M
Mystophilus
Guest
That is precisely what the Early Church did: they recognised all of the possible meanings, and rejected the impossible ones.
- Status
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I “retired” in my mid-forties - nuthin’ but time! I don’t do Hebrew, though.
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
tqualy —
In my last msg, I asked (basically) "if I become a Catholic, does that mean that I’ll have to believe in such things as… (long list of stuff, like the Perpetual Virginity and infantile baptism, etc.)
Now, concerning “how to proceed”: Lets move ahead with our usual candor. Have a Fosters…
Now, to business: Am I to presume from your latest response that the answer to my question (re-stated in a “short version” above) is “Yes”?
(and, please note: If “Yes” is the correct answer, that’s OK. I promise I’m not going to want to go through each and every item I mentioned earlier - ie, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption of Mary, Original Sin & infant baptism, etc. For right now, what I want to know, more specifically, is if it is possible to be Catholic without actually agreeing with those various teachings and dogmas I mentioned)
Personally, I think some real progress has been made here. At least we’re past the point of discussing “petros vs petra”, and I’ve made it as far as (at least) understanding the “whys and wherefores” of the belief that Peter is “the rock”.
In my last msg, I asked (basically) "if I become a Catholic, does that mean that I’ll have to believe in such things as… (long list of stuff, like the Perpetual Virginity and infantile baptism, etc.)
Now, concerning “how to proceed”: Lets move ahead with our usual candor. Have a Fosters…
Now, to business: Am I to presume from your latest response that the answer to my question (re-stated in a “short version” above) is “Yes”?
(and, please note: If “Yes” is the correct answer, that’s OK. I promise I’m not going to want to go through each and every item I mentioned earlier - ie, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption of Mary, Original Sin & infant baptism, etc. For right now, what I want to know, more specifically, is if it is possible to be Catholic without actually agreeing with those various teachings and dogmas I mentioned)
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yes. I’ll let John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society give the very good reasons why in his 2-Minute Apologetics where he says…
BTW, here’s my article on The Case For Infant Baptism and then one on the issue of Baptism~ Necessary or Not?
M
Mystophilus
Guest
In that case, why don’t you get into Greek more, and stop translating it? We have wonderful resources available to us these days, from basic courses like Athenaze to digital versions of Migne.
I tried Hebrew, but never really got into it. It just isn’t Greek to me.
F
Filioque
Guest
I think the problems from the Protestant point of view is that the Sinnlessness of Mary, her or any saint’s intercession (aside from perhaps that of our sinful brothers and sisters still living with us on earth) and some of the other issues that are being protested against, are the same points that the Catholic Church, and all well catechized Catholics protest against.
Our Lady’s sinlessness, is not of her own doing. While she did as all of us must, cooperated with God’s grace, the Immaculate Conception was a gift given by God to all humanity in order to accomplish the great mission of the Second person of the Trinity, which was the Incarnation, so that He could bring about the means of our redemption. Could He have accomplished it another way, sure. Did He? No.
At night-time we have the Moon to illuminate us in the darkness. Like the Moon, Mary’s glory is a reflection of the Sun, in this case her Son, Jesus. She cooperates with her Son to bring us closer to Him. Any Catholic who seeks after her for herself alone, and not in union with her Son All the Glories, title and honor we give to Mary are based on the recognition of her complete submission to God, She is a Model of how we too should behave before God.
As to her perpetual virginity. If it was a doctrine good enough for the Apostles and the Early Church, I have no real ground to stand on by venturing into divergent views.
Jesus gave each of us as Christians a commission, to preach the good news. He gave the Apostles a special commission, He told them to make Anmensis to His actions at the Last Supper, He instructed them they had the power given by the Father to Him to forgive and retain sins. He gave them special authority to do things in His name. To the people of that time is was not just a promise that they could just do something, but that if they (the Apostles) did or said something that He (Jesus) did it. As Jesus took simple very common items like dirt and spittle to make mud to heal the blind man, not just a wave of the hand, Jesus gives His church the ability to take common everyday items like water and make them sources of healing and grace.
So we see Jesus giving Simon authority and like Abram who’s name was changed to Abraham when he was given the responsilility of fathering the nation of Israel, Simon who is the first person to be given the name Peter becomes as symbolized by the change in his name, a new responsibility. But unlike many Protestants believe it is not simply Peter’s faith, but Christ’s faithfulness to His promise to Peter, and the Church which gives the authority of Peter’s office.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Started playing poker. No time anymore.
BA-DA BOOM!I tried Hebrew, but never really got into it. It just isn’t Greek to me.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Please, “one Protestant point of view”, not “the Protestant point of view”.
I am a Protestant. I have no problem with praying for the intercession of saints or with devotion to particular saints, I believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and I cannot read Mt 16:18 as not giving a special place to Peter. I think that all of the objections to these are silly, and frequently a result of misunderstandings. My position on these matters is not enormously common in Protestantism, but it is far from unique, especially within Anglicanism.
F
Filioque
Guest
Well then I lay myself open to attack from a couple of my Anglican clerical friends from the seminary I used to teach at who insist (being branch theorists) that they are not Protestants. I guess I can’t please all the Anglicans…
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Can anyone?
I understand where you are coming from, but this site carries a lot of commentary about “what Protestants believe” as if there were complete uniformity, and I guess that I get a bit sensitive to it at times. My apologies.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Aussie,
No.
I thought long and hard about how to answer your question - because, it really is complex and deserves a careful explanation. And, the end of that explanation goes like this: either you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church so that it can not teach error or you don’t. To be a Catholic means that you accept this as a matter of faith: “…Perpetual Virginity, Assumption of Mary, Original Sin…” are all matter of faith.
There really is no, “cafeteria plan” when it comes to someone claiming to be a Catholic, but then rejecting, e.g., the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Mother. I realize this is a rather ‘cut and dry’ approach, with precious few warm and fuzzy statement - when compared with the apparent ‘free-wheeling’ activities of some Protestant groups that claim to believe in Christ yet loudly refuse to believe what He said.
There are really a number of considerations - and, if you are interested, I can work with you on them. But, the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter really does have a clear approach to doctrine and it isn’t based on negotiations.
God bless
No.
I thought long and hard about how to answer your question - because, it really is complex and deserves a careful explanation. And, the end of that explanation goes like this: either you believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church so that it can not teach error or you don’t. To be a Catholic means that you accept this as a matter of faith: “…Perpetual Virginity, Assumption of Mary, Original Sin…” are all matter of faith.
There really is no, “cafeteria plan” when it comes to someone claiming to be a Catholic, but then rejecting, e.g., the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Mother. I realize this is a rather ‘cut and dry’ approach, with precious few warm and fuzzy statement - when compared with the apparent ‘free-wheeling’ activities of some Protestant groups that claim to believe in Christ yet loudly refuse to believe what He said.
There are really a number of considerations - and, if you are interested, I can work with you on them. But, the Church founded by Jesus Christ on Peter really does have a clear approach to doctrine and it isn’t based on negotiations.
God bless
tqualy —
Personally, I think some real progress has been made here. At least we’re past the point of discussing “petros vs petra”, and I’ve made it as far as (at least) understanding the “whys and wherefores” of the belief that Peter is “the rock”.
In my last msg, I asked (basically) "if I become a Catholic, does that mean that I’ll have to believe in such things as… (long list of stuff, like the Perpetual Virginity and infantile baptism, etc.)
Now, concerning “how to proceed”: Lets move ahead with our usual candor. Have a Fosters…
Now, to business: Am I to presume from your latest response that the answer to my question (re-stated in a “short version” above) is “Yes”?
(and, please note: If “Yes” is the correct answer, that’s OK. I promise I’m not going to want to go through each and every item I mentioned earlier - ie, Perpetual Virginity, Assumption of Mary, Original Sin & infant baptism, etc. For right now, what I want to know, more specifically, is if it is possible to be Catholic without actually agreeing with those various teachings and dogmas I mentioned)
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Mystoophilus,
Not to complicate things, but I agree. Now, this is probably for a totally different reason - but, with all these thousands of groups all claiming to be the true religion, yet all having such a divergent spread of beliefs. It is all of this divergence - essentially, the very opposite of any type of unity - that makes me saddest of all.
God bless
Not to complicate things, but I agree. Now, this is probably for a totally different reason - but, with all these thousands of groups all claiming to be the true religion, yet all having such a divergent spread of beliefs. It is all of this divergence - essentially, the very opposite of any type of unity - that makes me saddest of all.
God bless
Can anyone?
I understand where you are coming from, but this site carries a lot of commentary about “what Protestants believe” as if there were complete uniformity, and I guess that I get a bit sensitive to it at times. My apologies.
M
Mystophilus
Guest
Ah, something to point out, then is that the “claiming to be the true religion” is actually relatively rare in Protestantism. As I just mentioned to someone in another thread, there is considerable commonality and thus considerable fluidity between Protestant churches, to the extent that many of us can pass from one denomination to another and notice almost no change. We (or most of us) are well past the days when we needed to draw and defend lines between our different versions of Protestantism.
This leads me to one of the hallmarks of Anglicanism, and one of the aspects of it which I most love: coherent diversity. In my parish, we have Fundamentalist Evangelicals (sola scriptura, no Evolution, etc) and we have Progressives (Jesus was just a social revolutionary, not the Incarnation), and we have everything between. We have the same sort of variety in my city, my diocese, my province, and right across the Anglican Communion. We are nonetheless all Anglicans, and have managed to be so despite very strong differences of opinion on quite a few things.
What I want to point out with all of this is that Anglicanism in particular and Protestantism in general both do very well at managing unity without uniformity. It is not nearly as divided as it may look to someone from so centralised a church as yours.
T
tqualey
Guest
A
aussie_stockman
Guest
tqualey –
You said:
But, I also believe that “Man” has a long, ugly history of resisting the Holy Spirit.
Last night, I had something of a little “vision” (or, just some kind of “imagining” thing). I realized that from my perspective, I’m like a guy who just walked into the front door of a great big house, and saw right away that this huge family that lives inside is just the most completely angry, bitter, and disfunctional family I’ve ever seen.
I’m not referring to the now-existant Roman Catholic Church, but rather, to this sort of “triad” of the RCC, the Orthodox, and the “Protestants”. (As you know, I myself am none of those things.)
I’ve been reading incessantly on the RCC, trying with an open heart and mind to understand, as an intelligent and informed person, what the RCC is truly about. And this, in turn, has led me to do a very considerable amount of study about the Orthodox and the Protestants - and the relationship between all of them.
And, what I see is this: Simon Peter is the rock on which Christ said He would build His church. That word “church” is NOT defined by a particular name (ie, RCC, Orthodox, Methodist, whatever), but rather, defined by being ALL those that Christ called out to be His. These are, in Simon Peters words, the “living stones” with which Christ was doing His building.
Now, from Simon Peters own writing: Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Simon Peter, being “the rock” of the church, does not “lord it over” the other leaders, but appeals to each of them “as your fellow elder”. He was not the least concerned about “highlighting” his own position.
When Jesus declared to Simon Peter that “…you are the rock on which I will build…”, it was neither an “honor” nor a “reward”. It was a fact, and for Simon Peter, a responsibility. If Christ were to be building His church on Simon Peter, then Simon Peter was given the grave and awesome responsibility to “feed the sheep”, and “not to lord it over them”. “He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant”.
I believe that Simon Peter himself accepted the responsibility that Christ gave him, and understood what his authority truly was. But Simon Peter himself was truly a man with the heart of a servant.
Over the centuries, there have been others who have sat in the seat of Simon Peter. Some of them have had a servants heart. But some of them wanted power. Some of them had no heart for God at all. Some of them were men who committed horrific atrocities for which, in this day and age, they would be arrested for, charged with Crimes Against Humanity, and hung.
When Cornelius lay prostrate before Simon Peter, Simon Peter lifted him up and said “stand up. I am also a man”. Yet, there have been those who sat in the seat of Simon Peter that have required Kings to bow before them.
Although God has indeed guided the church by His Spirit, there are men - some of them in the Seat of Peter - that have resisted His Spirit and refused to be led by the Spirit.
This, above all else, is what has led to the schisms, the conflicts, the dissentions, and the utter dysfunction of a family.
It was Christ who chose and called out the “living stones” that HE would build on Simon Peter. Simon Peter was not doing the building, and Simon Peter was NOT given the choice to say “Jesus, I don’t want that one…”. Simon Peter was given the responsibility to shepherd ALL of them. Jesus knew full well that He (Jesus) would be calling people that were Jews, Gentiles, Pagans and athiests from every background and culture in the world. Jesus chose Simon Peter as the rock; Simon Peter, a man who would stand at the Council of Jerusalem and say "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
This was a man who clearly understood that the “One Church” was not the same as an “homogenous church”. There were going to be differences among those that Christ had called, yet all would be built by Christ on Simon Peter.
But, some of those that have occupied the Seat of Simon Peter have not been servants, and have not followed the Spirit, nor led with the true authority of Simon Peter, and the consequence of this is that the church that Christ was building, with “living stones”, on Peter, has become like broken and dysfunctional family. The results of men who would resist the Spirit of God - yet sat in the Seat of Simon Peter - have been pain, destruction, dissention, dissolution, and even revolt.
I myself am one of Christs “living stones”, called by Him, and am part of those other “living stones” that are being built on Peter. That is a truth, by Jesus’ own declaration. I have been a “living stone” that is part of what is being “build on Peter” ever since the day Christ called me, because He said so - even though I myself did not acknowledge it till now.
And whether the current leadership of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Churc will acknowledge it, all those “Protestants” and Orthodox, and all those “unaffiliated” like myself, are ALL “living stones” that Christ is building into His house, on Simon Peter. And whether Protestants, Orthodox, or those like me can or cannot accept it, the fact is that we are built on Simon Peter.
I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, is the “One True Church”. Some of those that have sat in the Seat of Simon Peter have driven off the majority of those that were intended by God to have been included, because some of those who sat in the Seat of Simon Peter resisted the Holy Spirit, and did not work in the true authority of Simon Peter (as given to him by Christ), but rather, became “authoritarian”, demanding power, control, and recognition.
I love Christ, and I am - whether “Rome” acknowledges it or not - a “living stone”, called by Christ, to be built together with ALL those that Christ has called, on Simon Peter. I myself do not believe in the Assumption of Mary, but I believe that a person can certainly believe in the Assumption of Mary if he/she wants. It is of no consequence to me. That person can sit in the pew next to me, or can even sit in a pew with others who believe the same thing, but ALL of us belong to Christ. Believing, or not believing in the Assumption of Mary, or in “transubstanciation” - or, whether musical instruments should or shouldn’t be used in a church - are not fundamental issues. What is fundamental is this:
Because there have been those that have sat in the Seat of Simon Peter and who abused the true authority that was given to Simon Peter, the authority that they wanted for themselves now extends to only a fraction of the “living stones” that Jesus called, and it is no fault of Simon Peter himself at all. Nor is it a fault of those that do not submit to that authority, because some of those to whom that authority was given did not yield to the One that gave the authority. “A sheep knows the voice of the shepherd”, and these sheep rightly did not recognize the voice of some of those shepherds.
So, I have concluded that I shall remain as I am - not Catholic, nor Protestant nor Orthodox - with one important change: I now accept that I am one of those “living stones”, being built together by Christ, on Simon Peter - the rock on which Christ said He would build.
But, I am committed to praying for the entire Body of Christ and it’s unity in Christ, because I am equally a part of that Body with the RCC, the Orthodox, and the “Protestants”. And above all, I will be praying for the one who sits in the Seat of Simon Peter, and that soon, a true healing can come about.
You said:
I’ve reached a point where I can believe that Peter was indeed “the rock” of Matt 16:18 And, I can believe that the Holy Spirit does indeed guide the Church.
But, I also believe that “Man” has a long, ugly history of resisting the Holy Spirit.
Last night, I had something of a little “vision” (or, just some kind of “imagining” thing). I realized that from my perspective, I’m like a guy who just walked into the front door of a great big house, and saw right away that this huge family that lives inside is just the most completely angry, bitter, and disfunctional family I’ve ever seen.
I’m not referring to the now-existant Roman Catholic Church, but rather, to this sort of “triad” of the RCC, the Orthodox, and the “Protestants”. (As you know, I myself am none of those things.)
I’ve been reading incessantly on the RCC, trying with an open heart and mind to understand, as an intelligent and informed person, what the RCC is truly about. And this, in turn, has led me to do a very considerable amount of study about the Orthodox and the Protestants - and the relationship between all of them.
And, what I see is this: Simon Peter is the rock on which Christ said He would build His church. That word “church” is NOT defined by a particular name (ie, RCC, Orthodox, Methodist, whatever), but rather, defined by being ALL those that Christ called out to be His. These are, in Simon Peters words, the “living stones” with which Christ was doing His building.
Now, from Simon Peters own writing: Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, 2 shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; 3 nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock.
Simon Peter, being “the rock” of the church, does not “lord it over” the other leaders, but appeals to each of them “as your fellow elder”. He was not the least concerned about “highlighting” his own position.
When Jesus declared to Simon Peter that “…you are the rock on which I will build…”, it was neither an “honor” nor a “reward”. It was a fact, and for Simon Peter, a responsibility. If Christ were to be building His church on Simon Peter, then Simon Peter was given the grave and awesome responsibility to “feed the sheep”, and “not to lord it over them”. “He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant”.
I believe that Simon Peter himself accepted the responsibility that Christ gave him, and understood what his authority truly was. But Simon Peter himself was truly a man with the heart of a servant.
Over the centuries, there have been others who have sat in the seat of Simon Peter. Some of them have had a servants heart. But some of them wanted power. Some of them had no heart for God at all. Some of them were men who committed horrific atrocities for which, in this day and age, they would be arrested for, charged with Crimes Against Humanity, and hung.
When Cornelius lay prostrate before Simon Peter, Simon Peter lifted him up and said “stand up. I am also a man”. Yet, there have been those who sat in the seat of Simon Peter that have required Kings to bow before them.
Although God has indeed guided the church by His Spirit, there are men - some of them in the Seat of Peter - that have resisted His Spirit and refused to be led by the Spirit.
This, above all else, is what has led to the schisms, the conflicts, the dissentions, and the utter dysfunction of a family.
It was Christ who chose and called out the “living stones” that HE would build on Simon Peter. Simon Peter was not doing the building, and Simon Peter was NOT given the choice to say “Jesus, I don’t want that one…”. Simon Peter was given the responsibility to shepherd ALL of them. Jesus knew full well that He (Jesus) would be calling people that were Jews, Gentiles, Pagans and athiests from every background and culture in the world. Jesus chose Simon Peter as the rock; Simon Peter, a man who would stand at the Council of Jerusalem and say "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
This was a man who clearly understood that the “One Church” was not the same as an “homogenous church”. There were going to be differences among those that Christ had called, yet all would be built by Christ on Simon Peter.
But, some of those that have occupied the Seat of Simon Peter have not been servants, and have not followed the Spirit, nor led with the true authority of Simon Peter, and the consequence of this is that the church that Christ was building, with “living stones”, on Peter, has become like broken and dysfunctional family. The results of men who would resist the Spirit of God - yet sat in the Seat of Simon Peter - have been pain, destruction, dissention, dissolution, and even revolt.
I myself am one of Christs “living stones”, called by Him, and am part of those other “living stones” that are being built on Peter. That is a truth, by Jesus’ own declaration. I have been a “living stone” that is part of what is being “build on Peter” ever since the day Christ called me, because He said so - even though I myself did not acknowledge it till now.
And whether the current leadership of the organization known as the Roman Catholic Churc will acknowledge it, all those “Protestants” and Orthodox, and all those “unaffiliated” like myself, are ALL “living stones” that Christ is building into His house, on Simon Peter. And whether Protestants, Orthodox, or those like me can or cannot accept it, the fact is that we are built on Simon Peter.
I do not believe that the Roman Catholic Church, as it exists today, is the “One True Church”. Some of those that have sat in the Seat of Simon Peter have driven off the majority of those that were intended by God to have been included, because some of those who sat in the Seat of Simon Peter resisted the Holy Spirit, and did not work in the true authority of Simon Peter (as given to him by Christ), but rather, became “authoritarian”, demanding power, control, and recognition.
I love Christ, and I am - whether “Rome” acknowledges it or not - a “living stone”, called by Christ, to be built together with ALL those that Christ has called, on Simon Peter. I myself do not believe in the Assumption of Mary, but I believe that a person can certainly believe in the Assumption of Mary if he/she wants. It is of no consequence to me. That person can sit in the pew next to me, or can even sit in a pew with others who believe the same thing, but ALL of us belong to Christ. Believing, or not believing in the Assumption of Mary, or in “transubstanciation” - or, whether musical instruments should or shouldn’t be used in a church - are not fundamental issues. What is fundamental is this:
Code:
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlastingSo, I have concluded that I shall remain as I am - not Catholic, nor Protestant nor Orthodox - with one important change: I now accept that I am one of those “living stones”, being built together by Christ, on Simon Peter - the rock on which Christ said He would build.
But, I am committed to praying for the entire Body of Christ and it’s unity in Christ, because I am equally a part of that Body with the RCC, the Orthodox, and the “Protestants”. And above all, I will be praying for the one who sits in the Seat of Simon Peter, and that soon, a true healing can come about.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Aussie,
May God continue to bless you on the conclusion you have made.
God bless
May God continue to bless you on the conclusion you have made.
God bless
- Status