non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NDfan said:
You mean illogical.
Click to expand...
No, I mean logical.
NDfan said:
Believing IN Jesus does not mean that you will oppose Jesus. Satan and all demons oppose Jesus because they acknowledge who HE is but know they can’t stand up to HIM. That’s why they asked to be put in a bunch of pigs.
Click to expand...
And this is what I mean by your personal, fallible interpretation of John 3:16.
 
reteeks21 said:
I don’t recall ever saying Luther was perfect like you believe the Pope is. And their was more than one Inquisition. Particularly the one ordered by the Vatican during the Reformation. Can you at least admit that the Catholic Church does get some things wrong? See, it is not just Protestants who cause problems. Some of it may have to do with the attitude of some Catholics.
Click to expand...
Please read post #474.
 
reteeks21 said:
I don’t recall ever saying Luther was perfect like you believe the Pope is. And their was more than one Inquisition. Particularly the one ordered by the Vatican during the Reformation. Can you at least admit that the Catholic Church does get some things wrong? See, it is not just Protestants who cause problems. Some of it may have to do with the attitude of some Catholics.
Click to expand...
For starters, reteeks, Catholics do not believe the Pope is perfect.
 
Lampo said:
Sorry you think I’m ridiculous.

You are right, I do know very well what you mean. I also know that you are adding your personal, fallible interpretation to that passage by defining “believe” to satisfy your understanding. I believe the correct theological term in use here is iesegesis.

This is what I mean by eisegesis.
Click to expand...
If you are allowed to take John 6 literally, how come others can’t take John 3:16 literally? And how come you can’t use any sort of exegesis on John 6?
 
reteeks21 said:
If you are allowed to take John 6 literally, how come others can’t take John 3:16 literally? And how come you can’t use any sort of exegesis on John 6?
Click to expand...
Because to do so is to take John 3:16 out of context. It is not the author’s intended meaning. The Church interprets Scripture as a whole and in the light of the teachings of the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition.
 
reteeks21 said:
I don’t recall ever saying Luther was perfect like you believe the Pope is. And their was more than one Inquisition. Particularly the one ordered by the Vatican during the Reformation. Can you at least admit that the Catholic Church does get some things wrong? See, it is not just Protestants who cause problems. Some of it may have to do with the attitude of some Catholics.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why you are being so testy here reteeks. I asked for clarification and took it also as a time to clarify some misconceptions.

For the record the Church NEVER gets core doctrine and teaching necessary for salvation wrong - never. Of course there have been some errors made in proper conduct in administering teaching - especially among religious orders who took too much autonomy onto themselves without going through their Bishops or the Papal office. There will ALWAYS be individual sinful men in the Church. The Church is FULL of sinners more so than it is saints. Christ came to save the sinner not the just man afterall. The Church unfortunately is always subject to being criticised for the independent behaviors of its members - even when they go AGAINST Church teaching and authority. We weed these out as best we can. But I challenge anyone to show a case where The Church has really ever recanted core doctrine. It never recants - it just expands on and improves for clarity and for greater depth as we mature in our revelations and through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit.

We The Church are infallible when it comes to teaching how to worship and in teaching and developing core doctrine when it is delivered through the Bishops speaking through the authority of Peter’s Chair. However our Pope nor our Bishops are impeccable in their personal conduct. A priest could actually be in a state of mortal sin while conducting mass due to personal errors that have not been properly repented. The good news is we admit freely that we are all sinners who are working hard to be saints. It’s a life long process of trying and failing and retrying and growing in the faith as God’s grace works to improve us.

Hope this clarifies things.

James
 
Lampo said:
Because to do so is to take John 3:16 out of context. It is not the author’s intended meaning. The Church interprets Scripture as a whole and in the light of the teachings of the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
How do you know this? Do you include Paul’ emphasis on faith in “whole” interpretation? Jesus spoke way more times about faith than He did about eating His flesh. How come you so quickly discard these other verses? If you are going to take it as a whole, then you have to take all those other verses as well.
 
reteeks21 said:
How do you know this? Do you include Paul’ emphasis on faith in “whole” interpretation? Jesus spoke way more times about faith than He did about eating His flesh. How come you so quickly discard these other verses? If you are going to take it as a whole, then you have to take all those other verses as well.
Click to expand...
Seems like we could go in two different directions in our discussion. 1) Justification; 2) The Real Presence.

I was just trying to point out how Catholics interpret Scripture.
 
Lampo said:
Because to do so is to take John 3:16 out of context. It is not the author’s intended meaning. The Church interprets Scripture as a whole and in the light of the teachings of the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition.
Click to expand...
And, Lampo, if I may add to your statement, only God is absolutely infallible. He alone is totally incapable of error of any kind. Thus, when one might ask the question, “Who is infallible?” one is not expecting the only obvious and completely correct answer. In fact, the question is asked within a context which means, "Understanding that God has endowed the Church with a charism of freedom from error, who in the Church may be said to exercise this charism? Or, another and not exactly identical way of putting the question: where can infallibility be said to reside?

All infallibilty is rooted in the gift which God gives to His Church as a whole. Thus, we speak of the infallibility of the whole People of God. Refer to Lumen Gentium, 12.
 
Lampo said:
Seems like we could go in two different directions in our discussion. 1) Justification; 2) The Real Presence.

I was just trying to point out how Catholics interpret Scripture.
Click to expand...
Please do not think that I hold any grudge or disdain for Catholic teaching. And you are absolutely right in that we can go in two different directions. And I appreciate you stating that you just wanted to let me know how Catholics interpret Scripture. When I have asked simple and legitimate questions to try and have an ecuminical conversation all I have gotten is people telling me I am wrong and not bothering to agree to disagree. I appreciate the help, and I appreciate the civil discussion. Thanks again.
 
Tomster said:
And, Lampo, if I may add to your statement, only God is absolutely infallible. He alone is totally incapable of error of any kind. Thus, when one might ask the question, “Who is infallible?” one is not expecting the only obvious and completely correct answer. In fact, the question is asked within a context which means, "Understanding that God has endowed the Church with a charism of freedom from error, who in the Church may be said to exercise this charism? Or, another and not exactly identical way of putting the question: where can infallibility be said to reside?

All infallibilty is rooted in the gift which God gives to His Church as a whole. Thus, we speak of the infallibility of the whole People of God. Refer to Lumen Gentium, 12.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
reteeks21 said:
Please do not think that I hold any grudge or disdain for Catholic teaching. And you are absolutely right in that we can go in two different directions. And I appreciate you stating that you just wanted to let me know how Catholics interpret Scripture. When I have asked simple and legitimate questions to try and have an ecuminical conversation all I have gotten is people telling me I am wrong and not bothering to agree to disagree. I appreciate the help, and I appreciate the civil discussion. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
My pleasure. I am your servant. If you want to know what the Church teaches on those two issues we mentioned, I’d be glad to explain to the best of my ability.
 
reteeks21 said:
I was asking why is that Protestants are considered the only ones who get things wrong when it comes to faith.
Click to expand...
No, no my friend…other non-christians have it way wrong also. It’s just that true christians (protestants) at least believe in the Divinity of Christ.

Remember the woman who wanted for Jesus to cure her daughter and Jesus told her something to the effect that it wasn’t right to give to the dogs the bread that was intended for the children?

By not being in full communion with your catholic faith, you are rejecting the fullness of the banquet that the Lord wishes for you on a daily, moment by moment basis.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
mangy_dog said:
No, no my friend…other non-christians have it way wrong also. It’s just that true christians (protestants) at least believe in the Divinity of Christ.

Remember the woman who wanted for Jesus to cure her daughter and Jesus told her something to the effect that it wasn’t right to give to the dogs the bread that was intended for the children?

By not being in full communion with your catholic faith, you are rejecting the fullness of the banquet that the Lord wishes for you on a daily, moment by moment basis.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
Click to expand...
We don’t just at least believe in the divinity of Christ. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would probably see that we have a whole more in common than what we all get credit for. Some folks (Prot. and Cath.) on these threads make it clear they have disdain for one another, but, hey, not me. I just like to talk, as long as we can be respectful. I feel like I make it clear that I follow and respect so much of what Cath. follow, but I still get blasted when I don’t agree fully. That’s a shame. Anyways, I just think we have a lot more going for us as a group of fellow Christians than we realize.
 
reteeks21 said:
We don’t just at least believe in the divinity of Christ. I think if we were all honest with ourselves, we would probably see that we have a whole more in common than what we all get credit for. Some folks (Prot. and Cath.) on these threads make it clear they have disdain for one another, but, hey, not me. I just like to talk, as long as we can be respectful. I feel like I make it clear that I follow and respect so much of what Cath. follow, but I still get blasted when I don’t agree fully. That’s a shame. Anyways, I just think we have a lot more going for us as a group of fellow Christians than we realize.
Click to expand...
You seem to have some mis-directed frustration,…my thread alone couldn’t have triggered all this. Be that as it may.

The Divinity of Christ is the pivotal point of discernment when it comes to separating the true christians and the spirit of the anti-christ.
I am sure that you share more points in common with catholicism, than just the belief in Christ’s Divinity. Just as I am sure that one day soon, you will return to the catholic faith. Hopefully before God has to send some sort of Warning or Miracle. And I certainly hope & pray that it doesn’t take some sort of Chastisement…I truly pray that it doesn’t come to that.
You hang in there my friend and pray. Pray that the Lord shows you the true way… despite yourself.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top