the point you were driving at is found in chapter two.Galatians 2:1-11 Amplified

1. THEN AFTER [an interval] of fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem. [This time I went] with Barnabas, taking Titus along with [me] also.
   So, around two weeks meeting with Peter, and a bit with James – then he doesn’t see them again for fourteen years. So here we are, nearly twenty years after the start of his ministry, before he met with the supposed magisterium in Jerusalem. So, by Paul’s own writing, unless Peter endorsed him in private, without meeting with the rest of the apostles and elders, Paul could not have been authorized for two decades after the start of his ministry!2. I went because it was specially and divinely revealed to me that I should go, and I put before them the Gospel [declaring to them that] which I preach among the Gentiles. However, * privately before those of repute, [for I wanted to make certain, by thus at first confining my communication to this private conference] that I was not running or had not run in vain [guarding against being discredited either in what I was planning to do or had already done].
   Now, admittedly, there’s a good deal of interpolation in the Amplified Bible here. However, to the best of my understanding from studies on the verses, the rendering is pretty accurate.*

I agree with you that Paul was called and commissioned by Christ. I guess my question would be, why would he lay out his gospel, and what might it mean to “run in vain”? I love the amplified bible!
PC Master;3519868:

It was revealed to Paul that he should go to Jerusalem – now, this visit to Jerusalem may have been in regards to the circumcision/Mosaic law issues in Acts 15, in which case this can be understood as the reason for the revelation to go there.

Why? If unity was not important, why go?

Note that Paul makes specific note here that he did not present his teaching to the full “magisterium” here. He presented it to those of reputation. Why? Let’s see…3. But [all went well!] even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled [as some had anticipated] to be circumcised, although he was a Greek.

Paul didn’t want to yield submission of his teaching to these false individuals. Notice that if he was going to meet with a magisterium, he’s directly saying here that he would not yield his teaching.

​

I agree that Paul did not want the message to get derailed. It was wise to approach those first that he had met, and spent time with before. They had time to get reaquainted, and the trust to be forged.

God is not impressed with the positions that men hold and He is not partial and recognizes no external distinctions–those * who were of repute imposed no new requirements upon me [had nothing to add to my Gospel, and from them I received no new suggestions].(A)*

While I agree the God is not concerned with the opinions of men, in this case, I think God was completely concerned. God sent Paul to Jerusalem to ensure unity in the Church. These men, commissioned by God to be the stewards of the divine mysteries, were faithful in seeking God’s direction. God led them, as a body, to accept the revelation He was giving.

Specifically, it can be rendered that they who seemed of repute imparted not one single thing to me

. Paul’s saying that these “men of repute” did not add a single thing to his own teaching – again supporting his authority from Christ.

Yes, I read it this way also.

He also makes mention that those who were of stature made no difference to him because God doesn't care about such distinctions.

I don’t agree entirely with this conclusion, however. God cares about His Word, which He committed to the Apostles. It was essential for all the Apostles to understand and agree that there was One Gospel, and to be consistent in the presentation of it.

Interestingly, Paul makes no mention of presenting the whole of his teachings to the “council”. He says only that he presented them to “those of repute” (presumably James, Peter and John, as they’re the ones mentioned later in the chapter).

It may be that Peter, James, and John did it for him!
​

​

 

[tdgesq]

My guess is that you don’t actually understand what sola scriptura is, or that you totally don’t comprehend what I’ve been saying. Read more closely before making such claims.

Your guess is wrong - again. I’ll give you this much though. You are correct that I don’t understand precisely what sola scriptura is in the sense that various Protestant and Evangelical denominations can’t agree among themselves what it means. Why don’t you give me the definition so I know what it is once and for all? My guess is that you won’t do it, because I’ll be able to show you several other definitions that disagree with yours. That’s my guess. Let us see if I’m more successful than you in my guessing.

If, on the other hand, sola scriptura means that the only revelation that should be accepted as revelation is contained solely within the 27 books of the New Testament and the 39 book Protestant canon of the Old Testament, then I think you fit the definition.

As for not comprehending your claims, it is possible (although unlikely) that you are correct. Of course that would mean something has changed dramatically from the last time I debated you in this very thread here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3030148&postcount=233
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3030162&postcount=234
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3044275&postcount=253
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3044283&postcount=254
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3052024&postcount=279
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3059490&postcount=288
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3060398&postcount=290

How about you read more closely before telling me that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Bookgirl is exactly right. Your conclusions come from your own private interpretation apart from any objective standard. That makes your standard the most circular of all, ie. I’m right because I said I’m right. Catholics actually require their worldview to make sense from experience (history) and logic. You should try it sometime.

 

[guanophore]

No – the elders are to anoint and pray for those who are sick. Confession is clearly to be given to one another.

James 5:14-16
14 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; 15 and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

The Church has always treated this sacrament as a united whole. As I am sure you are aware, whenever we see a “therefore” in scripture it is important to look and see what it is there for. In this case, the instruction to “confess to one another” hearkens back to the calling of the elders, the anointing and the prayer for the sick. The reason that it is so important to confess sins is that holding them in does make a person sick. Now, if you had a choice about confessing your sins, why would you NOT choose an elder? Why would you NOT choose the righteous man? " The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." James 5:16

 That's a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don't believe this was an authoritative binding and loosing concept as is commonly paralleled with the old testament.

Possibly the Aposotlic commission is a good topic for another thread, but it cannot be separated from a discussion on confession. Jesus did not give this instruction to the masses. He gave it only to the Apostles. They, in turn, commissioned others to the duty of hearing confessions, as well as performing all the other sacraments.

 It isn't a matter of wanting to or not wanting to -- it's a matter of whether or not it was *necessary*.

Do you really believe that Jesus gave any instructions that were “not necessary”? And if so, what do you think is the purpose of the commission to forgive/retain the sins? What was Jesus intention there?

   He also sent Christ as an infant, with a divine nature and spirit, capable of living a perfect life, for the purpose of dying for the sins of the world. Does that mean that he sent the apostles for the same reasons and in the same way?

From the context of the passage, He is speaking about HIs divine authority, do you not agree? Scripture makes it clear that only God can forgive sins, but that this power is now shared with men. In the commission, Jesus, bases this commission on the authority that belongs to Him. Again I have to wonder, if this is not the meaning of the passage, what do you think it means?

 They don't -- only God can forgive sins anyway.

I agree, and in this passage clearly God extends this authority to the Apostles. They forgive sins in the name of Jesus. This is how it has been practiced for 2000 years. If the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) was not the right understanding, then when do you think the Apostles missed the mark? How is it that God was unable to correct their misunderstanding? How were they to understand this instead of what they did?

    This is true -- but I don't think this can be used to rationalize the differing practices and beliefs of some Roman Catholics. Differing rites, for example.

Such a statement reveals an ignorance of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church shares the same beliefs (doctrines) all over the world. The differences in language and culture are reflected in various Rites, of which the Roman is only one of 23. The Roman Rite is the most common in the West, and the largest, comprising most of Europe and the “New World”. It is difficult for Protestants in these areas to appreciate the other Rites in the Catholic Church, because the Roman is all they know.

 Not really. For it to be such, you have to assume that the passages are indeed speaking to that effect, and not to some other effect.

This sounds like a agreat thread on Apostolic Succession. Are you game?

 

[SCALCO]

This sounds like a agreat thread on Apostolic Succession. Are you game?

On Apostolic Succession, I noticed Clement and Ignatius were introduced recently; what about Irenaeus? All he writes about is Apostolic Succession in Adversus Haereses (Book III, Chapter 3). Shouldn’t he be included?

Just in following along I have learned some different perspectives that I had not thought about before. However, my perspective has not changed which is about the same as UT’s.

I haven’t the time to join in a lengthy discussion (cannot keep up on many levels), but if someone thinks they can seriously challenge Apostolic Succession, which I have yet to see anyone do, I would continue following along.

 

[SCALCO]

here is the link…

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[utunumsint]

Originally Posted by PC Master
That’s a topic for another thread. Suffice it to say that I don’t believe this was an authoritative binding and loosing concept as is commonly paralleled with the old testament.

You know, I am curious about how you come to reject old testament and contemporary parallelism with reguard to binding and loosing mentioned in Matthew.

We talked about it in the context of the papacy. At that time you were arguing that there was no difference between the binding and loosing authority given to the Peter, and the binding and loosing authority given to the apostles. We looked at the Isaiah 22 parallel, but we also looked at parallels provided in Josephus. Specifically the binding and loosing authority given to the Pharisee by Alexandra mother of Hyarcanus II. Now Josephus is a contemporary of the apostles, so I think we can safely say that there binding and loosing did have a legistlative and juridical character for the apostles as well, although nuanced by Jesus’ teachings on the proper use of authority (e.g. service to others, not service to self).

Now it seems as though you are rejecting any kind of legislative authority on the part of the apostles as a whole.

God bless,
Ut

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Originally Posted by JoyToBeCatholic forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
…I may just be too stuck on the “head-knowledge” of what I read in Scripture.

PCM: I don’t understand what you’re getting at here, Joy. Are you suggesting that what we should believe is unintelligible? It seems odd that God would design the universe with such order, and then make faith something not only above and beyond, but seemingly contradictory to, logic and reason.

Yes, but there is no other church which can trace itself back to the beginning like the CC can. There does appear to be evidence of many Catholic beliefs and practices in the very early church. What other church has a mountain of unexplained miracles like the CC does: Fatima, Lourdes, LaSalette, Eucharistic miracles like Lanciano, and countless others in the lives of the saints: stigmata, levitation, incorruptible bodies, miraculous relics, etc… Now, if upon looking at the lives of these people there was evidence of delusion or diabolical influence I certainly wouldn’t attribute any of it to God, but seeing the passion they had for God and the self-less, godly lives they led makes it very hard to believe
they were anything but divinely led.

So, although the CC appears to me to contradict Scripture, Scripture is only one aspect of the Christian faith. There is also the church (whether invisible or not), miracles, answered prayer, experience, and history which I cannot discount. I have been willing to throw all the rest of it away b/c of what I see in Scripture. Sometimes it is very elementary to me that if I see Scripture contradictions then I should discard the rest b/c Scripture IS the earliest picture we have of the Christian church, tradition, history, etc… - but I have to wonder if I am relying too much on my own flawed understanding of Scripture at the expense of so much more evidence.

I just don’t know if I can do that. On the other hand, my conscience is preventing me from accepting extra-biblical evidence based on the Scripture contradictions. I feel like I am taking a very big leap of faith in accepting it all when the most original evidence we have (Scripture) seems to point away from the CC.

Anyway, I’ll be praying for you too.

Thank you

I have prayed so much for direction in all this over the years, and even the answers to those prayers seem to contradict themselves:

A few years ago I questioned if what I was understanding in Scripture was incorrect - that perhaps we do need a earthly interpreter (guided by the HS: the church). I begged God for an answer, and seconds later I picked up one of the Mennonite church publications, and the first thing I saw on the back cover staring up at me was Psalm 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

This past few weeks I’ve been studying baptism and confirmation which has raised a lot of questions for me from my previous understanding of it. I realized that perhaps my Scripture view of baptism (and the Mennonite one) are not as clearly correct as I once thought they were. About this same time I receive word that my old Catholic parish here is opening a eucharistic chapel soon and I realize I still cannot renounce my faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

So Friday I again turned over my questioning to God for an answer. Seconds later I randomly open my Bible to the gospel account of the road to Emmaus - which concludes with the disciples’ eyes being opened as they recognized Jesus in the “breaking of bread”.

Saturday evening I wasn’t feeling well and didn’t think it would be wise for me to take the nearly hour-long drive up to the Mennonite church, and not feeling very resolved at that time anyway based on these Scriptures and answered prayer, I decided to accompany my family to mass Sunday morning. And what, to my astonishment, was the gospel reading? The road to Emmaus…

So what is God trying to tell me? I have no idea. On one hand God seemed to be telling me that simple me could receive light and understanding from Scripture, and on the other hand He seems to encourage my eucharistic devotion. If you can figure that out, please let me know…

I would like to believe that it does not so much matter WHAT we believe about baptism, eucharist, etc… so long as we obey the direction to receive them. But the problem with that, for me anyway, is the eucharist, b/c the bottom line is that if it is Jesus - body, blood, soul and divinity - there really isn’t a question in my mind as to where I belong, regardless of everything else which does not seem to make sense to me.

Anway - lots of rambling - I just wanted to explain why, for me, sometimes it isn’t so simple to accept my own understanding of Scripture. I just don’t know if it was right for me not to consider the extra-biblical evidence. At times the Scripture contradictions seem so obvious that I am resolved not to give the slightest consideration of any other possible evidence for fear of being deceived. This is what prevents me from acting on what little faith I have left.

 

[bookgirl32]

I would like to believe that it does not so much matter WHAT we believe about baptism, eucharist, etc… so long as we obey the direction to receive them. But the problem with that, for me anyway, is the eucharist, b/c the bottom line is that if it is Jesus - body, blood, soul and divinity - there really isn’t a question in my mind as to where I belong, regardless of everything else which does not seem to make sense to me.

I once had someone refer me to what they called “exposure therapy”. Just sitting in the presence of the eucharist, not trying to figure anything out. If your faith in it is that strong, I’d take advantage of it!!

 

[guanophore]

This past few weeks I’ve been studying baptism and confirmation which has raised a lot of questions for me from my previous understanding of it. I realized that perhaps my Scripture view of baptism (and the Mennonite one) are not as clearly correct as I once thought they were.

I am curious to learn more about your findings, Joy. I realize that it would be off topic in this thread, though. Would you be willing to share more on a thread about baptism?

About this same time I receive word that my old Catholic parish here is opening a eucharistic chapel soon and I realize I still cannot renounce my faith in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.

I read some posts of yours that seemed to indicate you jettisoned the Real Presence doctrine a long time ago!

So Friday I again turned over my questioning to God for an answer. Seconds later I randomly open my Bible to the gospel account of the road to Emmaus - which concludes with the disciples’ eyes being opened as they recognized Jesus in the “breaking of bread”.

Somebody is out to get you, for sure.

I decided to accompany my family to mass Sunday morning. And what, to my astonishment, was the gospel reading? The road to Emmaus…

No such thing as coincidence!

So what is God trying to tell me? I have no idea. On one hand God seemed to be telling me that simple me could receive light and understanding from Scripture, and on the other hand He seems to encourage my eucharistic devotion. If you can figure that out, please let me know…

The Word of God is not limited to the Scripture, although the Holy Writing is definetely an indespensible part.

But the problem with that, for me anyway, is the eucharist, b/c the bottom line is that if it is Jesus - body, blood, soul and divinity - there really isn’t a question in my mind as to where I belong, regardless of everything else which does not seem to make sense to me.

Have you consider an Eastern Rite? They don’t have the statues, and you might find it more palatable. Ever been to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

"…fear of being deceived. This is what prevents me from acting on what little faith I have left.

Don’t you trust the Lord to hold you in the palm of HIs hand?

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

I am curious to learn more about your findings, Joy. I realize that it would be off topic in this thread, though. Would you be willing to share more on a thread about baptism?

I’ll try to put something together.

I read some posts of yours that seemed to indicate you jettisoned the Real Presence doctrine a long time ago!

Well, I see the distinct possibility that John 6 is not literal eating and drinking. I definately see symbolic language there and a deeper spiritual meaning. But what I see in Scripture and what I’ve known in actual experience are entirely different things.

I’m also open to the possibility that the spiritual nature of John 6 really does make sense, but doesn’t take away from a literal interpretation as well. IOW - the passages can have a literal and a deeper spiritual meaning behind them.

No where in my posts did I say I do not believe in the RP. I only gave my p.o.v. from Scripture.

Have you consider an Eastern Rite? They don’t have the statues, and you might find it more palatable. Ever been to a Byzantine Divine Liturgy?

I have considered it, but I don’t think there is a church in my area. There is a Greek Orthodox up in Boston - but I’d never survive the drive.

Don’t you trust the Lord to hold you in the palm of HIs hand?

I certainly do. It is me that I don’t trust.

 

[D_M]

The Holy Spirit exists and assumedly every baptized christian has been granted the gift of the Spirit wether they are catholic, protestant, orthodox, etc.

Now if every christian is filled with the same Holy Spirit than why is it that the church is divided? Is the Holy Spirit telling the catholics to be catholics, the protestants to be protestants and the orthodox to be orthodox all at the same time?

We believe as catholics that our church is the true and infallible church not simply on scripture or because someone has told us, but because we believe that our church was instituted by Christ and not by men, and that is the Holy Spirit speaking by means of the church and the pope, not the men themselves, who is therefore infallible.

We are all removed from knowing fully the will of God, but I think as long as we do not (speaking on behalf of all christians, of any sect) close ourselves off from listening to Christ that He will guide us to do what we would will us to do.

There is only One Spirit. Therefore if we are all truly christians, then we are already united.

 

[JoyToBeCatholic]

Ok - here is the thread on baptism.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=231556