Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[rcwitness]

Heterodox? I thought that you don’t have to believe in Biblical inerrency in order to be Catholic. I thought that you only have to believe that the Bible is inspired.

I rarely use Wiki as a source (so correct me if this is wrong), but…

The “doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture”[8] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”[9]

The Catholic Church’s view was authoritatively expressed by the Second Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, in the following terms: “Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation”.[9] The Council added: “Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.”[15]

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I watched the whole thing

It seems the entire context of what he was saying had to do with “Dance” until he did mention about people clapping and whatnot. But it didn’t really speak to the welcoming feeling we’ve been talking about.

However, later he began speaking about music. I vehemently disagree about his taste in music as it relates to worship. Latin Culture should be different from African culture which should be different from American culture. I know the CC doesn’t want to adapt and feels it shouldn’t have to, but it’s only adapting to the culture without giving up any Theology. What do you think David had in mind when he wrote:

Psalm 150:1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty heavens! { Hebrew b expanse b ( compare Genesis 1: 6-8 ) }

2 Praise him for his mighty deeds; praise him according to his excellent greatness!

3 Praise him with trumpet sound; praise him with lute and harp!

4 Praise him with tambourine and dance; praise him with strings and pipe!

5 Praise him with sounding cymbals; praise him with loud clashing cymbals!

6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD! Praise the LORD!

Are you referring to being welcomed when you arrive in the Church or after Mass?

If you arrive OUTSIDE when the Priest is there, he will greet and shake peoples hands. Others mingle and chat outside but once you enter the Church it is a different story.

You may be handed a parish newsletter but it is a solemn moment. Like Cardinal Arinze said Mass is not a social occasion EVER. It is a very serious time and from the moment you enter the Church you should endeavour to be quiet, thoughtful, in prayer and focussed on worshipping Our Lord. If you are talking or noisy that is considered rude and disrespectful to Christ Our Lord who we believe is present in the Tabernacle. That is why we bow our heads and genuflect when we enter/exit as a sign of respect to God.

The Mass is not about me or anyone else, it is not about the priest or the music, it is about worshipping Christ.

Many Protestants are used to the noise and find the quiet unsettling. They want to be greeted, made to feel welcome, talk, catch up and socialise inside the Church. Catholics don’t do that inside the Church, we do that outside or in the Parish Hall.

You can disagree with Cardinal Arinze about Liturgical dance, you are Protestant. He is talking to Catholics and as he is a former Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments we Catholics are bound to listen.

As you asked a question about not feeling welcome in the Church, I was replying to that.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Many Protestants are used to the noise and find the quiet unsettling. They want to be greeted, made to feel welcome, talked to inside the Church as it is in their churches.

We are a family. It is nice to be family when we worship the Lord and not stiff necked. Right?

Us Protestants can cause noise I guess. Everyone happy to see one another, greeting brothers and sisters in Christ, praying together, giving praise to God and feeling the Spirit can be loud but I would take that over the unsettling quiet.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

We are a family. It is nice to be family when we worship the Lord and not stiff necked. Right?

Us Protestants can cause noise I guess. Everyone happy to see one another, greeting brothers and sisters in Christ, praying together, giving praise to God and feeling the Spirit can be loud but I would take that over the unsettling quiet.

Good for you. I was replying to drdonald. He stated that he didn’t feel welcome inside the church, I explained why Catholics are quiet and solemn inside Church, it’s because we know Christ is present in the Tabernacle and it would be disrespectful and rude to Jesus.

Outside the Church is where we do our socialising and talking.

I wouldn’t say being respectful, solemn and quiet is being stiff-necked I view it as being good mannered and showing respect to Jesus.

We are digressing from the OP though, if you would like to discuss further, perhaps start a new thread and let us know.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Good for you. I was replying to drdonald. He stated that he didn’t feel welcome inside the church, I explained why Catholics are quiet and solemn inside Church, it’s because we know Christ is present in the Tabernacle and it would be disrespectful and rude to Jesus.

Outside the Church is where we do our socialising and talking.

I wouldn’t say being respectful, solemn and quiet is being stiff-necked.

Good for you as well

 

[rcwitness]

I have some opinions about ‘Church fellowship’ but isnt this far from the topic?

 

[SAVINGRACE]

i have some opinions about ‘Church fellowship’ but isnt this far from the topic?

Yes which is why I suggested posting another thread on the topic and we head there.

 

[spedteacherita]

Whereas I don’t expect to “socialize” during Mass as someone said, like I wouldn’t expect to socialize during any service, I do agree there is a certain coldness about the Church. I’d like to feel welcomed and not a faceless name in a crowd. I’d like to feel like I have a relationship with the Church members/Father in case I have an issue I want to discuss (not issue w/them, just in general).

Agreed…socializing should not be necessarily in the worship area but as we’re walking out we do chat with people as well out in the narthex. It’s very awkward to go out and not know anyone and don’t want to interrupt the conversations…but we digress from the OP.

 

[cmodrmac]

" recorded accurately" -well that is a question isn’t it-what we have are copies of copies of copies

My Church in the 39 articles states that s*cripture contains all that is necessary for salvation-*however it does not mean that it contains everything -it was written by humans-these humans had particular groups they were trying to write for-of course it does not include any of the scientific advances over the last 2000 years-

I fail to see what the approval of the Roman Catholic Church has to do with the veracity of the words of the Savior

 

[spedteacherita]

There was some posts about the inerrancy of the Scriptures - if we don’t accept that the Scriptures are the inerrant and inspired Word of God, what do we have then?

This goes back to PR’s OP, how do we know that the words of Jesus are true? We have to at some point accept by faith what the Scriptures tell us otherwise what do we believe? There would definitely be chaos.

Just a thought…

Blessings,

R/ita

 

[rcwitness]

There was some posts about the inerrancy of the Scriptures - if we don’t accept that the Scriptures are the inerrant and inspired Word of God, what do we have then?

This goes back to PR’s OP, how do we know that the words of Jesus are true? **We have to at some point accept by faith what the Scriptures tell us otherwise what do we believe? ** There would definitely be chaos.

Just a thought…

Blessings,

R/ita

But more specifically, we have to accept what constitutes Scripture. We can all, since Scripture was Confirmed through the ages, look at the Scriptures as such and then determine if we believe what they say. But, as you say, if we did not have a leadership whom stands by which writings should be believed as Sacred Scripture and which writings should not, there would be chaos… maybe a little like the chaos of many conflicting interpretations, but worse. I think its this recognition of the profound importance of Scripture that the Church recognizes a true communion (though not necessarily perfect) through its belief among all Christians (and of course Baptism).

And remember, the books other than the 4 gospels are eaqually held as Scripture. Though there is probably a certain recognition of the importance of the content in them.

 

[Reuben_J]

There was some posts about the inerrancy of the Scriptures - if we don’t accept that the Scriptures are the inerrant and inspired Word of God, what do we have then?

This goes back to PR’s OP, how do we know that the words of Jesus are true? We have to at some point accept by faith what the Scriptures tell us otherwise what do we believe? There would definitely be chaos.

Just a thought…

Blessings,

R/ita

The Catholic Church put up that scripture to back, to confirm her belief. If you do not agree with her, then why use her scripture? I think that was the gist of the OP. At least the Muslims are more honest in this - in disagreeing they came up with scripture of their own.

 

[Thorolfr]

Heterodox? I thought that you don’t have to believe in Biblical inerrency in order to be Catholic. I thought that you only have to believe that the Bible is inspired.

In my opinion, some of Scripture might be inspired, but it also has many contradictions and errors which make it difficult for me to believe that everything in it is equally inspired and certainly not inerrant.

Just starting in Genesis 1, it says that God created the plants on the 3rd day, the animals on the 5th day and Adam and Eve on the 6th day. Genesis 2, however say that God created Adam, then the plants, then the animals and then Eve. Both can’t literally be true and it’s hard to believe that both are equally inspired in their details.

Or Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was named Jacob but Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was named Heli.

1 Kings 4:26 says, “Solomon also had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.” But 2 Chronicles 4:25 says, “Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses;”

Matthew 27 5 says of Judas, “Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.” But Acts 1:18 says that Judas, “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”

How could all these contradictory passages of scripture be equally inspired by God? (and these are just a few of many contradictory passages).

 

[icamhif]

In my opinion, some of Scripture might be inspired, but it also has many contradictions and errors which make it difficult for me to believe that everything in it is equally inspired and certainly not inerrant.

Just starting in Genesis 1, it says that God created the plants on the 3rd day, the animals on the 5th day and Adam and Eve on the 6th day. Genesis 2, however say that God created Adam, then the plants, then the animals and then Eve. Both can’t literally be true and it’s hard to believe that both are equally inspired in their details.

Or Matthew 1:16 says that Joseph’s father was named Jacob but Luke 3:23 says that Joseph’s father was named Heli.

1 Kings 4:26 says, “Solomon also had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.” But 2 Chronicles 4:25 says, “Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horses;”

Matthew 27 5 says of Judas, “Throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.” But Acts 1:18 says that Judas, “acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.”

How could all these contradictory passages of scripture be equally inspired by God? (and these are just a few of many contradictory passages).

I believe that the Bible is inspired in the sense that it gives us the message necessary for salvation, faith, and good works (2 Timothy 3:15-17). It is not necessarily correct in every historical, scientific, and factual details. Obvious exceptions include the life, death, and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, 12-14).

 

[rcwitness]

Matters of Faith and Morals and “for the sake of salvation”… sounds familiar.

I dont think specific numbers of horses is what the Church regards as Scriptural Inerrancy.

 

[PRmerger]

Why would you say that this is? Why doesn’t it change?

Because the CC has done an abysmal job in the past providing nourishing food for her flock.

But thankfully it is changing.

My parish is alive and welcoming and after every Mass there’s lots of folks socializing outside the church doors.

Regardless, even if all the Catholics were blase and not good witnesses to their faith, it wouldn’t make Catholicism false.

Point remains: join the Church Christ founded, not the church of Apollos, full of fervor for the Lord but in wont of Truth.

 

[PRmerger]

If the Church told me tomorrow that God himself. actually came to them and said D. E and F, I would believe it, even if I disagreed with it.

You’ve already shown that you wouldn’t.

Christ has said, (through the Church, BTW) that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

I assume that you disagree with this, yes?

You wouldn’t hesitate to celebrate at the wedding of someone who’s been previously married and divorced?

But I don’t think anyone in the Church has claimed that yet.

What a peculiar thing to say on a Catholic forum. Of course the Church claims that. This is exactly what a dogma is, openmind.

But the question is, if the Christ returned tomorrow and said something that disagreed with Church dogma, would you reject Him as an imposter?

That’s a nonsensical question. It’s like saying, “If Jesus came and said that he’s a married bachelor would you believe Him?”

Jesus wouldn’t say that…so it’s a nonsensical question.

 

[openmind77]

You’ve already shown that you wouldn’t.

Christ has said, (through the Church, BTW) that divorce and re-marriage is adultery.

I assume that you disagree with this, yes?

You wouldn’t hesitate to celebrate at the wedding of someone who’s been previously married and divorced?

What a peculiar thing to say on a Catholic forum. Of course the Church claims that. This is exactly what a dogma is, openmind.

That’s a nonsensical question. It’s like saying, “If Jesus came and said that he’s a married bachelor would you believe Him?”

Jesus wouldn’t say that…so it’s a nonsensical question.

Sorry, I was not aware that God has been talking to the Church since Jesus left 2000 years ago. Does the Church make such claim? Can you send me a link to such a claim?

Dogma is what the Church believes is true from their interpretation Biblical teachings and traditions - I did not know that you believed that God had personally talked to the Church.

I did not say the Christ would contradict himself, what if he contradicts your dogmas, would you reject him?

 

[Thorolfr]

Matters of Faith and Morals and “for the sake of salvation”… sounds familiar.

I dont think specific numbers of horses is what the Church regards as Scriptural Inerrancy.

But if the writers of Scripture didn’t get the historical details right, why should we assume that they always correctly recorded what Christ said? If one author says in one place that Judas threw down the silver he had received for betraying Jesus and went and hanged himself whereas in another place another author of Scripture says he used the money to buy a field, how can we be sure that Jesus said, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church”? How can we know for sure that Jesus really said, “whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery”? Maybe those two passages are just as unreliable as one of the two passages about what happened to Judas must be (since both cannot be true).

 

[rcwitness]

I did not say the Christ would contradict himself, what if he contradicts your dogmas, would you reject him?

a couple things to keep in mind…

First, when Christ returns, faith and belief will no longer be an option. Dogmas are taken in faith and belief.

Christ Himself said, “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” that’s pretty much telling the founding member of the Church that God will work through him.