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

[PRmerger]

Hardly contempt, I have great respect for the Catholic Church. But I don’t know about you - you are claiming something the Church does not claim at all - that they hear things from God.

As long as you aren’t saying that Jesus would disagree with our dogmas, you are fine here.

And the Church does indeed claim that. Right here (bold mine):

“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.” The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/797.htm

 

[SAVINGRACE]

The Scriptures “belong” to anyone, sped.

But each and every time you quote from the NT, you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC which discerned for you and me what books belong in there.

**I know, right??

And yet there are some folks who have decided that the epistles of Paul are NOT inspired.**

voiceofjesus.org/paulvsjesus.html

**And, to their credit, they are at least being consistent—“We reject the authority of the CC and therefore we reject what they decided belongs in the NT”.

That’s consistent.

What other (non-Catholic) Christians are doing is being inconsistent when they say they reject the authority of the CC, but take our NT canon and declare it to be the Word of God.**

Highlighted above. Great point.

 

[Thorolfr]

Careful, openmind. This is getting quite close to “contempt for Catholicism”…something that is not permitted here on the CAFs. It is good for you to be here, in dialogue with knowledgeable Catholics, so I would be more judicious about how you phrase things.

Every dogma that the CC has proclaimed is something Jesus “agrees” with.
To imply that the Church teaches something that Jesus objects to is…well, I’d just be more careful in the future.

So should Catholics in this forum also be careful in implying that other Christian denominations teach something that Jesus objects to? For example, is it OK for them to imply that Jesus objects to the teaching that women can be pastors, something taught by the ELCA? Wouldn’t implying that Jesus objects to this be considered “contempt for the ELCA”?

 

[benhur]

Sometimes things are all or nothing, ben.

True.I absolutely believe the CC is not infallible.

Jesus made some things all or nothing. If you’re not for us, you’re against us. Didn’t he say that?

Yes, because the apostles thought wrongly that to be “with us” means you have to" hang out with us and be in full communion and proximity with us". If you are expanding the kingdom with the apostles words you are for the apostles. P’s and O’s are expanding the kingdom, per vat2, as were those who didn’t “hang out” with the apostles.

And didn’t he say that no one gets to the Father except through him?

Yes, but whose baptism, Paul’s or Apollos ? Who would say there is only one baptism and that thru the CC only (though by many churches) ?

You seem to think that since Catholicism has so many both/ands…that EVERYTHING is both/and.

No that is you being either or again.

And yet…we have some things which are all or nothing.

Thankfully amen.

That’s what makes Catholicism so formidable to refute

We do not refute Catholicism per say save where there is error. Error can also be formidable.

Blessings. Good thread.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

True.I absolutely believe the CC is not infallible.

Blessings. Good thread.

Benhur, what do you think ‘infallible’ means in the Catholic context?

 

[icamhif]

So I’ve persuaded you of the invalidity of the “spiral argument”?

I think there are good historical reasons to believe that many of the things said by Jesus are historically authentic–there are criteria scholars have developed to help figure this out, although of course they aren’t certain.

But the bigger problem is that you’re setting up a straw man. One can trust the historic witness of the Church without believing in the Catholic understanding of infallibility.

Edwin

Good post!

 

[Jon_S_1]

My friend, as surely as His perfect guidance for the individual is conditional, so it is for any presbyter , teacher or council or church.

Then the faith cannot be known…and the Bible is an arbitrary assortment of ancient letters…

 

[openmind77]

As long as you aren’t saying that Jesus would disagree with our dogmas, you are fine here.

And the Church does indeed claim that. Right here (bold mine):

“What the soul is to the human body, the Holy Spirit is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church.” “To this Spirit of Christ, as an invisible principle, is to be ascribed the fact that all the parts of the body are joined one with the other and with their exalted head; for the whole Spirit of Christ is in the head, the whole Spirit is in the body, and the whole Spirit is in each of the members.” The Holy Spirit makes the Church “the temple of the living God”:

Indeed, it is to the Church herself that the “Gift of God” has been entrusted. . . . In it is in her that communion with Christ has been deposited, that is to say: the Holy Spirit, the pledge of incorruptibility, the strengthening of our faith and the ladder of our ascent to God. . . . For where the Church is, there also is God’s Spirit; where God’s Spirit is, there is the Church and every grace.
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/797.htm

Holy Spirit being present in the Church is very far from saying God is talking to you - which is what you claimed.

the Holy Spirit , I am sure, is also present in a lot of other Churches. So are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not present in any other Church which has some differences with the Catholic Church?

 

[icamhif]

Holy Spirit being present in the Church is very far from saying God is talking to you - which is what you claimed.

the Holy Spirit , I am sure, is also present in a lot of other Churches. So are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not present in any other Church which has some differences with the Catholic Church?

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

By the way, I like your signature.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Holy Spirit being present in the Church is very far from saying God is talking to you - which is what you claimed.

the Holy Spirit , I am sure, is also present in a lot of other Churches. So are you saying that the Holy Spirit is not present in any other Church which has some differences with the Catholic Church?

 

[openmind77]

Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit is God.

By the way, I like your signature.

I understand that, but being inspired by the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Holy Spirit actually talking to you, which is what Mr Merger is claiming.

Anyway, looks like if any other Church has differences with the Catholic Church, it is probably not inspired by the Holy Spirit (unless I am wrong in interpreting his claim).

 

[spedteacherita]

The Scriptures “belong” to anyone, sped.

But each and every time you quote from the NT, you are giving your tacit submission to the authority of the CC which discerned for you and me what books belong in there.

I have no issue there at all. I’m happy that we do agree on what the scriptures are saying…

And, to their credit, they are at least being consistent—“We reject the authority of the CC and therefore we reject what they decided belongs in the NT”.

That’s consistent.

What other (non-Catholic) Christians are doing is being inconsistent when they say they reject the authority of the CC, but take our NT canon and declare it to be the Word of God.

Isn’t the NT canon the Word of God? This is what confuses me…The Word of God is for all. I appreciate that the Catholic (universal) Church at the time decided what books would be included as the Scripture of the New Testament, but God isn’t limited to the CC. He works thru so many other denominations and peoples - deep, profound, saving faith of many within those churches…

[/QUOTE]

 

[Sy_Noe]

What other (non-Catholic) Christians are doing is being inconsistent when they say they reject the authority of the CC, but take our NT canon and declare it to be the Word of God.

For some reason you seem to have difficulty with the fact that one can believe the canon was more or less compiled correctly… but at the same time believe the CC may have strayed and not gotten everything else right. There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with that. It’s called belief and faith.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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).

Some very interesting questions raised about the inconsistencies.

 

[SAVINGRACE]

I understand that, but being inspired by the Holy Spirit is not the same as the Holy Spirit actually talking to you, which is what Mr Merger is claiming.

Anyway, looks like if any other Church has differences with the Catholic Church, it is probably not inspired by the Holy Spirit (unless I am wrong in interpreting his claim).

We can discusses differences in doctrine/worship etc between ‘churches’ till we turn blue but what all of the debate boils down to is authority.

In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives this authority over his Church to Peter: “Whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

In Matthew 18:18, he gives the power to all the apostles: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“Binding and loosing” is a phrase which comes from the rabbis. It refers to the authority to make decisions binding on the people of God.

Peter as the earthly head of the Church, also possessed powers which all the other apostles, even collectively, didn’t possess: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Mt 16:19).

This authority was passed down through the centuries by apostolic succession. The Apostles ordained Bishops and so on and so on. Peter as first amongst equals passed on his authority to Pope Linus and so on and so on.

 

[PRmerger]

For some reason you seem to have difficulty with the fact that one can believe the canon was more or less compiled correctly… but at the same time believe the CC may have strayed and not gotten everything else right. There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with that. It’s called belief and faith.

So, how do you know that the CC got the canon right? You would have to have some other archetype for what is true, in order to compare, yes?

IOW: you could say, “Yes, the Church got it right here with including Book A because the Archetype says X, Y and Z, and Book A agrees with that. And the Archetype says Q, R and S, but Book B says NOT Q, so the Church got it right when it excluded Book B”.

So what is this Archetype?

 

[rcwitness]

For some reason you seem to have difficulty with the fact that one can believe the canon was more or less compiled correctly… but at the same time believe the CC may have strayed and not gotten everything else right. There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with that. It’s called belief and faith.

“More or less” ???

The canon of Scripture MUST be solid an indisputable since it is referred to as divine revelation. Actually, Scripture is given a more ‘restrictive’ authority and purpose among Protestants than us. Scripture must be recognized as bound (canonized by His own authority) in order to have legitimate power over the faithfull. So how and when did God establish the Canon of Scripture and who did He use, and what leadership was recognized, and what faith was professed?

 

[benhur]

Benhur, what do you think ‘infallible’ means in the Catholic context?

In most circles including Catholic it means “without error”. In Catholic context in the area of definitive teaching (magisterium) on faith and morals, and guaranteed by Holy Spirit and Christ’s promise for it.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Then the faith cannot be known.

Pretty much, really impossible, except for His saving grace, His gift…of faith. …

.and the Bible is an arbitrary assortment of ancient letters…

It is, to some, those without faith, those who have not been gifted with the grace of meeting the conditions.

 

[benhur]

For some reason you seem to have difficulty with the fact that one can believe the canon was more or less compiled correctly… but at the same time believe the CC may have strayed and not gotten everything else right. There is nothing wrong or inconsistent with that. It’s called belief and faith.

Maybe some follow the “once saved always saved” concept an apply it to “church”, “once right always right”.

Blessings