Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[po18guy]

Anyone who claims the Bible came from the Roman Catholic Church already proves they do not understand the work of the Holy Spirit, which is God.

Really? You have not read the Catechism.

Therefore they also prove themselves not to be sons or heirs ofthe Most High God.

First: You agreed to respect Catholic beliefs when you came here. Such blatant disrespect will only shorten your stay with us. As to your assertion, please note that the Holy Spirit was promised by Jesus to His Church. It is members of that same Church that wrote the NT and later compiled the bible. If you deny this, you ignore proven history. You are free to disagree with the Catholic Church, but you’d better thank her, because in the case of “bible Christians”, no bible, no faith.

Also to say that 2000 years of teaching is also error on Catholic history; for the Catholic Church itself has evolved over time; look at the great schisms and also since the Vatican II where moderistic views have dramatically changed the face of the Catholic Church forever. Anyone to deny this is just plain; I don’t know what.

You are not separating discipline from dogma. Discipline can and does change. Dogma does not. And, you also do not take into account doctrinal development. This is not simple change, it is increased understanding of God’s revealed truth. Look into it, please. The teaching is constant and consistent.

Contrast this to Protestant teaching on contraception: until 1930 all mainline Protestant churches taught that contraception was evil, and to be avoided. Then, all of that suddenly changed. Why? Catholic teaching is the same now and will be forever.

 

[po18guy]

] Hi Ginger, I can relate to that too! Every Friday was fish day whether you liked it or not. I also recall, driving my car with a St.Christopher statue on the car’s dash board. He was the protecter of travelers. But in 1954, the Catholic church informed us that he got lost somewhere so don’t pray to him anymore. My goodness! what a terrible thing to have happened. ED O…

“The Eastern Orthodox Church venerates Saint Christopher on May 9th. The Tridentine Calendar allowed a commemoration of Saint Christopher on 25 July only in private Masses. This restriction was lifted later (see General Roman Calendar as in 1954). While the Roman Catholic Church still approves devotion to him, listing him in the Roman Martyrology among the saints venerated on 25 July,[1] it removed his feast day from the Roman Catholic calendar of saints in 1969. At that time the church declared that this commemoration was not of Roman tradition, in view of the relatively late date (about 1550) and limited manner in which it was accepted into the Roman calendar.” THis is from Wiki. The following is from New Advent:

newadvent.org/cathen/03728a.htm

Feel free to ask him to intercede for you, Ed. He misses you.

 

[SteveGC]

To my Catholic brethren on this thread, working admirably, yet futily, to encourage the bible-alone group on this thread to admit that they believe their faith is superior, and that therefore their interpretation is infallible…it will never happen (although I think Gotta is perhaps a candidate to boldly come out and attest to his superiority - based on a few of his previous comments). And you’ll never get the response you’re looking for when you challenge them on why there are different interpretations of believers using the same Spirit and Scripture context…

And why not? …well, for a few reasons - but IMO the most significant one is this:

Because they have minimalized the Gospel down to “just believe in Christ”. And they are ALL in agreement that this is ALL that is “essential” for salvation. That’s all they HAVE to be in agreement about…and they all ARE.

They don’t worry about being right on everything else…all the rest is just interesting and uplifting biblical history to them…nothing highly critical, just things they feel they should know, things fun to debate, and especially entertaining to them to show the world how wrong Catholics are

Oh, they’ll never claim they’re wrong about anything else to a Catholic…not a chance - even if they come to agree with your compelling arguments. The very fact that you represent the Church only hardens their stance of their interpretations, and they’ll never give in. But it doesn’t matter if you somehow prove them wrong on something anyway…because it will ALWAYS be a “non-essential” to them. Like this issue about Ginger’s and Gotta’s belief regarding communion…if you expose that they are not in full agreement about that, it doesn’t ultimately matter…because neither of them believe it’s significant in their salvation…always remember that to them, they are ALREADY SAVED…on their way to heaven, non-stop. So, they’re perfectly content to obstinately argue away all the non-essentials with you, because they believe that they are helping you see the fallacy and evil that is the Catholic Church. They’ve got nothing to lose by being obstinate in their position…because they know that even if they’re ultimately wrong, they’re still heaven-bound.

One last thing though…something that I think Gotta said earlier (forgive me if I got the person wrong)…but he admitted that Scripture reveals that much of it is difficult to understand. And yet he believes that the essentials for salvation do not fall into that category of difficulty. I wonder if he considers that scripture never clarifies which parts of it are difficult to understand, and can be incorrectly interpreted. I wonder if he stops to think that the teaching of salvation is one of those difficult things…

I suppose not.

 

[shoewindow3000]

Okay; if they don’t teach that one is “infused” by saving grace, which is called something else in your circle, by works, then tell me as one acting as an “unbeliever”, what must I believe or do to be called a Christian?

Thanks and look forward to knowing how to be saved…hurry before my time is up.

Are you mad because I quoted from the Bible verses that contradict you? Maybe it is the verses themselves you are mad at.

Jesus said:
“Unless you are willing to take up your cross, you cannot by My disciple.”

 

[shoewindow3000]

The Lords supper is designed for Christians to refect upon themselves in their ongoing relationship to Him and to others and to remember and be very thankful for the work that was. completed on the cross and the forgiveness it bestows on us.

Anytime Christians are gathered in His name He is present; yet invisible. The comunnion brings us all together in one mind; that of Christ.

Just to clarify for our Catholic friends; we do not believe we are eating the Lord; that would be contrary to His own commands concerning the eating of flesh.

Wanna know something?
In the early years of the Church, pagans thought that the Christians were cannibals! Why? Because the Christians would talk, in very literal terms, about “eating flesh,” and “drinking blood.”

Part of the early Christian persecution was caused by the fact that some pagans believed the Christians were cannibals.

 

[Des]

I also pointed out that there were times the disciples did not understand or even misunderstood (at least two that I am aware of) and Jesus did not correct them. So the argument stating Jesus didn’t correct a misunderstanding is not proof there was no misunderstanding.

Please cite these two occasions where Jesus didn’t correct His followers who were leaving Him because of a misunderstanding in His teaching. And remember, they had to be walking away from Him for good.

And Jesus did attempt to help them to understand this teaching yet they still left because they wee too ignorant and stupid to understand in their own language that he was only meaning it to be a symbolic act.

Notice even His Apostles still couldn’t fully grasp this teaching about the Eucharist but stuck with him out of faith and knowing they would have nowhere else to go.

What a foolish thing for protestants to actually think the passage involving the Eucharist is so easily seen to be symbolic yet the very people He was talking to, in their own language, couldn’t even grasp it. Such pride amongst the ss brethren.

Still, I did not retract my confession of the real presence.

The Eucharist, like Baptism, is an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace - invisible to the human eye, but very real just the same.

So, by your statement should I assume you deny the real presence???

Ginger

Let me get this straight since you love to use that ‘Real Presence’ word alot. Are you saying the act itself is what brings about this invisible Grace or the Presence of this Grace is actually contained within the Holy Eucharist?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread well over the thousand posts limit and closed.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/thread_closed.gif