Personal interpretation of Scripture and Authority of Church

[Tantum_ergo]

Tares and wheat. Oh yes, I quite understand that God will permit both to grow until the harvest. But how does one recognize tares? Wheat gives forth fruit, tares choke the fruit. Individual Protestants have done wonderful things I’m sure (but not necessarily solely because they were Protestants) just as individual Catholics have done evil things (but not necessarily solely because they were Catholic). But compare the 2000 year record of the Catholic Church as Church–let’s see, hospitals, schools, preservation of civilization, improvement of the lot of the common man, stability overall. Now the Protestant Churches already had the framework of things like hospitals and schools in place, so we can’t give them the credit of invention. Again, while individual Protestants do much charitable good as one would expect of any Christian (so it isn’t the point), what have the constant splintering of Protestant groups and the fragmentation and the argument and disunity of teaching in Protestant churches given us? Chaos and anarchy, rancor, ill-will, hubris, intellectualism, and above all modernism and all its myriad heresies.

You still haven’t answered my question. How does the same Spirit tell Ginger that John 6 is literal, and tell you that it’s figurative? How does the same Spirit tell one group of Protestants that women can be ordained, and another group that they can’t? How does the same Spirit tell ALL Protestants in 1920 that abortion and contraception are biblically forbidden, and the SAME Spirit tell the Anglicans in 1930 that it was ‘all right in grave circumstances’, and then tell virtually all the Protestants today everything from "It isn’t really spoken of in Scripture’, “it depends on the reason for it”, “it’s up to the individual to decide whetherit’s a sin”. . . etc. etc.???

 

[po18guy]

] Amen! and Amen! GottaGo 12345678, thank you for explaining it so wonderfully. Please allow me to remind, on the cross, which can’t be repeated over and over again. It’s history. We celebrate the cross, as the Jews celebrate their Exsodus passover. ED O.

Ed, you are spreading untruths and ignorance. I will grant , in your case, that it is unwittingly. Ready to learn?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Hello there too. I was in this thread earlier back but I don’t believe we’ve exchanged comments before. My name is Nick, nice to meet you.

Perhaps, you have some investigating into the writings of early Christians to do, as the ECF’s taught Baptismal Regeneration; whether or not that means “baptism [in and of itself] saves” I doubt it as I believe Catholic teaching is that one needs to be “properly disposed” to receive the grace of the Sacraments. In Baptism, I believe that this would include faith. To me, the teaching is also found in the writings of St. Peter who told us that, “…baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:” (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Peter%203:21&version=KJV) (9/ 06/ 09) Also see the Gospel of St. John chapter 3: “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203&version=KJV) (accessed 9/ 06/ 09)

The following are quotes from Protestant sources who disagree w/ the ECF’s and Catholics/Orthodox/ Lutherans, etc on the matter of Baptismal Regeneration. Nevertheless, they concede:

"’…As a matter of historical fact, there was a general consensus among the Fathers that baptism was the instrument of regeneration and washing away of sin.’ (justforcatholics.org/a116.htm) (accessed [8]/ 25/ 09)

‘…The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers.’ (the-highway.com/sacramental_Webster.html) ([8]/ 25/ 09)"

I clipped this from another post of mine in another thread.

Will these quotes suffice or would you like a plethora of quotes from the ECF’s?

Personally, I don’t know how people were saved in the O.T. Although, I don’t believe it was by Circumcision as I believe St. Paul refutes that idea in Romans. Regarding your study of early Church writings; I highly recommend you see what those successors of the Apostles believed. I’ll tell you up front that my decision to leave Protestantism and my abandonment of Sola Scriptura was heavily influenced by the writings of the ECF’s. I abandoned many of my personal interpretations and as you see, I’m in the process of “swimming up the Tiber.”

Peace,

Nick

Nice to meet you Nick.

Call me whatever you want; just keep it clean

The sources you have quoted are w/in the Catholic arena; based on what I know about there infallible interpretation of Scipture, I don’t really believe they would report anything the ecf’s would say that would contradict there position unless they misunderstood what was said, but that would be very subjective.

It would be easier to show they believe in grace by faith in Christ.

To me it is not that relevent because we have very little in the way of writings during the first century and a half, but we have the Word of God.

Makes me wonder that if you made a fallible decision to attend a Protestant church, thne based off of probable fallible interpretation of ecf’s, which you may have gotten your info from a biased view…i don’t know; just suspect your views of the ecf’s came from Catholic sites and information. So if you made a fallible decsions on the church and another on the ecf’s, then what would make you believe the current decision is infallible?

I mean in view of the Bible; how can one such as you see the immaculate conception, the Catholic priesthood, praying to the dead? These are very clear additions to the Word of God. Hebrews 7,8 do away with the levitical sacrifical priesthood and the very testimony of Mary states she was in need of a savior and the apostles and Jesus taught Christians how to pray to the Father and gave us many examples; none of which are to anyone else but the Father. How you can reconcile or rationalize these things away is beyond understanding.

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Funny, I can’t find this in Scripture at all. I find things like “This IS my Body. This IS my Blood.” And St. Paul speaking of ‘profaning’ the Eucharist by taking unworthily.

And for 1500 years Christians (yes, our Orthodox brethren, whom you so shamefully ignore believe this too) taught the Real Presence. It is the traditions of men who teach a ‘different gospel’.

I challenge all of my Protestant acquaintance who speak of the ‘symbolic’ Eucharist to go on over to the Eastern Religions and to question the Orthodox about THEIR belief about the Eucharist. The Real Presence is not ‘just’ a Catholic belief and so it isn’t ‘just’ the Catholic Christians whose beliefs you reject.

Your error is the definition of real presence; it is not the phyisical; it is the spiritual. See John 6:63 and also what actually took place at the Lords Supper; nothing physical, but very spiritual. Likewise the mistake on your definition of Church; treating as though the Holy Spirit works in an institution called a church rather than the individuals that collectively make up the true church.

'Anyway; just a few thought to think about.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

FWIW, Catholics do not deny that Mary needed a savior. She was saved ‘earlier’ than the rest of us being saved at her very conception.

Consider that those people who lived ‘before’ Jesus, like Moses, and had died, were saved because of His death and resurrection even though that event took place ‘after’ their death, and you should have no problem comprehending that God (who does NOT exist ‘in time’) could certainly ‘save’ any given person at any point in that person’s life, whether it was after death (Moses), at conception (Mary) or at some point after birth (those of us born since the time of Christ).

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Excuse me, but I read Scripture and it thoroughly supports that Jesus was speaking quiet literally. “Eat my flesh”. . .the very word used meant to GNAW or chew.

Furthermore, at the Last Supper Jesus said, “This IS my body. .” not, “this is a symbol of my body” or "this resembles my body’.

Furthermore, for 1500 years Catholic Christians and Orthodox Christians understood the Eucharist to be in Scriptural terms literal language. It is MEN who 500 years ago preached a ‘different gospel’ and misread terms in Scripture precisely because they can rely only on their own selves and human beings are capable of error. Scripture is inerrant, but your interpretation of it is flawed. Where is the definitive evidence that Christians partook of a ‘symbolic’ Eucharist from the time of Christ to AD 1500?

 

[GottaGo12345678]

Tares and wheat. Oh yes, I quite understand that God will permit both to grow until the harvest. But how does one recognize tares? Wheat gives forth fruit, tares choke the fruit. Individual Protestants have done wonderful things I’m sure (but not necessarily solely because they were Protestants) just as individual Catholics have done evil things (but not necessarily solely because they were Catholic). But compare the 2000 year record of the Catholic Church as Church–let’s see, hospitals, schools, preservation of civilization, improvement of the lot of the common man, stability overall. Now the Protestant Churches already had the framework of things like hospitals and schools in place, so we can’t give them the credit of invention. Again, while individual Protestants do much charitable good as one would expect of any Christian (so it isn’t the point), what have the constant splintering of Protestant groups and the fragmentation and the argument and disunity of teaching in Protestant churches given us? Chaos and anarchy, rancor, ill-will, hubris, intellectualism, and above all modernism and all its myriad heresies.

You still haven’t answered my question. How does the same Spirit tell Ginger that John 6 is literal, and tell you that it’s figurative? How does the same Spirit tell one group of Protestants that women can be ordained, and another group that they can’t? How does the same Spirit tell ALL Protestants in 1920 that abortion and contraception are biblically forbidden, and the SAME Spirit tell the Anglicans in 1930 that it was ‘all right in grave circumstances’, and then tell virtually all the Protestants today everything from "It isn’t really spoken of in Scripture’, “it depends on the reason for it”, “it’s up to the individual to decide whetherit’s a sin”. . . etc. etc.???

You are the very first person to be able to distinguish between the wheat and the tares; I mean the literal, very first person besides Jesus.

Ginger does not believe in the literal eating of the Lord; ask her and why insist in putting words in her mouth?

Do you believe Catholics are all of one mind concerning any issue? Many don’t recognize the Vat II while other only accept Vat II and reject Vat I as an example. Many pick and chose which doctrines they will accept and which they won’t; like on the issue of contraception that you mentioned. Some don’t pray to Mary and reject the teaching and the same on saints. How do you explain these differences and what relevency does it have to the Bible? None, the same with Protestant fractions…none. What counts is what God has said and what He has said is that people are saved by the blood of the Lamb; there is no other sacrifice for which man can lok to for salvation. Legalism and works will never get anyone to heaven. It is all of grace and all of God. It is not refered to by the Apostle Paul as the “gospel of grace” without reason…maybe Peter; one of the two.

GottaGo…later

 

[LionHeart777]

The sources you have quoted are w/in the Catholic arena; based on what I know about there infallible interpretation of Scipture, I don’t really believe they would report anything the ecf’s would say that would contradict there position unless they misunderstood what was said, but that would be very subjective.

The sources I cited are Protestants who either evangelize or debate Catholics and they do not themselves hold to Baptismal Regeneration. They only concede that that’s what the ECF’s taught. The rest of your post is not about Baptismal Regeneration so lets stick w/ that for now That way, we can see if there is reason to doubt your interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We are not discussing whether individual Protestants or individual Catholics disagree with their church teachings. Of course such individuals exist. They have since the time of Judas. Did the fact that Judas so far rejected Christ that he sold him for 30 pieces of silver invalidate the 11’s faith? Did, in fact, the 11’s rejection of Jesus at His trial and crucifixion invalidate their faith? Did Thomas doubt? Did his doubt invalidate his faith?

So individuals doubt, but the doubt does not then render the TEACHINGS in doubt.

And this is where Protestants and Catholics differ.

Individual Catholics may ‘disagree’ with the teachings, but the teachings do not ‘change’ to suit the Catholics.

UNlike the Lambeth conference of 1930 where the clear Scriptural teaching of centuries was ‘changed’ to accommodate the wishes of Anglicans regarding birth control, and this ‘acceptance’ paved the way for many other Protestant churches to deny Scripture and indeed as some now do to claim that ‘birth control’ itself was never spoken against in Scripture. . .

Individual Protestants, OTOH, disagree and depending on the degree of disagreement either go off to, or start another denomination, or, if it’s ‘lesser’ disagreement, contend that their point of view is just as ‘reasonable.’ They have fallen victim to the errors of Modernism and relativism, in spades.

Yes, some Catholics have also fallen victim to this. But the Church will never give in and ‘accept’ their attempts to change. Will some priests be victim? Sadly, yes. Just because “Father X” does not accept the teaching though does not mean that the teaching is ‘optional’ or that his rejection will cause the teaching to be changed. It just means that Father X is in error and we hope and pray that he sees this, repents, and does what he can to make up for the damage he did.

 

[LionHeart777]

Here are some early witnesses:

The Shepherd of Hermas:
“[ca. A. D. 140/155]” [1]

“…And I said to him, ‘I should like to continue my questions.’ ‘Speak on,’ said he. And I said, ‘I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Since, however, you inquire diligently into all things, I will point this also out to you…’” [2]

"’…Explain to me a little further, sir,’ I said. ‘What is it that you desire?’ he asked. ‘Why, sir,’ I said, ‘did these stones ascend out of the pit, and be applied to the building of the tower, after having borne these spirits?’
‘They were obliged,’ he answered, ‘to ascend through water in order that they might be made alive; for, unless they laid aside the deadness of their life, they could not in any other way enter into the kingdom of God. Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For,’ he continued, ‘before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God….’” [3]

First Apology
By: St. Justin Martyr
“[inter A. D. 148-155]” [4]

“…As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ John 3:5 Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: ‘Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, says the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if you refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.’ Isaiah 1:16-20…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed…”[5]

To Autolycus
By: St. Theophilus of Antioch
“…ca. A. D. 185 / 191]” [6]

“Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration…all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God.” [7]

“Jurgens” citations from: The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970.

[1] (Jurgens, 32)

[2] (newadvent.org/fathers/02012.htm) (accessed 8/17/09)

[3] (newadvent.org/fathers/02013.htm) (accessed 8/ 17/ 09)

[4] (Jurgens, 50)

[5] (newadvent.org/fathers/index.html) (accessed 8/ 17/ 09)

[6] (Jurgens, 73)

[7] (Jurgens, 75)

"Irenaeus

‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Tertullian

‘[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life’’ (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).

Hippolytus

‘The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism’ (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8 [A.D. 217])."

(catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp) (accessed 9/ 06/ 09)

CONTINUED…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued:

Homilies on Numbers
By: Origen
“[post A. D. 224]” [13]

“…Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way, in the cloud and in the sea; now however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit…” [13]

Homilies on Romans
By: Origen
“[post A. D. 244]” [14]

“…The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” [14]

To Donatus
By: St. Cyprian of Carthage
“[A. D. 246/247]” [15]

“…But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man…” [15]

“Letter of Cyprian to Quintus, A Bishop in Mauretania. A. D. 254/255.” [16]

“…We know that only in the Church, where prelates have been established by the gospel law and by the ordinance of the Lord, it is permitted to baptize and to give the remission of sins. Beyond the pale, however, nothing can be bound or loosed, where there is no one who is able either to bind or loose.” [16]

“Jurgens” citations from: The Faith of The Early Fathers: Volume 1, Jurgens, William A. The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota:1970.

[13] (Jurgens, 206)

[14] (Jurgens, 209)

[15] (Jurgens, 217)

[16] (Jurgens, 236-237)

This is only the first 3 Centuries (0-300 A.D.), and I believe that the list is not exhaustive.

 

[Ginger2]

Individual Catholics may ‘disagree’ with the teachings, but the teachings do not ‘change’ to suit the Catholics.

Hee, hee, hee…

Pardon me for laughing, but I was raised Catholic and we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays - it was absolutely forbidden. It was so important that I had to eat yucky fish sticks in grade school while my Protestant friend got BBQ!

Catholics today can eat meat !!!

That is only one example, but to me, the RC is the religion of loop holes:

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

How would we know you didnt adopt your children?

Ed’s post was very clear. He said

His brother and he were both raised Catholic
They both got married in the Catholic church and divorced

**His brother got an annulment, but he didn’t
**

It is clear from the beginning, but seeing as you are Catholic, I can understand you misinterpreting - at first.

However, Ed went on to say His brother got an annulment, but he didn’t

If they were married to each other the annulment of his brothers marriage would apply to him as well. It seems to me even a Catholic could understand that.

What it all boils down to is the Catholics in this thread are becoming desperate to find just one point the can win in this debate.

Unfortunately, running in circles is making me dizzy. You have all the information.
Accept it or reject it. The choice is yours.

Have a great week, all!

 

[po18guy]

Hee, hee, hee…

Pardon me for laughing, but I was raised Catholic and we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays - it was absolutely forbidden. It was so important that I had to eat yucky fish sticks in grade school while my Protestant friend got BBQ!

Catholics today can eat meat !!!

That is only one example, but to me, the RC is the religion of loop holes:

Ginger

You traded the Body of Christ for BBQ. Hmmmm…

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Discipline is discipline. The penitential practice of eating fish instead of meat becomes difficult when for many people fish or other non-meat is PREFERRED anyway.

BTW, I STILL do not eat meat on any Fridays. Know why? Because while refraining from meat is no longer (in the US) required, a penitential practice is recommended. I chose to stick with the practice that is the NORM in the Catholic Church–OUTSIDE the U.S. Plus, I hate fish, I really really do. For me, it is a true penance to have to give up chicken or beef, especially as I’m anemic and need it for the red blood cell indices.

Also, Ginger, it USED TO BE that one had to fast from midnight before communion. That rule was changed in the mid 20th century to 3 hours, and currently it is 1 hour.

Notice, however, that the FAST ITSELF remains.

We also don’t still recline at table the way they did at the first eucharists. Nor do we wear tunics. But we still celebrate the Eucharist.

Either you don’t remember your Catholic faith very well in that you confuse a discipline (which by definition can and does change) with doctrine and dogma, which do not, or you’re deliberately trying to imply that ‘eating fish’ WAS a doctrine/dogma.

I actually hope it’s the former. I’d rather that you had an imperfect knowledge of the truth you rejected because that means you can hopefully get the real knowledge and ‘come home.’ I’d hate to think that you were deliberately trying to mislead people.

But just in case, I’ll jot the I’s and cross the t’s.

When I say “Catholic teaching” I specifically mean Catholic DOGMA. Just in case y’all didn’t know, Catholic DISCIPLINE can and DOES change, legitimately.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hee, hee, hee…

Pardon me for laughing, but I was raised Catholic and we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays - it was absolutely forbidden. It was so important that I had to eat yucky fish sticks in grade school while my Protestant friend got BBQ!

Catholics today can eat meat !!!

That is only one example, but to me, the RC is the religion of loop holes:

Ginger
Reply With Quote

Ginger,

I believe that you are an intelligent person so I’m dissapointed about this post. 1st of all I have very much to learn so I will say up front that someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

a) there is still a fasting from meat on Fridays applicable to the faithful outside of Lent. I observe this (although I forgot this past Friday.) In regards to this, I believe the faithful may substitute something else for this (instead of meat.) This is for outside of Lent only though.

b) Fasting is a discipline and not a Dogma so it can be changed whenever the Church sees fit.

c) I believe that the early Church fasted on Wednesdays and Fridays, as the Eastern Orthodox still do.

 

[Tomb54]

Hee, hee, hee…

Pardon me for laughing, but I was raised Catholic and we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays - it was absolutely forbidden. It was so important that I had to eat yucky fish sticks in grade school while my Protestant friend got BBQ!

Catholics today can eat meat !!!

That is only one example, but to me, the RC is the religion of loop holes:

Ginger

Catholic are to fast still on Friday but they can give up something besides meat if they want. Question-- do all protestant fast as Jesus said his followers would after He was gone? I never see Protestants push for fasting so I am curious if they even actually acknowledge this need as the bible says or is this another part of Scriptures that Protestants chose to ignore?

What it all boils down to is the Protestants in this thread are becoming desperate to find just one point the can win in this debate

When Protestants reject the teachings of the CC they are also rejecting the Scriptures (Bible) this church complied (with guidance of the Holy Spirit).

.

 

[po18guy]

Ginger,

I believe that you are an intelligent person so I’m dissapointed about this post. 1st of all I have very much to learn so I will say up front that someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

a) there is still a fasting from meat on Fridays applicable to the faithful outside of Lent. I observe this (although I forgot this past Friday.) In regards to this, I believe the faithful may substitute something else for this (instead of meat.) This is for outside of Lent only though.

It is during Lent that we fast from meat on Fridays. It is optional the remainder of the year, and another type of fast or penitential act is highly recommended. Interestingly, many Protestants don’t do this, even in honor of, or in remembrance of Jesus. It strikes me as odd, since, to be consistent, shouldn’t they do this along with their “symbolic” communion?

b) Fasting is a discipline and not a Dogma so it can be changed whenever the Church sees fit.

Exactly.

 

[EdOsiecki]

]

Hee, hee, hee…

Pardon me for laughing, but I was raised Catholic and we were not allowed to eat meat on Fridays - it was absolutely forbidden. It was so important that I had to eat yucky fish sticks in grade school while my Protestant friend got BBQ!

Catholics today can eat meat !!!

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…

 

[erikd]

He can’t help himself; the love of God only abides in those that have accepted Christ His way. So you must be patient and have pity on them.

I’m not looking for pity, just answers. I’ve asked several questions on this thread that have gone unanswered, posted several facts that have been disputed without any proof shown, and many many comments using Scripture which have only been answered with opinions, not Scripture. Pity is not my cup of tea, reality is. As far as the love of God, I believe that all are capable of loving our Creator. Some even abide by His own Church.

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

That does not sound like a comment made by someone who walks in the way of Christ. You seem to be judging me without having the benefit of ever dialoguing with me. Why would you assert yourself to be saved and me not to be an heir? In reference to your comment about the Catholic Church giving us the Bible, you have to remember how the Bible came to be. Many Books were written before and after Christ. The Old Testament was compiled into the Septuagint, while the New Testament was compiled in the Council of Rome in 382 AD. These historical facts in no way dispute the fact that all 73 Books were the Inspired Word of God. Yes, the Holy Spirit inspired all the writers of all 73 Biblical Books. But, it is the Church, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that decided which Books to include and which books to exclude. Do you deny this historical fact?

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.

Can you tell me exactly which Biblical or Dogmatic teaching was “changed” in Vatican II? I’ve read the documents as they are widely available online and it seems that customs, especially regarding the Liturgy were changed, but nothing Dogmatic was “changed” or reversed. Please specify if you are to argue this point.

Someone once said somewhere…Ignorance is bliss and security; it is the Truth that messes everything up…leave me as I was.

“Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise” From Thomas Gray’s poem, Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College (1742) I believe is the quote you were trying to remember. I can’t find any scriptural references to Jesus telling us to be ignorant of the truth. Can you?