Non-catholics, How do you "Tell it to the Church"

[JRKH]

NDfan,
Thank you for these answers. You are always a joy to converse with.
I just have a couple of comments to make on your responses.

I personally don’t feel scripture is difficult to interpret especially when studying the original Greek which I do constantly. But I feel those that have attended Seminary and Bible College probably have a more rounded and deeper understanding of scripture.

Below you indicate that you will not agree with the Pope because his schooling is “sctictly based in Catholic theology”. Would you agree that people who attend NC seminaries or “Bible Colleges” have shooling “Strictly based” on Non-Catholic Theology?

Yes the Pope is most certainly more qualified than you and I given his lifelong commitment to his calling. But I also realize that his schooling is strictly based in Catholic theology so in those terms I will not agree with him on certain things. Being more qualified doesn’t completely discount our ability to challenge what he says. That’s why Christ commands us to be discerning.

Carrying on from my comments above, Since “protestamt” schooling will tend naturally to shy away from things too “Catholic” don’t you think that this gives them the same bias as you see in the Pope?
I agree that we have a right to “challenge” or question what our leaders say, however it does not mean we should discount them either, for they are steeped in this education.
Actually, most of the “challenging” goes on in the Church long before some teaching is promugated by the Magesterium. Thus, when the Church does issue a teaching we can be confident that the issue has been looked at from avery different direction.

I’ve had conversations with Priests that made me feel I understood scripture better than they. Their standard response to questions I have is strictly “well this is what the church teaches”.

Well, depending on what the question was this might be a good answer, but I do know what you mean.
I do agree though that the Church has been suffering through a time of some poorly trained priests. I also believe that, under the last two pontiffs this trend is changing and we will see better priests coming out of seminary.

Yes it can cut both ways. If I had no training scripturally speaking then of course I’d be foolish to just blindly object to what church leaders are teaching. But for me that’s not the complete situation.

I can tell that just by talking with you.
You are thoughtful and charitable in your responses and truly seek after what is true.
That is why I hope someday to hear you are entering The Church.

On this my friend I agree 100%. But keep in mind the benchmark for church teachings was always what does scripture tell us. If you carefully study any of the early church councils the first thing anyone did was reference what scripture stated. Point of fact Ignatius was the first to push for an official canon so all churches would know what the true Apostolic teachings were. Ignatius also had many terrible battles with the gnostics given they were very prominent in his area. To combat this he pushed for church leaders to be Apostolic meaning that their teachings adhered to what the Apostles taught.

PEACE

But keep in mind also that these Church councils, working as a unified body, were what determined which books to include and how they were to be interpreted (understood based on the oral apostolic teachings). This comes back to the crux of the matter in my OP. Yes the Early Church had variances due to distance and difficulty in organizing (persecution does that heh?) but they remained unified in their desire to be of One Mind and One Church. For this reason, they worked out their differences and did not “agree to disagree”

At some point there was seen a need for a universal canon, AND a universal understanding so that “teaching” remained properly rooted and the same across the Church. It wasn’t a case where the Church assembled the Bible canon and then just let every local church interpret that canon as they saw fit without regard to disagreements among them. No - Disagreements such as you mention, the Gnostics, the Arians, etc, certainly enjoyed some considerable success and used the same or similar “scriptures” as those who disagreed with them.
Such disagreements were brought before Church councils, and “thrashed out”, each side presenting their arguments and the council as a whole, making a decision which was binding upon the Entire Church, Universally. Those who refused to “Listen to the Church” were then put outside of The Church.

I agree the benchmark is “what does scripture tell us?”, but when there is disagreement on what scripture tells us, there needs to be a visible, universal authority to unravel and make clear. That is what 2000 years of Church teaching and history provides. I am afraid that this is where the Protestant Churches have failed. By rejecting such authority and theological history they are left with a chaotic jumble of conflicting beliefs, all based on The Bible but without that humility that says I will submit my own opinion to that of Christ in His Church thereby maintaining unity as Christ Prayed.

This, in my mind, is what “Tell it To The Church” really boils down to. The unity of Spirit in the Early Church and the willingness to submit to the Authority of Christ in His Church such that they would argue back and forth but ultimately submit their personal opinions in humility to the “Will of Christ in His Church”.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_J]

For this reason, they worked out their differences and did not “agree to disagree”

Actually, relatively speaking they agreed-to-disagree on a lot.

What I mean is, there are a lot of issues that Catholics and Protestants condemn/anathematize each other for today – such as number of books in the Old Testament and whether Mary was perpetually virgin – that the early Christian disageed on while still remaining in full communion with one another.

 

[Radical]

…By rejecting such authority and theological history they are left with a chaotic jumble of conflicting beliefs, all based on The Bible but without that **humility **that says I will submit my own opinion to that of Christ in His Church thereby maintaining unity as Christ Prayed.

This, in my mind, is what “Tell it To The Church” really boils down to. The unity of Spirit in the Early Church and the willingness to submit to the Authority of Christ in His Church such that they would argue back and forth but ultimately submit their personal opinions in humility to the “Will of Christ in His Church”.

Peace
James

(emphasis added by Radical)

I can see why you would want to explain things this way. It allows you to claim the Christian virtue of humility for you and your fellow RCs and to attribute to the sin of pride anyone’s refusal to join the RCC. May I suggest that it is not the case that the typical Protestant lacks the humility and willingness to submit to the Authority of Christ in His Church. Instead, the typical Protestant’s “problem” is that he can not see that the RCC is Christ’s Church or that the RCC possesses the Authority of Christ. Further, I would suggest that in a good number of cases the Protestant has not ignored or rejected theological history, but has in fact studied such history in forming his conclusion that the RCC is not Christ’s Church. (BTW would you suggest that the word “humble” accurately characterizes the typical RC poster’s style in this forum?..just wondering )

 

[JRKH]

Actually, relatively speaking they agreed-to-disagree on a lot.

What I mean is, there are a lot of issues that Catholics and Protestants condemn/anathematize each other for today – such as number of books in the Old Testament and whether Mary was perpetually virgin – that the early Christian disageed on while still remaining in full communion with one another.

Early Christians may well have had different opinions on many issues that had not been dogmatically declared just as you say, However, once these issues were settled by The Church, those Christians followed Chruch teaching in humble obedience to Christ.

Peace
james

 

[JRKH]

(emphasis added by Radical)

I can see why you would want to explain things this way. It allows you to claim the Christian virtue of humility for you and your fellow RCs and to attribute to the sin of pride anyone’s refusal to join the RCC. May I suggest that it is not the case that the typical Protestant lacks the humility and willingness to submit to the Authority of Christ in His Church. Instead, the typical Protestant’s “problem” is that he can not see that the RCC is Christ’s Church or that the RCC possesses the Authority of Christ. Further, I would suggest that in a good number of cases the Protestant has not ignored or rejected theological history, but has in fact studied such history in forming his conclusion that the RCC is not Christ’s Church. (BTW would you suggest that the word “humble” accurately characterizes the typical RC poster’s style in this forum?..just wondering )

I apologize if I appeared to be speaking about each and every protestant in my post. That was not my intention.
My reference to the lack of humility to submit has more to do with the fact that Protestant Churches will sometimes split rather than submit to the authority of their own leadership. Such a lack of humility among the various “Local churches” in the early Church did not exist. If it did there would not have been a “Catholic” Church at all but simply a conglomeration of local or regional churches, some orthodox, some areian, some montanist, some Gnostic, and so on. It was the common root of all of the churches, along with the recognistion by them that Christ gave His Church Authority that kept them together and allowed them to reject the early heresies.

As for individuals whether catholic or not - Some are humble and some are not. Some are able to see through other eyes and engage in conversation, others are more firm and only able to see one view. But from all of these I learn. If nothing else I learn to be even more humble and realize how little I know.

I thank God for all of my friends here and that includes you my friend.

Peace
James

 

[jbelokur]

Try substituting “parish” for “church”.
See, it still works.
There was no hierarchical authority at the time Christ was speaking,
just the local body of believers as He went from place to place.

Then why did Act 15 occur? The Jerusalem council, seems to be an example of the Apostles mandating a norm not spoken to them directly by Jesus while he was with them, but by the Holy Spirit, and that norm was then sent throughout the Church to be observed. Your post does not conform to Scripture. Paul routinely admonishes the churches of this letters to hold fast to what had been given them, and to let no false doctrines take hold.

 

[Peter_J]

Early Christians may well have had different opinions on many issues that had not been dogmatically declared just as you say, However, once these issues were settled by The Church, those Christians followed Chruch teaching in humble obedience to Christ.

Peace
james

Exactly. As time went by, there was gradually less and less areas where Christians could agree to disagree (and still remain in full communion).