E
Elzee
Guest
TIM STAPLES…please help with this post!
- Status
A
Angainor
Guest
mark a:
The first time I read this I assumed you were giving me advice. I have read it again and I wonder if I am mistaken.
Are you speaking of Paul? Do you think Paul “still could not believe the truth of the Catholic Church”, and was therefore “under no obligation to God to follow the teaching of the Church”?
The first time I read this I assumed you were giving me advice. I have read it again and I wonder if I am mistaken.
Are you speaking of Paul? Do you think Paul “still could not believe the truth of the Catholic Church”, and was therefore “under no obligation to God to follow the teaching of the Church”?
A
Angainor
Guest
Let me see if I can explain…Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29
Our conscience is our beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong. Is Paul saying that a Christian’s freedom should not be judged? No, we should judge our freedom by our own conscience, that is our own beliefs about right and wrong. That is all we can do, that is, do what we believe is right.
Paul explians this more in Romans chapter 14. I urge you all to read this chapter and ask yourselves if it resembles Catholicism in any way, shape, or form. Catholics should be able to tell far better than me.One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. – verse 5
Are you, as a Cathoic, fully convinced in your own mind about every doctrine in the Catechism? Does Catholicism even ask you to be fully convinced, or does it just want you to accept what it says? What about those items in the Catechism that you simply have not learned about yet (it is a big book) … do you simply think to yourself that once you do learn about it you will of course believe it?
What if you are not fully convinced of something in the Catechism, in fact, what if you are fully convinced of somthing contrary to the Catechism, what is your recorse?Therefore let us stop passing judgement on one another. Instead, make up you mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. verse 13
Does Catholicism take Paul’s advice? Just how many stumbling blocks are contained within the Catechism?
I feel I have to point out that Paul is not being a relativist. He does not say “Whatever you think is true is true for you and you should therefore feel free to act on that.” Rather Paul is saying, “You must act according to what you truely believe is true.” for:each of us will give an account to himself to God – verse 12
God is the final judge of what is true.
A
Angainor
Guest
FYI - I [thread=77007]posted a poll[/thread] on this subject.
C
Coder
Guest
I’m sorry but that is nonsense**.**
1 Corinthians 10:25-26 is saying that if you don’t know if the meat was sacrificed to idols then you can’t give scandal by eating it. It is also saying you don’t have to look for trouble. It therefore supports Acts 15:29 because Paul is saying that if you did know it was sacrificed to idols, then indeed you should not eat it:
1 Corinthians 10:28: But if someone says to you, “This was offered in sacrifice,” do not eat it… That agrees with Acts 15:29
Furthermore, the conscience Paul refers to is the conscience of those who could be offended/scandalized if Christians ate the meat once they knew it was sacrificed to idols. Paul is not at all referring to conscience imposed by the authority of Acts 15:29 and in fact Paul upholds the authority of Acts 15:29.
Your entire argument is misleading and in error.:tsktsk:
D
dafalax
Guest
Angainor, ideally we are supposed to form our conscience according to that wich is truly true and to follow him is to uniformly follow the truth (I am the way, truth, and the life). The ultimate source of truth is the Church and the Bible (both of which Jesus gave us so as to not leave us orphans). God came to give us the truth (John: ch18vs37). He new people would disagree about what the truth is so he gave us and infallable source of teaching. If he hadn’t then all we could agree on are incredibly basic truths about what Jesus did as stated in the bible, (most of the time not even that) but not about everything that is sinful or not or what the truly correct thing to do in any given situation would be. Then every man would be able to fully believe that his version of right and wrong is truth which is relativism. This is not what paul believed. I urge you to look at the case of the incestuous adulterer who apparently believed he was not doing anything wrong but what he was doing violated Pauls conscience so he excommunicated him. Paul also says that even a little leaven will affect the lump so purge the leaven, also keep not company with someone who calls himslf a brother and is a fornicator. I think ultimately Paul is just addressing the fact that you shouldn’t try to judge the final destination of an individuals soul by your own conscience. Paul is saying that when we give an account of ourselves to God that he won’t hold against us what we honestly dont know is right or wrong, but we better honestly not know it is wrong, or else. Much in the same way he won’t hold the lack of knowledge of the gospel against someone who never heard it.
Being able to fully believe the truth of the catholic church is a gift from God, you either accept it or you don’t. He’s offering it to you now.
Being able to fully believe the truth of the catholic church is a gift from God, you either accept it or you don’t. He’s offering it to you now.
E
Eden
Guest
St. Paul was not Protestant. Protestants did not exist in the first century of Christianity. There was only one Church - the Catholic Church that still exists today and St. Paul was part of it. It should give you pause that you must create fantasy to legitimize the existence of Protestantism.
K
Karen10
Guest
Well done, Coder. :clapping: Againor, did you see that?
Regarding the questions about disagreeing with Church teaching, I can offer this:
(This is from a Catholic perspective; it goes without saying that it’s going to sound Catholic
)Someone who doesn’t understand a teaching is asked to comply with it, and do what they can to understand it. Not every granny in the pews can be a theologian, but where there is difficulty understanding, one should 1.) obey (out of faith) and then 2.) make every attempt to understand it.
To dismiss and disobey a teaching without trying to understand it “because I don’t like it”, makes one what we’re calling lately, a “Cafeteria Catholic”. In other words, “I still call myself Catholic, but I really just pick and choose what I like, and I have no intention of studying up on why this teaching is the way it is.”
Whether you want to call them Protestants is just a matter of semantics; it seems that few would probably identify themselves with the Protestant label.
Faithful Catholics would see that those people’s faith in Christ’s Church isn’t where it should be. If they do believe that the Catholic Church is the one Jesus founded, that it teaches with the authority given it and under the protection against the gates of Hell in matters of doctrine/dogma, etc. then it really doesn’t make any sense to pick and choose–i.e. to be a Cafeteria Catholic. Yet people struggle–I think that’s why some posters come here and it’s always a good sign that they’re doing their homework and asking questions.
Cafeteria Catholics are also saying (implicitly) that Jesus broke His promise, whether they understand this or not (coming from a Catholic perspective, of course, when you understand the Catholic teaching about infallibility and how it is derived also from Scripture).
Ultimately however, such a person has got other issues besides what label we give them, and it’s really useless to discuss whether to call them Protestants or what-not.
Where there are Cafeteria Catholics, the main thing to understand is that the Catholic Church teaches Truth as she knows it, regardless of whether you see “Catholics” who don’t believe some of these truths. Catholicism certainly teaches this, but some people who call themselves Catholics don’t accept it. Rather than identifying it as a weakness of Catholic teaching, I see it as the fact that people need to work out their issues with teachings instead of dismissing them (out of sloth, apathy, indifference, etc.). It’s a complicated catechism sometimes, especially with today’s tough issues; it is one that requires some real devotion to understanding everything.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Againor,
As for it being a real requirement, it was.
One was to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul himself states in 1 Cor 10," *if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it". *This was INDEED a real requirement of St. Paul and St. Peter and all of the Holy Catholic Church. It wasnt’ a requirement because pork, for example, is inherently unholy. That was Paul’s point.
The Catholic Church then, as it is now, was not a “Bible only” Church. They didn’t simply go by the written Word, but also taught one another in person, just as we do today. A “Bible only” Church does not have the benefit of resolving abiguities with authority. That’s why the apostle’s appointed bishops in the first century to continue their ministry.
As for it being a real requirement, it was.
One was to abstain from meats offered to idols. Paul himself states in 1 Cor 10," *if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it". *This was INDEED a real requirement of St. Paul and St. Peter and all of the Holy Catholic Church. It wasnt’ a requirement because pork, for example, is inherently unholy. That was Paul’s point.
A
Angainor
Guest
Please refer to [post=958000]this post[/post], where I have discussed this.
With respect, no he doesn’t.
Paul wrote: eat anything sold in the meat market… 1 Cor 10:25
Food sacrificed to idols was sold in the market at a discount. It was not a secret which food in the market was sacrificed to idols and which wasn’t.
When Paul said eat anything sold in the meat market, Paul is saying it OK to knowingly buy and eat food sacrificed to idols.
This directly contradicts Acts 15–You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…
A
Angainor
Guest
“Peter’s requirement” was: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols…(Acts 15)
“Paul’s requirement” was: if someone says to you, “This is food offered to an idol,” do not eat it". (1 Cor 10)
These are nither the same or unified. Paul says it is [post=820766]alright to knowingly eat food offered to an idol[/post], so long as it will not offend the conscience of the people you are eating with. Under “Peter’s requirement”, a Christian could not knowingly eat food sacrificed to idols.
A
Angainor
Guest
You are very correct. Paul is by no means a relativist. Paul was a firm believer in absolute truth. He was such a believer in absolute truth that whenever his understanding of that truth conflicted with something someone else said about that truth, he stood fast by his own understanding:
Why should my freedom be judged by another’s conscience?
1 Corinthians 10:29
We are to first seek the truth, then follow that truth to the best of our ability, then seek to understand the truth even better, then follow that truth the best to our ablitly… in that way we grow in faith.
K
Karen10
Guest
Paul is clarifying and elaborating on the spirit behind Peter’s teaching. Peter obviously had an idea in mind when he forbade eating meat offered to false gods. Now, what idea could that be? That he acknowledged the legitimacy of this sacrifice, and the existence of these false gods? Certainly not. Peter knew as well as anyone else that the meat, as all other things, came from the one true God.
Here’s what Dhouay-Rheims version has for the bit about the conscience; it’s a bit of a more literal translation:
1 Corinthians 10:29: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other’s. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s [a man who would be scandalized] conscience?
He is not saying, “Why should my beliefs ever be judged by another man, not to exclude my own pope? Why should I form my conscience according to what Peter says?”
He’s saying: Eating this meat is not inherently wrong. The pagans offered it to false gods, but I know they don’t exist; only the one true God does. Just because according to the pagans’ consciences, it was offered to this false god, does not make it so, does it? Surely not. The false god in each case, doesn’t even exist. The pagans just think they offered it to a real god that exists, when my conscience knows otherwise.
But then he goes on to say that there is, however, danger in accepting such meat after someone has told you that it was offered to false gods. Such a person could in fact be scandalized by seeing a proclaimed follower of the one true God, willingly eating meat that was sacrificed to their god, and mistake that for accepting the legitimacy of their offering, and their god.
So Paul goes on to warn about that.
Who were Peter and Paul writing to? At that time, society was very mixed. Both were writing to people to make sure that they didn’t cause scandal among the early Christians.
Not every sentence in the Bible stands completely alone without context. This should be clear to everybody. This is why you cross-reference often, to clear things up. Without understanding that, one is bound to take all sorts of things wrong, or find contradictions in teaching where they aren’t there.
Here’s what Dhouay-Rheims version has for the bit about the conscience; it’s a bit of a more literal translation:
1 Corinthians 10:29: Conscience, I say, not thine own, but the other’s. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s [a man who would be scandalized] conscience?
He is not saying, “Why should my beliefs ever be judged by another man, not to exclude my own pope? Why should I form my conscience according to what Peter says?”
He’s saying: Eating this meat is not inherently wrong. The pagans offered it to false gods, but I know they don’t exist; only the one true God does. Just because according to the pagans’ consciences, it was offered to this false god, does not make it so, does it? Surely not. The false god in each case, doesn’t even exist. The pagans just think they offered it to a real god that exists, when my conscience knows otherwise.
But then he goes on to say that there is, however, danger in accepting such meat after someone has told you that it was offered to false gods. Such a person could in fact be scandalized by seeing a proclaimed follower of the one true God, willingly eating meat that was sacrificed to their god, and mistake that for accepting the legitimacy of their offering, and their god.
So Paul goes on to warn about that.
Who were Peter and Paul writing to? At that time, society was very mixed. Both were writing to people to make sure that they didn’t cause scandal among the early Christians.
Not every sentence in the Bible stands completely alone without context. This should be clear to everybody. This is why you cross-reference often, to clear things up. Without understanding that, one is bound to take all sorts of things wrong, or find contradictions in teaching where they aren’t there.
A
Angainor
Guest
[post=958619]I agree[/post] with you. I just think it would be very un-Catholic-like for Peter to allow the Jewish Christians to go on thinking eating food sacrificed to idols is inherently wrong. Peter is supposed to be the authoritative arbiter of truth. Why would he allow this “division” to continue, where one group of Christians believed it was wrong to eat the food sacrificed to idols and the other group of Christians didn’t? This “division” did exist:
Karen10 said:
It was not just for the sake of the pagan’s consciences that the Acts 15 letter restricted eating food to idols, it was for Jewish Christian’s consciences as well. Peter may have realized that it wasn’t inherently wrong, but apparently many Jewish Christians weren’t so sure:
Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols,… For Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath." James speaking in Acts 15:20-21
Peter let the Jewish Christians believe this, perhaps to avoid scandal. Plus he allowed the command to be entered into the letter.
K
Karen10
Guest
Hmm, may I ask what Bible you are using? I have two and neither of them say *abstain from food polluted by idols. *Here, I’ll type what each of mine have for that verse:
Dhouay-Rheims, commonly regarded as a very literal translation:
“…But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood”.
New American Study Bible (which is more loosely translated for better meaning in contemporary language, granted)
…“But tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood”.
We can look up the Koine Greek but my time is short tonight–it’s late over here.
Dhouay-Rheims, commonly regarded as a very literal translation:
“…But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood”.
New American Study Bible (which is more loosely translated for better meaning in contemporary language, granted)
…“But tell them by letter to avoid pollution from idols, unlawful marriage, the meat of strangled animals, and blood”.
We can look up the Koine Greek but my time is short tonight–it’s late over here.
K
Karen10
Guest
I was talking about the Corinthians passages, which had to do with the pagans’ consciences’ inability to determine what we know really is true, not scandalizing pagans. Paul as well as Peter didn’t want people (new Christian converts) to be scandalized. In Acts, I can see that Peter is also concerned with the Gentiles’ (remember, they are new Christians):
Dhouay-Rheims - Acts 15:19: “For which cause I judge that they, who from among the Gentiles are converted to God, are not to be disquieted.”
The NAB is similar but mentions concern over “troubling the Gentiles” instead of using “disquieted” to say the same thing.
So yea, Acts, and probably Corinthians is concerned with the scandalization of new Gentiles Christians. You can see, that by “not to be disquieted”, he means that he wills them not to be troubled. Paul’s letter still elaborates on exactly what the concern was that could cause the new ones to become disquieted, and doesn’t contradict Peter’s.
It doesn’t look like he came out and said such meat was inherently bad to eat. Check out Acts 15:24:
“Since we have heard that some of our number [who went out] without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind, we have with one accord decided …”
Peter is saying he doesn’t want them to eat the meat precisely because of the disturbance to their peace of mind–the impressions people were getting–not because it was inherently evil.
Hope it makes sense now
K
Karen10
Guest
I’ll re-write this, because the pronouns with no antecedent are confusing:
But then Paul goes on to say that there is, however, danger in accepting such meat after someone (Gentile Christian) has told you that it was offered to false gods. Such a person could in fact be scandalized by seeing a proclaimed follower of the one true God, willingly eating meat that was sacrificed to the pagans’ god(s), and mistake that for accepting the legitimacy of the offering, and/or the legitimacy of the pagan god(s).
This is the “troubling” and “disquieting” that Peter was also referring to in Acts.
The blurb about “conscience” that Paul writes in Corinthians, however, had to do with the pagans’ beliefs having no legitimacy whatsoever; that his conscience about the meat offering had no bearing on his ability to eat it, that the meat in itself wasn’t inherently bad.
And again, Peter doesn’t seem to proclaim it inherently bad either; he clearly lists why he wants them not to eat the sacrificed meat–because of the disquieting and troubling that’d been occurring (Acts 15:24), and not because of the meat’s inherent sinfulness or some kind of inherent taint to it.
And none of the bit about “conscience” had to do with Paul being a rebel with the ability or inclination to disregard his pope.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
Please provide the chapter and verse. Me thinks your are saying this, not Paul.
Paul said the opposite. Dont’ eat it. His reasons explain the prohibition in Acts 15 further, but do not contradict it.
A
Angainor
Guest
New International Version. I would guess that “food polluted by idols” is what is meant by the more literal “pollution of idols”.
I
itsjustdave1988
Guest
I don’t think you know what “inherently” means. Peter never taught that eating meat that was sacrificed to idols was inherently wrong. James wrote the letter to abstain from eating meats sacrificed to idols, and nowhere does he describe this as inherently wrong. The apostles sent Paul and others to deliver this letter. The letter didn’t provide much explanation. That’s why they sent Paul and others to explain the reasons. Your “sola scriptura” view of the 1st century Church is crippling your ability to see the forest for the trees. You are trying to build a false dispute, when you’ve not shown any evidence from history or Scripture that there was ever such a dispute.
- Status