non-Catholic Christians - "Did You Know"?

[Lampo]

Have you ever gone to a catholic bible study that was taught by someone in your church? If so, was the person who was teaching infallilbe?

The person wasn’t infallible, but as long as he/she wasn’t teaching anything contrary to the teaching of the Church and he/she was echoing the infallible teaching of the Church, then that person was putting forth infallible teachings. Now please try again and answer:

Doesn’t “rightly discerning” the Bible mean that you are correctly interpreting the Bible? You later go on to say that you are fallible and could be incorrect in all of your interpretations. How can you be right in discerning the Word of God if you could be wrong?

Has your church infallibly interpreted 2 Peter 1:20?

Not to my knowledge.

If not, are you not giving your “personal interpretation” of it?

Yes, but in the light of and not contradicting the teachings of the Church on that particular doctrine. Again, the Church allows personal interpretation to a degree as long as it is not contrary to the teachings of the Magesterium. I am not sure of the passages that the Church has come down on and given an infallible interpretation. Let’s take John 6 for example and assume the Church has not infallibly interpreted these passages. As a Catholic, I would be in error if my personal, fallible interpretation of John 6 claims the Eucharist is merely symbolic since the Real Presence of the Eucharist is a dogma of the faith. BTW, I didn’t give my interpretation of 2 Peter 1:20; I just quoted it.

Am i not part of the church?

You are part of the Catholic Church but not in full communion. Are you saying that since you are part of the Church, that you have the fullness of truth? Aren’t I a part of the Church? How come I don’t have the same fullness of truth? You are still torchering logic.

What is your personal interpretation of this passage?

1 Tim. 3:15 - The the Catholic Church contains the fullness of truth and safeguards it. See how I did that in light of the infallible teachings of the Church?

This is true. Only the discuples were promised this. There is no mention here of any later generation would be promised this.

Not in that particular passage, no. But it does when the *entire *Word of God is examined. Jesus told his apostles to go throughout the world and make disciples of “all nations” (Matt. 28:19–20).

For 2,000 years the Catholic Church has carried out this mission, preaching the good news that Christ died for all men and that he wants all of us to be members of his universal family (Gal. 3:28).

Jesus assured the apostles and their successors, the popes and the bishops, “He who listens to you listens to me, and he who rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). Jesus promised to guide his Church into all truth (John 16:12–13). We can have confidence that his Church teaches only the truth.

 

[c659smith]

Can you give me a specific prayer of an apostle that is not in Scripture?

He is to be strong in Christ, he is to be an example and not a new convert would be some signs of a teacher. It would also follow that he knows the Scriptures well and has studied them.

Test the teachers teaching with the scriptures. Are they using the scriptures correctly i.e. in context for example. If not, then this is a sign of a false teaching.

It not an anti-catholic myth but a fact. Do you deny that a Christian of today who has the complete Bible in his possession, reads and studies it will have a greater understanding of a Christian in the second century who did not even have in his possession little if any scripture?

On what do you base this on?

Is not that “Divine Revelation” the Scriptures at least?

i never said this. You need the scriptures to determine if what people claim to be expierencing is of Christ or of their own minds or of the evil one. If that expierence or teaching is not supported by the inspired-inerrant Word of God it is to be rejected.

If you don’t believe the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, how can you believe the Bible is the word of God?

This very Church discerned and declared which early writings were Scripture and which were not.

Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

And do you know what, according to the Bible, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?

Scripture? No—

the Church. Who, then, can do without it?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Not necessarily to the faith being incomplete but in the future they may discover more manuscripts for example. For catholics this has been true. There are doctrines catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier catholics.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are saying that in the future the likelihood INCREASES that people may be truer Christians than you ever were because of new access to manuscripts/better biblical tools?

If yes, does that diminish/defraud in any way the Christian life you have been currently living?

Also, what doctrines do Catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier Catholics?

 

[ChristianRoots]

Then we couldn’t say we know what it is by now since oral teachings would not have been able to survive the centuries without corruption.

We don’t have the original manuscripts of each book of the New Testament either. Were they protected from becoming corrupt when being transcribed? How do you know?

 

[c659smith]

We don’t have the original manuscripts of each book of the New Testament either. Were they protected from becoming corrupt when being transcribed? How do you know?

Again the Catholic Church was the writter and protector through the Holy Spirit.

 

[ChristianRoots]

Again the Catholic Church was the writter and protector through the Holy Spirit.

Agreed. Just trying to make a point with JA4 .

 

[Lampo]

He is to be strong in Christ, he is to be an example and not a new convert would be some signs of a teacher. It would also follow that he knows the Scriptures well and has studied them.

I’d say Pope Benedict XVI meets those standards!

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t think you will see protestants going the same direction as the catholic church has. I doubt you will see in protestant churches by 3508 the marian dogmas, purgatory etc. Some might embrace all these unbiblical doctrines but i don’t think all will. But who knows…

Unless attitudes change and errors are corrected sadly I must agree with you that the overwhelming majority of Protestants are not going in the same *direction * that most Catholics are. But there’s still time for you to get on the next Catholic indoctrination and familiarization class if you want to get on the elevator up.

James

 

[guanophore]

Not necessarily to the faith being incomplete but in the future they may discover more manuscripts for example. For catholics this has been true. There are doctrines catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier catholics.

Not “unknown” thought the fullness of their meaning may not have been understood. For example. all the Apostles knew Mary, the Mother of Jesus, but of her ministry they may not have understood, since it did not manifest itself until much later.

“His disciples did not understand this at first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that this had been written of him and had been done to him.” John 12:16

Revelation is progressive, to the extent that we are able to understand.

 

[guanophore]

Just because an historian may have a bias does not rule out he can report history correctly.

Perhaps you have not studied the subject of history academically, ja4. Bias, by definition, prevents one from reporting objectively. It is the duty of the student of history to understand the bias from which each historian writes.

History is the story of what has happened, an is told by the biased.

 

[guanophore]

Then we couldn’t say we know what it is by now since oral teachings would not have been able to survive the centuries without corruption.

How is it that you can believe that the HS is powerful enough to preserve the Oral Teachings for 400 years so that you can have your NT, but then they somehow become corrupted? What happened to the HS, the He suddenly lost HIs power, after the canon was formed?

 

[guanophore]

Have you ever gone to a catholic bible study that was taught by someone in your church? If so, was the person who was teaching infallilbe?

We will know if such a one is teaching the infallible doctrines of the Church since they have been clearly defined for us by the successsors to the Apostles.

Has your church infallibly interpreted 2 Peter 1:20? If not, are you not giving your “personal interpretation” of it?

No, the disciples understand that the revelation of God is to be taken as a whole, and not separated parts interpreted in a vaccuum apart from others. All scripture is interpreted in the light of the Teaching of Jesus, given to us through the Apostles. That is how we know it is infallible.

Am i not part of the church?

If you are validly baptized, then yes, you are Catholic, though you are improperly joined to the One Body, since you reject the Authority that Jesus appointed.

This is true. Only the discuples were promised this. There is no mention here of any later generation would be promised this.

No, Jesus promised that He would be with them “until the end of the age”, which has not yet come.

 

[guanophore]

no

This is a relief. So many posts you have written seem to indicate that you think of God as weak.

Notice the context of the promise. It was specifically to the disciples—here is the passage;

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16:13-15

The colored-bolded text is the object of the promise to. The “you” in the passage are the disciples and not anyone else.

I absolutely agree with you. It was those to whom that promise was made who entrusted that message to faithful men, who were able to teach others also (the apostolic succession). And it is not by fallible men that His Word is guarded only!

"Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over my word to perform it.” Jer 1:12

God is able to preserve His Word, even through fallible men. We see this during the period before the canon was formed, and since.

You are contradiction yourself here. The church is made up of individuals who even you admit have erred. These individuals have misundestood and have taught error in the church itself which clearly demonstrates the church has erred.

No, ja4, there is no contradiction. The Church is not ONLY made up of fallible men who have erred. The Head of the Church is Christ, who is incapable of error, and the Church is ensouled by the HS, who is God, and incapable of error. She contains also the Saints who have gone on before us, and since they are in heaven, they no longer can sin, for nothing impure can enter heaven, and they have been made clean by His power. These components of the Church are what make the Church Holy.

“Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.” Eph 5:25-28

This is how the church is without spot and wrinkle. Those of us who are still in this world, and prone to sin may still be separated from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but those who have been glorified will never be separated from Him.

You are wrong about those that teach error. Wrongdoers do not make God wrong. Those who teach error do not belong to the church.

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”
1 John 2:19-20

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think you will see protestants going the same direction as the catholic church has. I doubt you will see in protestant churches by 3508 the marian dogmas, purgatory etc. Some might embrace all these unbiblical doctrines but i don’t think all will. But who knows…

I agree with you. Most Protestants are separated from the Sacred Oral Tradition that produced the Scriptures, and are unable to accept the Revelation of God that ensured their existence. They do not know that the none of the Teachings of Jesus are based on the Bible, but instead, the Bible is based on Divine Revelation, which was revealed in it’s fullness in Jesus.

" And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." John 1:14

The fullness of Divine Revelation is in a Person, not a book.

 

[guanophore]

How many people do you think did this? How many of the common people who were struggling to put bread on the table would be able to do this?

Very few, I am sure. Most folks worked their fingers to the bone, and were fortunate to have Sunday off ! No, the common people could only access the Word by direct revelation, and through the ministry of the Church, just as we see in the book of Acts.

Do you believe then that believing in purgatory, marian doctrines, having statutes, praying to saints who have died, etc are some of the teachings of Jesus?

Yes. Perhaps thinking of Purgatory in terms of a “state” rather than a place? We know that nothing unclean can enter heaven, so if a person dies with any uncleanness, yet his soul belongs to God, the God will cleanse him after death.

Not sure i understand you here. What do you mean when you write–“the early church had the whole Gospel, even before a word of it had ever been written”?

" And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father." John 1:14

Jesus is the fullness of grace and truth.

" With many such parables he spoke the word to them, as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything. " Mark 4:33-34

Jesus explained everything to His disciples. That is why, when He was ready to ascend, He knew they were ready and able to teach “all that I have commanded”.

"And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” Matt 28:18-20

Jesus knew that He would call all those to whom He spoke home to be with Him in heaven. He promised to be with them until the end of the age because He would direct them to entrust the message to faithful men who would be able to teach others also,
This is the apostolic succession.

We believe in the Apostles Creed, which refers to the Communion of Saints. These are those who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again. We believe that nothing can separate us from the love of God, not even death. Those who have died in Christ are alive with Him forevermore. They offer prayers on our behalf, that we may persevere in faith, and join them in the worship of the Lamb.****

 

[guanophore]

Can you give me a specific prayer of an apostle that is not in Scripture?

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and shall be forevermore.”

He is to be strong in Christ, he is to be an example and not a new convert would be some signs of a teacher. It would also follow that he knows the Scriptures well and has studied them.

Sounds like anyone can appoint themselves a Teacher, whenever one feels he is ready!

Test the teachers teaching with the scriptures. Are they using the scriptures correctly i.e. in context for example. If not, then this is a sign of a false teaching.

And who determines the context?

It not an anti-catholic myth but a fact. Do you deny that a Christian of today who has the complete Bible in his possession, reads and studies it will have a greater understanding of a Christian in the second century who did not even have in his possession little if any scripture?

The entire Christian message was preached fully from the OT, as is witnessed in the NT. When the “scriptures” are mentioned there, it is a reference to the OT. Paul testifies that the Scriptures are sufficient to lead one into knowledge of God, before the NT was penned. The early Church learned the Christian way of life from the Apostles, and those who sat at their feet. Jesus did not make His Church dependent upon the scripture, but taught His Apostles “everything”, as the NT states. The Scripture was never meant to be separated from the Holy Tradition that produced it.

Is not that “Divine Revelation” the Scriptures at least?

Indeed, the Divine Revelation is represented in Scripture.

However, knowledge of God and relation with God is not reached by reading and study.

on what do you base this on

Jesus castigated the Jews because they studied the scripture, but would not come to Him, so that they might have life. All the scriptures pointed to Him, but they could not see it.

“…you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe him whom he has sent. 39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.” John 5:38-41

Eternal life is not found in the scripture, but in the Person of Christ. Scripture can bring us into deeper understanding of Him, but we must come to HIm, not the Scripture, to find life.

i never said this. You need the scriptures to determine if what people claim to be expierencing is of Christ or of their own minds or of the evil one. If that expierence or teaching is not supported by the inspired-inerrant Word of God it is to be rejected.

I agree with you, ja4, the problem is that each person reads and understands them within the light (or lack thereof) of their own experience. This is how the ignorant get things twisted.

 

[justasking4]

c659smith;3380348]If you don’t believe the Holy Spirit infallibly guides the Catholic Church, how can you believe the Bible is the word of God?

The Holy Spirit does guide the church at times but there are also times when men missunderstand it or they have their own evil agenda’.

This very Church discerned and declared which early writings were Scripture and which were not.

Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible.

Not necessarily so. The Scriptures have their source in Christ and He used the church to define the NT canon.

And do you know what, according to the Bible, the Church is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15)?

We know it was not the Roman Catholic church since it did not exist then.

Scripture? No—

the Church. Who, then, can do without it?

The Scriptures are the inspired-inerrant truth of God and the church is to support these truths. Not to take away or add but to support the whole counsel of God. Sadly the catholic has failed in this.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3380411]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not necessarily to the faith being incomplete but in the future they may discover more manuscripts for example. For catholics this has been true. There are doctrines catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier catholics.

ChristianRoots
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are saying that in the future the likelihood INCREASES that people may be truer Christians than you ever were because of new access to manuscripts/better biblical tools?

I would not use the word “truer” Christians but more knowledgeable.

If yes, does that diminish/defraud in any way the Christian life you have been currently living?

No.

Also, what doctrines do Catholics believe today that were unknown to earlier Catholics?

Much of the marian doctrines, the rosary, purgatory these and others were doctrines and practices unknown to the early church.

 

[justasking4]

ChristianRoots;3380423]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Then we couldn’t say we know what it is by now since oral teachings would not have been able to survive the centuries without corruption.

ChristianRoots
We don’t have the original manuscripts of each book of the New Testament either.

This is true. However there are thousands of pieces of manuscripts and full manuscripts coupled with the writings of the Fathers that scholars could put the entire NT back together in its original form. What we possess today is what the original looked like.

Were they protected from becoming corrupt when being transcribed? How do you know?

I believe so since the God of the universe would have power to do so.

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t think you will see protestants going the same direction as the catholic church has. I doubt you will see in protestant churches by 3508 the marian dogmas, purgatory etc. Some might embrace all these unbiblical doctrines but i don’t think all will. But who knows…

CentralFLJames
Unless attitudes change and errors are corrected sadly I must agree with you that the overwhelming majority of Protestants are not going in the same *direction * that most Catholics are. But there’s still time for you to get on the next Catholic indoctrination and familiarization class if you want to get on the elevator up.

James

Do you think the Roman Catholic church has ever made errors in its teachings and practices?