Protestants, why are you not Catholic?

[1rocky1]

JOSIE…yes the Bible is clear in most but not all respects & that is why we are admonished to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. The reason there are hundreds of denominations out there is not because the bible isn’t clear or can’t be studied properly but it is because of the deception of satan. The bible says he comes as an angel of light to deceive & tempt. He also comes to kill, steal & destroy. Don’t blame the bible but blame those who are not studying it properly & misinterpreting it because of the deception of satan. Paul tells us in Gal 1:8 that anyone who teaches a different gospel than the one he taught them is to be accursed. Read also
1st Tim 6:3-21, 2cor 11:14.

Shalom
Walt

 

[josie_L]

JOSIE…yes the Bible is clear in most but not all respects & that is why we are admonished to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. The reason there are hundreds of denominations out there is not because the bible isn’t clear or can’t be studied properly but it is because of the deception of satan. The bible says he comes as an angel of light to deceive & tempt. He also comes to kill, steal & destroy. Don’t blame the bible but blame those who are not studying it properly & misinterpreting it because of the deception of satan. Paul tells us in Gal 1:8 that anyone who teaches a different gospel than the one he taught them is to be accursed. Read also
1st Tim 6:3-21, 2cor 11:14.

Shalom
Walt

Yes, the St. Paul who wrote Galatians was pretty adamant about keeping the gospel from being distorted (think of all the written and oral admonitions he gave), and that is why Jesus instituted a Church with authority to protect and guard the faith. This authority would translate into apostolic succession (bishops of the OHCAC), those who succeeded the apostles (they were all teaching the same thing). It is not just Scripture that He left us with.

p.s. Walt did you convert to Christianity?

 

[josie_L]

JOSIE…yes the Bible is clear in most but not all respects & that is why we are admonished to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. The reason there are hundreds of denominations out there is not because the bible isn’t clear or can’t be studied properly but it is because of the deception of satan. The bible says he comes as an angel of light to deceive & tempt. He also comes to kill, steal & destroy. Don’t blame the bible but blame those who are not studying it properly & misinterpreting it because of the deception of satan. Paul tells us in Gal 1:8 that anyone who teaches a different gospel than the one he taught them is to be accursed. Read also
1st Tim 6:3-21, 2cor 11:14.

Shalom
Walt

I agree, that you should study Scripture and that the Holy Spirit can guide you on this journey towards truth, but the Bible is distorted, unfortunately, because it can at times be difficult to understand. If we did not have a Church to help us understand the scriptures (I refer to the apostles who all preached the same beliefs which were passed down to them by Jesus), we would be like the Ethiopian/eunuch who couldn’t understand what he was reading.

p.s. Just remember that most if not all of the N.T. was not written until many decades after Jesus’s death and that many could not read.

 

[1rocky1]

Josie…you asked if i converted to Christianity? Well that’s an interesting question. I was born & brought up in the Catholic church. I was 33 when i left the Catholic church. So to answer your question i guess deems a question. Was i a Christian when i was in the Catholic church & if so what made me a Christian? Did i then stop becoming a Christian when i left? When i left the Catholic church, read the bible,accepted Christ as my Lord & Savior did i become a christian then? Maybe you can define what a christian is?

Shalom
Walt

 

[1rocky1]

Josie the bible is not distorted, which means to twist out of it’s true meaning. Because you do not understand something doesn’t mean it’s distorted. Where i do not understand something then it is up to me to study the resources available that will give the correct understanding of what something means. The resources i am referring to are a concordance & a commentary. Do you have these? I agree the church should be there to teach the true meaning of the scriptures however you have the same ability to do so & we are admonished to do just that. We, you & i & everyone, are told to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. I will be glad to provide the scriptures for those references but challenge you to take your bible & search them out. We are to test what we hear from the pulpit or anywhere else. Do you do that or do you just take someones word for what they tell you? Put to the test what i am saying…search out the truth for yourself.

Shalom
Walt

 

[josie_L]

Josie…you asked if i converted to Christianity? Well that’s an interesting question. I was born & brought up in the Catholic church. I was 33 when i left the Catholic church. So to answer your question i guess deems a question. Was i a Christian when i was in the Catholic church & if so what made me a Christian? Did i then stop becoming a Christian when i left? When i left the Catholic church, read the bible,accepted Christ as my Lord & Savior did i become a christian then? Maybe you can define what a christian is?

Shalom
Walt

Actually, you should be able to define what a Christian is by using the Bible since you believe in the Bible alone?

 

[josie_L]

Josie the bible is not distorted, which means to twist out of it’s true meaning. Because you do not understand something doesn’t mean it’s distorted. Where i do not understand something then it is up to me to study the resources available that will give the correct understanding of what something means. The resources i am referring to are a concordance & a commentary. Do you have these? I agree the church should be there to teach the true meaning of the scriptures however you have the same ability to do so & we are admonished to do just that. We, you & i & everyone, are told to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. I will be glad to provide the scriptures for those references but challenge you to take your bible & search them out. We are to test what we hear from the pulpit or anywhere else. Do you do that or do you just take someones word for what they tell you? Put to the test what i am saying…search out the truth for yourself.

Shalom
Walt

Walt, I meant to say that the Bible can be distorted by those reading it. Sorry, if that wasn’t clear.

 

[josie_L]

I am not certain when transubstantiation began to take hold. I know that consubstantiation is part of catholic thought by the thirteenth century (Duns Scotus), but I don’t know how early Aristotelian metaphysics started. I can say that the Orthodox never accepted it, and I as a Lutheran have never seen an ECF quote on the Eucharist I disagree with. I’ve already told you that our confessions refer to them as “scripture”. That a council mentions them does not close them in the canon. If you want to argue that Luther was wrong in his opinion, fine. But you can’t historically argue that this opinion was novel, or not permitted, as neither is the case.

Jon

EDIT: it is important that I point out that neither of our communions accept consubstantiation. I only mention it as a reference point regarding Aristotelian metaphysics.

Here is an excerpt of when the controversy began:

As for the cogency of the argument from tradition, this historical fact is of decided significance, namely, that the dogma of the Real Presence remained, properly speaking, unmolested down to the time of the heretic Berengarius of Tours (d. 1088), and so could claim even at that time the uninterrupted possession of ten centuries. In the course of the dogma’s history there arose in general three great Eucharistic controversies, the first of which, begun by Paschasius Radbertus, in the ninth century, scarcely extended beyond the limits of his audience and concerned itself solely with the philosophical question, whether the Eucharistic Body of Christ is identical with the natural Body He had in Palestine and now has in heaven. Such a numerical identity could well have been denied by Ratramnus, Rabanus Maurus, Ratherius, Lanfranc, and others, since even nowadays a true, though accidental, distinction between the sacramental and the natural condition of Christ’s Body must be rigorously maintained. The first occasion for an official procedure on the part of the Church was offered when Berengarius of Tours, influenced by the writings of Scotus Eriugena (d. about 884), the first opponent of the Real Presence, rejected both the latter truth and that of Transubstantiation. He repaired, however, the public scandal he had given by a sincere retractation made in the presence of Pope Gregory VII at a synod held in Rome in 1079, and died reconciled to the Church.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

There is no mention of Duns Scotus (he did not deny transubstantiation/real presence), and as I continued reading I fell upon this:

a) The scientific development of the concept of Transubstantiation can hardly be said to be a product of the Greeks, who did not get beyond its more general notes; rather, it is the remarkable contribution of the Latin theologians, who were stimulated to work it out in complete logical form by the three Eucharistic controversies mentioned above, The term transubstantiation seems to have been first used by Hildebert of Tours (about 1079). His encouraging example was soon followed by other theologians, as Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), Gaufred (1188), and Peter of Blois (d. about 1200), whereupon several ecumenical councils also adopted this significant expression, as the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Lyons (1274), in the profession of faith of the Greek Emperor Michael Palæologus.

newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Again, there is no mention of Duns Scotus, i.e., if you have any primary source (his writings) that he supported consubstantiation would be great?

p.s. I read these following websites for information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

newadvent.org/cathen/05194a.htm

ewtn.com/library/mary/scotus.htm

plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/

oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprofso/9780199591053.001.0001/acprof-9780199591053-chapter-7

 

[josie_L]

I’ve already told you that our confessions refer to them as “scripture”. That a council mentions them does not close them in the canon. If you want to argue that Luther was wrong in his opinion, fine. But you can’t historically argue that this opinion was novel, or not permitted, as neither is the case.

Jon

EDIT: it is important that I point out that neither of our communions accept consubstantiation. I only mention it as a reference point regarding Aristotelian metaphysics.

Now back to our regular scheduled programming:

Are the deuterocanonical books on an equal level with the other books in the Bible?

Yes or No

Are these deuterocanonical books considered “apocrypha” by Luther part of the canon of the Bible he translated and put together?

Yes or No

I keep reiterating that it is not so much his opinion that I take umbrage with but his actions, i.e., he is the only person prior to the reformation to have ever relegated these books as apocrypha in his Bible translation.

 

[1rocky1]

JOSIE…i think you’re trying to set me up. You keep avoiding my questions. I will satisfy your curiosity…i accepted Christ as my personal Lord & Savior in 1976 behind a hangar in Tucson AZ. If you read John 3:16, a very familiar passage to most everyone, then you will know what a Christian is. I am a christian & saved by grace in faith in Christ alone. If that is not the same as you believe then i endeavor you to seek the answer for yourself. Satisfy your curiosity because what you believe has eternal ramifications. You want to make absolutely certain of where you will go when you draw your last breath. There is no purgatory. We are born once to die then the judgement. If your church is teaching the bible then your churches teachings should line up with the scriptures & not deviate from them as much as they do. Get yourself a concordance & a commentary & i would also suggest a good English/ Hebrew study bible.

My questions for you Josie are…did you convert to Christianity, What is your definition of Christianity & how are you “saved”?

Shalom
Walt

 

[josie_L]

JOSIE…i think you’re trying to set me up. You keep avoiding my questions. I will satisfy your curiosity…i accepted Christ as my personal Lord & Savior in 1976 behind a hangar in Tucson AZ. If you read John 3:16, a very familiar passage to most everyone, then you will know what a Christian is. I am a christian & saved by grace in faith in Christ alone. If that is not the same as you believe then i endeavor you to seek the answer for yourself. Satisfy your curiosity because what you believe has eternal ramifications. You want to make absolutely certain of where you will go when you draw your last breath. There is no purgatory. We are born once to die then the judgement. If your church is teaching the bible then your churches teachings should line up with the scriptures & not deviate from them as much as they do. Get yourself a concordance & a commentary & i would also suggest a good English/ Hebrew study bible.

My questions for you Josie are…did you convert to Christianity, What is your definition of Christianity & how are you “saved”?

Shalom
Walt

Does it not say that I’m Catholic, i.e., I’m Christian! I’m not sure why you’re questioning my understanding of what Christianity is as if you’ve already concluded it’s wrong.

p.s. I’m not a Sola Scriptura Christian, I believe in Scripture and Sacred Tradition (that which was passed down orally through apostolic succession) as part of what I believe.

p.p.s By the way, where is the word “trinity” in the Bible, i.e., are you aware that word came courtesy of Sacred Tradition (the teachings of Catholic Church)?

 

[ajecphotos]

Quite a few saints have witnessed purgatory. Are they wrong? I wouldn’t think so.

 

[1rocky1]

JosieL…there you go again…you refuse to answer my questions. You asked me if I converted to Christianity & I answered but you refuse to answer my questions.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear…I am NOT questioning whether or not you are a Christian, I cannot judge that as Christ can. He knows if you are a Christian however I am trying to get you to open your eyes as to what a Christian is & is not according to the Catholic Bible. There are two people who know if you are a Christian by virtue of what Christ says you must do to be a Christian…you & Christ. No one else knows with 100% certainty.

Because I ATTEND a Christian church does not make me a Christian. I attend Calvary Chapel of Aurora Co. Likewise being Catholic does not make you a Christian. So back to the question…what is a Christian? Being a member of a specific church has zero to do with being a Christian. It has everything to do with a personal relationship with Christ. If you have accepted Christ as your Lord & Savior then you are a Christian regardless of what church you belong to. I have also stated that my scriptural references come out of the Catholic Bible that I have which was printed in 1953 so are you saying that the Catholic bible I use is fallible. Also I have not asked you to leave the Catholic church…however I have only asked you to test what you hear, study the scriptures for yourself side by side with the Catechism & rightly divide the word.

Let’s not throw darts here but lets examine ourselves & be honest…our eternal existence depends upon it

You stated the word trinity is not in the bible. Not sure why you make reference to that however there are many places in the bible where the idea of the trinity is mentioned but the word is not. That’s why we are admonished to study & show ourselves approved rightly dividing the word & testing the scriptures. I would also caution you to be very careful of what traditions you believe in. I’m not against traditions per sey but I exercise
judgement with them. An example would be the Mardi-Gras celebration held in Louisiana. I lived in La for three years recently & refused to attend the celebrations & parades put on in New Orleans. In the three years I lived there I probably visited New Orleans 4 times, during the day & never attended the Mardi Gras parades there or celebrations that lasted a week or more.

So once again I ask you…if the church you attend teaches their doctrine using the bible, tradition & the oral law that the Jews used then they should agree. If one contradicts the other then one or the other should be disgarded. So let me ask you how much credence do you put in God’s word ? If man’s teaching doesn’t match what the Word of God says then what do you do ? Do you test what you hear, do you study & show your self approved rightly dividing the word? Jesus is the one who will ask the questions of you when you stand face to face with Him. He is the one who set the standards not man. The bible is the foremost authority for us re: how to behave, how to find salvation, how to treat others, the do’s & don’t of the spirit world.

When we stand before Christ we will hear one of two things…“well done good & faithful servant” or depart from me I never knew you. Which one do you want to hear.

Shalom
Walt

 

[JonNC]

Here is an excerpt of when the controversy began:

There is no mention of Duns Scotus (he did not deny transubstantiation/real presence), and as I continued reading I fell upon this:

Again, there is no mention of Duns Scotus, i.e., if you have any primary source (his writings) that he supported consubstantiation would be great?

p.s. I read these following websites for information:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duns_Scotus

newadvent.org/cathen/05194a.htm

ewtn.com/library/mary/scotus.htm

plato.stanford.edu/entries/duns-scotus/

oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprofso/9780199591053.001.0001/acprof-9780199591053-chapter-7

I have no access to primary sources regarding him, but then neither are the sources you site primary sources. My understanding is he felt consub was more scripturally sound, but accepted Transub as a Church teaching.
Apparently, the use of Aristotelian metaphysics, even from your sources, seems to arrive on the seen in either the late first millennium or into the second.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=josie L;11522506]Now back to our regular scheduled programming:

Are the deuterocanonical books on an equal level with the other books in the Bible?

Yes or No

The Lutheran confessions make no statement in that regard, but the Lutheran practice is to use any disputed book with greater caution than any attested book. So even the NT antilegomena books, while scripture, are recognized as being in dispute from as farback as Eusebius.

Are these deuterocanonical books considered “apocrypha” by Luther part of the canon of the Bible he translated and put together?

Yes or No

Luther considered them apocryphal.

I keep reiterating that it is not so much his opinion that I take umbrage with but his actions, i.e., he is the only person prior to the reformation to have ever relegated these books as apocrypha in his Bible translation.

His opinion and his actions are the same. In his prefaces, he states his opinions.

Jon

 

[josie_L]

JosieL…there you go again…you refuse to answer my questions. You asked me if I converted to Christianity & I answered but you refuse to answer my questions.

I asked if you converted to Christianity because you would sign off with “shalom” I thought perhaps this meant you were of Jewish heritage. I wasn’t asking because I was trying to trick you.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear…I am NOT questioning whether or not you are a Christian, I cannot judge that as Christ can. He knows if you are a Christian however I am trying to get you to open your eyes as to what a Christian is & is not according to the Catholic Bible. There are two people who know if you are a Christian by virtue of what Christ says you must do to be a Christian…you & Christ. No one else knows with 100% certainty.

Yes, you are questioning my faith, but as you said only Christ has the power to judge what’s in my heart. So why are you asking me as if you alone have the answer to that question?

Because I ATTEND a Christian church does not make me a Christian. I attend Calvary Chapel of Aurora Co. Likewise being Catholic does not make you a Christian. So back to the question…what is a Christian?** Being a member of a specific church has zero to do with being a Christian. **

Never said that it was, but your posts imply that I do not know what Christianity is because I am Catholic (coming from someone who left their Catholic faith I am sure you have many erroneous views about what the Catholic Church teaches and you expect me to espouse those errors).

It has everything to do with a personal relationship with Christ.

Why the need to always put “personal”, i.e., is there any other kind of relationship I’m supposed to have with Christ, i.e., I either have a relationship with Christ or I don’t.

If you have accepted Christ as your Lord & Savior then you are a Christian regardless of what church you belong to.

I never claimed that you or others were not Christian simply because you belong to another Church. I think it’s safe to say that when someone calls themselves Christian on this forum, then they mean that they believe and accept that Christ is their Lord and Saviour.

I have also stated that my scriptural references come out of the Catholic Bible that I have which was printed in 1953 so are you saying that the Catholic bible I use is fallible. Also I have not asked you to leave the Catholic church…however I have only asked you to test what you hear, study the scriptures for yourself side by side with the Catechism & rightly divide the word.

What makes you think that I haven’t already?

Let’s not throw darts here but lets examine ourselves & be honest…our eternal existence depends upon it

I’m not throwing darts as I’m not the one questioning your Christianity.

You stated the word trinity is not in the bible. Not sure why you make reference to that however there are many places in the bible where the idea of the trinity is mentioned but the word is not.

Because the word didn’t appear out of mid-air, i.e., it’s a term that was given to you by the early Church fathers who defined the Trinity by studiously studying the Scriptures and Sacred Traditions of the one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. .

That’s why we are admonished to study & show ourselves approved rightly dividing the word & testing the scriptures. I would also caution you to be very careful of what traditions you believe in. I’m not against traditions per sey but I exercise judgement with them.

I have been studying Scripture and the early Church fathers (Sacred Traditions).

So once again I ask you…if the church you attend teaches their doctrine using the bible, tradition & the oral law that the Jews used then they should agree. If one contradicts the other then one or the other should be disgarded. So let me ask you how much credence do you put in God’s word ? If man’s teaching doesn’t match what the Word of God says then what do you do ? Do you test what you hear, do you study & show your self approved rightly dividing the word? Jesus is the one who will ask the questions of you when you stand face to face with Him. He is the one who set the standards not man. The bible is the foremost authority for us re: how to behave, how to find salvation, how to treat others, the do’s & don’t of the spirit world.

I’m sorry Walt, but I disagree, the Bible is not the only thing we have, i.e., we have a Church which Christ left us with the authority to pass on the written and oral teachings of the Church. It is this Church of Christ that guards the faith from being distorted, it is this Church that put together the Bible, it is this Church that defined the Trinity over time, i.e., two natures of Christ, two wills. . . etc. It is this Church that formed the very elemental beliefs you now hold but which you do not recognize her for doing.

When we stand before Christ we will hear one of two things…“well done good & faithful servant” or depart from me I never knew you. Which one do you want to hear.

Well, which one do you think I wish to hear?

 

[josie_L]

The Lutheran confessions make no statement in that regard, but the Lutheran practice is to use any disputed book with greater caution than any attested book. So even the NT antilegomena books, while scripture, are recognized as being in dispute from as farback as Eusebius.

So the answer is “no”.

Luther considered them apocryphal.

So the answer is “no”.

His opinion and his actions are the same. In his prefaces, he states his opinions.

Have you never heard the expression “actions speak louder than words”? So, no, they are not the same.

God bless Jon.

 

[simpleas]

SIMPLEAS…God does not call us to a specific religion but He draws us to Himself thru Jesus. As Jesus stated “no man comes to the father but thru me”…John 14:6. after Jesus calls us to Himself & we accept His free gift of salvation then we are to find a church where HIS word is taught. We are also admonished to study & show ourselves approved, to rightly divide the word & to test the spirits. Pray for a spirit of discernment to find a church where the bible is rightly divided & taught.

Shalom
Walt

Hi Walt,
Can I ask you to explain the sentence in bold please?
Thanks

 

[JonNC]

So the answer is “no”.

So the answer is “no”.

Have you never heard the expression “actions speak louder than words”? So, no, they are not the same.

God bless Jon.

Have you heard the expression not everything is black or white? The Lutheran position is far more like pre-Trent than not. And the conservative approach as to how we use the books is, in my mind, a plus, not a minus.
Finally, I think it is a far bigger issue for Catholics than it is for Lutherans. For us, I think, it is not a Church-dividing issue.

His blessings also with you,
Jon

 

[josie_L]

Have you heard the expression not everything is black or white? The Lutheran position is far more like pre-Trent than not. And the conservative approach as to how we use the books is, in my mind, a plus, not a minus.
Finally, I think it is a far bigger issue for Catholics than it is for Lutherans. For us, I think, it is not a Church-dividing issue.

His blessings also with you,
Jon

Jon, it is either scripture (part of the canon of the Bible) or it isn’t (not part of the canon of the Bible). The Lutheran position is nothing like pre-Trent for the many reasons I’ve reiterated more than several times, i.e., there were no bibles before the reformation that did not contain the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon of the Bible.