Protestants, why?

[Porknpie]

What did I miss? Sorry, I had to go back to see what you’re referring to. Here’s what you wrote:
The belief in his being literal is in the scripture itself, he describes a “church”, singular, in multiple passages. And, the church fathers created ONE church. Not two, three or 38,000. These are the same Church fathers who canonized the bible that you use, although you are missing a few books because you let a printing company take them out

I think I did answer this, but perhpas my explanation is getting lost in semantics. You say “church” is singular, but how do you know? “My church,” as Jesus says, could very well mean the same as “my followers” or “my people.” Jesus called Peter a rock. It’s obvious that Peter isn’t literally a rock. He is the starting point of Jesus’ church that will stand forever. Jesus referred to himself as a “temple” before he was crucified, saying “Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days.” Obviously, Jesus was not a brick and mortar temple. He used symbolism continually. Protestants and Catholics have interpreted the meaning of these words differently, but honestly, I believe if we dwell on such differences then we’re missing the meaning of Jesus’ life and mission. I also realize the gravity of that statement. This has separated Catholics and Protestants for centuries, but I don’t think it should. Did I answer your question? Sorry I missed your earlier posts.

MatthewMark -

Thank you for the reply. To answer your question, “How do you know” that Jesus established “a” church:

• scripture and Jesus own words say so … no plural to the word church
• the early church fathers wrote about the church…
• apostolic succession is traced directly back to St. Peter. Unbroken line of successors to St. Peter.
• there was only one church for 1,000 years, add the Orthodox and say 1,500 years
• (my opinion) common sense that our Lord is Truth and he would not set up a church, plural with 38,000 denominations, and growning, each believing differently on faith and morals, one believing in 7 sacraments, some believing in none, some believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, some believing it to be only symbolic and some believing neither, substituting instead a band on stage for the church celebration.

Back to scripture (and do look at scripturecatholic.com for many more references to the / a church). Matthew 18 is clear that church is singular. “Whatever you bind on earth” is singular. If it’s intended to be “plural” that raises a WHOLE LOT of problems. What church is authoritative then in understanding scripture and determining what a sin is? And what “you” has the ability to bind on earth that will be bound in heaven?

15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

[MatthewMark]

This is discouraging even to me as a sola scripturist. What good is a flawless scripture if we can’t have some method of understanding the message it holds within. Where then are **least chances **for flaws? Not in our own interpretations, because as you say they are flawed.
It seems the safest bet is to turn to those very close in time to the Christ, those who wrote the early creeds and councils. ISTM that is, at least, a good starting point.

There’s a lot of folks smarter than me about what scripture says. As a Lutheran, I tend to turn to those Lutheran teachers that appear to support and accept those early councils.

What say you?

Jon

I’m being misleading and I don’t intend to. I believe the Bible is flawless, but I believe man’s interpretation can be flawed. I once heard a Baptist minister tell his congregation that wine was not consumed by people in the Middle East at the time of Christ. He claimed it was simply grape juice. Well, I highly doubt he’s correct. We know wine existed. I’m not sure where he came up with this belief, but it’s flawed. Because some details can be flawed, we need to hold to the truths of the Bible, such as God’s love for us, and Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. I agree with you–I tend to turn to Biblical scholars for answers, as we all do. But the reason I’m here is because I’ve had a difficult time accepting Catholic authority in Christianity. I don’t accept that Catholics hold the “truth” and Protestants are flawed. Even with Biblical evidence, I don’t believe in total Catholic authority because Catholics have an interpretation just as Protestants do. I believe religious differences are manmade and God judges us by our hearts and not by our religious convictions. Religion is a vehicle to bring us closer to God, which is, or should be, the ultimate goal for Christians. The vehicles can be different, just as long as the destination is the same. I cannot judge Catholics, especially if Catholicism brings them closer to God. But I’m bothered that I’m being judged because my faith is not Catholic. I guess I’ve lain my cards on the table.

 

[Porknpie]

. But I’m bothered that I’m being judged because my faith is not Catholic. I guess I’ve lain my cards on the table.

MatthewMark - no no no one is judging you. “Judging” refers to whether one believes that you individually are going to heaven or hell. No Catholic on this board that I can think of has made such a judgement about someone. But to have a discussion on faith and morals, what is true and not true and to discuss why or why not is not judging. Only God can judge us…a God that wants salvation for all of his human creation.

 

[XianThinker]

Hey Xian,

Sorry I didn’t respond sooner. I had work til midnight. I read “the holy scriptures … are able to make thee wise unto salvation…,” as the Holy Scriptures … are able to…" I emphasize the ‘able’ phrasing here because that’s precisely it. The Holy Scriptures are able to make you wise unto salvation, but they won’t necessarily and without guidance bring you to a true understanding of God.

I want to point out that reading primarily from the NIV can be misleading at many times because it’s translation is in dynamic equivalence, or rather it attempts to use the modern vulgar English phrasing to approximate what was said in our own words. At times, this can leave entire chunks of scripture having lost all meaning and similarity to their parent language.

Okay. That make sense. I agree now that 2Tim 3:15 doesn’t teach scripture alone. I know what you mean about translations. Some translations don’t agree with each other and leave me wondering which translation is correct.

Second, I would like to make an addendum to my earlier claim that scripture likely doesn’t reveal much on sacred tradition because it may have seemed self-evident at the time. This would be incorrect for the sheer fact at the very least, the Gospels concern the life of Christ, which necessarily precedes all tradition and the founding of the Church by the apostles. Also, tradition as it began is, I think, implicit in John’s many letters. Either way, i think tradition is inescapable. I think. I can guess that any church you’ve been to, if you have indeed been, has had its own traditions which developed out of things implicit, but necessarily explicit in scripture, and that the breaking of those traditions was severely looked down upon. It’s natural. There is a difference, though, between small congregations and the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church traces its legitimacy, its positions on Scripture, and its Tradition along a direct line to the Church Fathers, the men responsible, after Jesus’ death and ascension, for establishing the Church. Every priest traces his succession back to Peter. I don’t want to sound arrogant here so please try not to read the following as such. I can lay claim to your legitimacy as a Christian, but you cannot. What I mean by that is that without the Church, you have a tome with a rough idea that that tome was compiled roughly a little less the 2,000 years ago and that four of its books concern the events which we base our entire faith upon. History can teach us that what is described most likely occurred, or at least to some accuracy, with no reason to assume the miracles took place as they did. So everything you have faith in is merely based on faith. Not an unfaltering faith of knowing, but one which although it may come with great confidence, is like a blind faith that what you’re reading is true. Enter: Catholics. Without making a claim of superiority, we can at least argue that we can take it from tradition that every clergyman is a direct successor to the seat of Peter and therefore, we have that very faith of knowing because our understanding of Christian faith has been handed to us by Peter himself.

I do sincerely hope that makes sense to you. I’m not the greatest person to have these discussions with, but I hadn’t really seen anybody put it quite the way I would have.

I understand what you’re saying but how do you know that some things weren’t changed or added along the way? For example, the Bible seems to teach that the apostles baptized by full immersion (the word baptize means “to immerse”) in the name of Jesus (as recorded in the book of Acts). I was told the Catholic Church changed this apostolic teaching and now sprinkles in the name of the Trinity. How does an unbroken succession from the apostles prevent anyone from changing what the apostles taught especially if everyone is forced to agree with the Pope who is considered infallible?

 

[XianThinker]

MatthewMark -

Thank you for the reply. To answer your question, “How do you know” that Jesus established “a” church:

• scripture and Jesus own words say so … no plural to the word church
• the early church fathers wrote about the church…
• apostolic succession is traced directly back to St. Peter. Unbroken line of successors to St. Peter.
• there was only one church for 1,000 years, add the Orthodox and say 1,500 years
• (my opinion) common sense that our Lord is Truth and he would not set up a church, plural with 38,000 denominations, and growning, each believing differently on faith and morals, one believing in 7 sacraments, some believing in none, some believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, some believing it to be only symbolic and some believing neither, substituting instead a band on stage for the church celebration.

When did Jesus create the Catholic Church? Do you know what year it was founded?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

For example, the Bible seems to teach that the apostles baptized by full immersion (the word baptize means “to immerse”) in the name of Jesus (as recorded in the book of Acts). I was told the Catholic Church changed this apostolic teaching and now sprinkles in the name of the Trinity. How does an unbroken succession from the apostles prevent anyone from changing what the apostles taught especially if everyone is forced to agree with the Pope who is considered infallible?

Just FYI on immersion see:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3Dbapti%2Fzw

for various meanings of baptizo. Mk 7:4, Lk 11:38 and Act 16:33 are also interesting examples that don’t necessary lead one to the idea of immersion.

 

[MatthewMark]

MatthewMark -

Thank you for the reply. To answer your question, “How do you know” that Jesus established “a” church:

• scripture and Jesus own words say so … no plural to the word church
• the early church fathers wrote about the church…
• apostolic succession is traced directly back to St. Peter. Unbroken line of successors to St. Peter.
• there was only one church for 1,000 years, add the Orthodox and say 1,500 years
• (my opinion) common sense that our Lord is Truth and he would not set up a church, plural with 38,000 denominations, and growning, each believing differently on faith and morals, one believing in 7 sacraments, some believing in none, some believing in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, some believing it to be only symbolic and some believing neither, substituting instead a band on stage for the church celebration.

Back to scripture (and do look at scripturecatholic.com for many more references to the / a church). Matthew 18 is clear that church is singular. “Whatever you bind on earth” is singular. If it’s intended to be “plural” that raises a WHOLE LOT of problems. What church is authoritative then in understanding scripture and determining what a sin is? And what “you” has the ability to bind on earth that will be bound in heaven?

15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.* If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

We’re going to have to agree to disagree on this one, but I’ll leave you with something. This is my story. I was raised in the Baptist church. I was very shy, very introverted and I didn’t particularly care for the “evangelical” ways of the church. I listened and learned, but when I turned 18 I “dropped out” of church. I was raised by conservative, but loving parents. They protected me from worldly sins, but as I struck out on my own I began to sample earthly ways. I drifted from God. At one point, I was even convinced that God did not exist. Eventually I fell in love and married and we started a family. My ideas about God changed, but I was still indifferent. Gradually, the difficulties of life pushed me to seek God again, but I didn’t know where to look or find Him. I read the Bible I still had and I prayed, but I was still lost. Then I remembered a radio interview I’d heard with a man who claimed he had been an atheist, but was converted when he died and came back from beyond. I googled some key terms and quickly found him. I also discovered he had written a book, which I immediately began to search for. I found a single copy in a second-hand bookstore near my home. The man’s name is Howard Storm. He was an art professor and atheist. On a field trip to Paris with some students, he became seriously ill. He was taken to a Parisian hospital, but was not given immediate attention. As his wife sat beside his hospital bed, he became more ill and eventually knew he was dying. He expected to close his eyes to complete darkness, like a light going out. But that’s not what happened. He awakened and stood, looking down at his body and his wife. He heard voices from the hospital hallway calling to him, and thinking they were hospital personnel, walked to them.He couldn’t see them clearly, but he knew there were a number of them. They led him down the hallway, farther and farther as darkness slowly descended around them. When all light was gone, these creatures turned on him, attacked him, and ripped his flesh savagely. He tried to fight back, but couldn’t. They mocked him as they attacked. Finally, he collapsed in exhaustion and agony. As he lay there, a voice in his chest said “Pray to God.” He hesitated. The voice again said “Pray to God.” He began singing songs he’d learned in Bible school years before. The creatures around him became enraged. He recited the Pledge of Allegiance–“One nation under God!” The creatures became more agitated. Finally he cried out “Jesus, save me!” And instantly, a p(name removed by moderator)oint of light pierced the darkness and grew quickly. In moments, Jesus was there, picking him up, soothing him, holding him, healing his wounds.

At this point in the book, a light when on in my head. I suddenly knew it was all true. God revealed to me His truth. Jesus was real. Heaven was real. It was all true. I cried. I don’t know how or why I was suddenly given this insight, but I was stunned and filled with joy. It still makes me tingle with excitement. Further in the story, Howard says he talked to Jesus and was allowed to ask him questions. Howard asked everything he could think of. He asked Jesus, “What is the one true religion?” He expected Jesus to give him a specific religion, but Jesus replied “The religion that brings you closer to God.” This was monumental for me. I don’t know if Howard Storm made up his story, but I’ll tell you that he left his teaching position and studied theology, earning his Ph.D. Because he was an atheist, he researched many, many Christian religions before settling on the Church of Christ. He became an ordained minister. He helped run soup kitchens and food pantries. Today, he is the pastor of a church in a small town in Ohio. He has sought, and has received, no fame and fortune for his story. He lives to serve God.

Howard does not disparage any Christian religion. He studied the writings of many theologians, Catholic and Protestant. One of his favorites is Father Thomas Merton.

This is my story so far. I am on a journey to grow closer to God. I’m walking his path every day. I’m not always doing a good job, but I put my trust in Jesus because my life is in his hands. I don’t know where I’m going, but I trust Him. I don’t have to know. I’m just going to trust.

This forum has been very good for me. It’s a joy to connect to other Christians. I pray that God blesses you and keeps you. Take care!

 

[JonNC]

Very similar here. How do know if you understand his message in the bible…? But answer 771 first please…I try to ask one question at a time. An observation is that your bible is missing 7 books (most likely), removed by a printing company. So you can’t begin to know his complete message without the complete written Word.

Argh! I wrote out a complete response to this, but it didn’t save. (One more time!)

The 7 books you refer to were included in Luther’s Bible and called the Apocrypha, an appendix to the Old Testament. Luther called them a “useful and a good read” but not used to establish any doctrine. They were later deemed to be not “divinely inspired” and were eventually removed. It’s interesting that some Eastern Orthodox Bibles held several other books: 3 and 4 Esdras and 3 and 4 Maccabees, to name a few. I believe the Bibles we currently have–especially the New Testament–is sufficient for us to begin to know God.

Source, please, on the bolded, in regards to Luther and Lutheranism (since you referenced him). the Lutheran Confessions make no such statement about the Deuterocanon.

Jon

 

[stewstew03]

Because when you start believing things that appear nowhere in the Bible, you are relying on the word of man, not God. Man is inherently sinful. Man is not perfect…

Can you point out the part in the bible that shows us which list of books is inspired? The list would have been really helpful in the 4th century when the canonicity of some books were disputed. Do you believe any of these books are inspired, as some early Christians did:

• the Didache
• the Shepherd of Hermas
• the Apocalypse of Peter
• the Epistle of Barnabas
• the Gospel of Thomas

Why or why not?

:bible1:

 

[XianThinker]

1Cor4:6…explanation…courtesy of Eric Filmer…

If an examination of 1Corinthians 4:6 is done in the full context of the entire epistle then we see that it does not teach Sola Scriptura. I will now present some passages from 1Corinthians to be considered, and I will highlight the various “it is written…” statements in blue text to help one understand what Paul means in the broader context of this epistle. As a side note, I am using the RSV translation.

…

In light of all this, I believe that when Paul tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written”, he is simply reminding them to adhere to the warnings about prideful behavior that he expressed earlier with the “it is written…” preludes (i.e., 1Cor 1:19, 31; 3:19, 20). After all, when we examine the entire verse from 1Cor 4:6, right after he tells the reader “not to go beyond what is written” he says the reason why: “…that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against the other.” In other words, pride causes people to mistreat others (by favoring certain people over them), and this mistreatment results in divisions. Hence, we are to heed the warnings of the Old Testament against pride, treat people with the respect they deserve, and this will allow unity rather than disunity. Simply put, these various passages from 1Corinthians address the behavior of the Corinthians – Paul wants them to conduct in proper Christian behavior (the virtue of humility) in order to correct the dissension caused by their previous bad behavior (the sin of pride).

In light of all this, the context of 1Corinthians does not involve Paul teaching a general principle that people are not allowed to formulate doctrine outside of Scripture, and therefore he is not teaching Sola Scriptura. An attempt to read a Sola Scriptura statement into 1Corinthians 4:6 ignores the entire context of the rest of the epistle.

Thanks for posting. That explains it very well and I think he is right.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

scripture and Jesus own words say so … no plural to the word church

The Greek word for churches-plural (ekklesiai) appears 35 times in the New Testament.

• there was only one church for 1,000 years, add the Orthodox and say 1,500 years

There are many churches throughout the East that trace their lineage back to the Apostles. (Fr. Benedict Groeschel often refers to these as the “Ancient Chuches,” which I think is as good of a name for referring to these churches as any.) Their varying liturgies, hierarchies and even biblical canons is evidence of significant diversity, at least outside the bounds of basic agreement reached at Nicaea. I don’t see any way one could claim there was only one church for 1,000 years.

 

[stewstew03]

The Greek word for churches-plural (ekklesiai) appears 35 times in the New Testament.

There are many churches throughout the East that trace their lineage back to the Apostles. (Fr. Benedict Groeschel often refers to these as the “Ancient Chuches,” which I think is as good of a name for referring to these churches as any.) Their varying liturgies, hierarchies and even biblical canons is evidence of significant diversity, at least outside the bounds of basic agreement reached at Nicaea. I don’t see any way one could claim there was only one church for 1,000 years.

Sure - let’s not forget the First Baptist Church of… Rome?

 

[XianThinker]

Can you point out the part in the bible that shows us which list of books is inspired? The list would have been really helpful in the 4th century when the canonicity of some books were disputed. Do you believe any of these books are inspired, as some early Christians did:

• the Didache
• the Shepherd of Hermas
• the Apocalypse of Peter
• the Epistle of Barnabas
• the Gospel of Thomas

Why or why not?

:bible1:

I listened to a debate on sola scriptura. I think James White said the Holy Spirit revealed to him (and other believers) which books were inspired and which weren’t.

 

[XianThinker]

I’ve been thinking about the canon and how it was established. Since Luther had a problem with 7 books, I checked to see how Luther determined his canon.

I found something interesting:

"Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation 2 devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle."

"Martin Luther - Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522):

"About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely."

 

[XianThinker]

I want to thank everyone for their help. I’m now convinced the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura. I think it is okay to go outside the Bible and follow apostolic tradition so now I’m going to go read the ECFs to see whether Catholic Sacred Tradition is apostolic tradition as the Catholic Church claims or whether it is a tradition of man as Protestants claim.

 

[PRmerger]

I listened to a debate on sola scriptura. I think James White said the Holy Spirit revealed to him (and other believers) which books were inspired and which weren’t.

LOL!

The Holy Spirit went through each of the 27 books of the NT and the (66?) books of the OT specifically and spoke to Mr. White, indicating that they were inspired? Or did the HS also go through the other 400 or so other early Christian texts and give some sort of “nay” vote to Mr. White so he knew for sure that the Epistle of Barnabas was not inspired??

Really, how did that work?

 

[CopticChristian]

I want to thank everyone for their help. I’m now convinced the Bible doesn’t teach sola scriptura. I think it is okay to go outside the Bible and follow apostolic tradition so now I’m going to go read the ECFs to see whether Catholic Sacred Tradition is apostolic tradition as the Catholic Church claims or whether it is a tradition of man as Protestants claim.

Xian,

That is great when you finish come back and dialogue, by that time I will be a Forum Elder.

 

[joe370]

I don’t think any of Jesus’ teachings are unknowable. It is in other areas when interpretations may differ. For instance, Protestants believe Jesus had at least one brother, James. It’s not a matter of critical importance in Protestant churches. Catholics believe Jesus was an only child. Both have interpreted the early Biblical texts to support that Jesus either had siblings or did not. However, there is no sufficient evidence in the Bible to support either claim and we believe what we believe based on tradition. In all honesty, I think if we argue whether Jesus was or was not an only a child, we’re missing the point of his life and mission on earth.

Is Jesus’ teaching on the Eucharist knowable? If so then how? Some believe it to be the Eucharist to be a mere symbol, others believe it to be Jesus’ flesh and blood, but not a sacrifice, and the catholic church believes the Eucharist to be a sacrifice as well.

 

[Porknpie]

The Greek word for churches-plural (ekklesiai) appears 35 times in the New Testament.

There are many churches throughout the East that trace their lineage back to the Apostles. (Fr. Benedict Groeschel often refers to these as the “Ancient Chuches,” which I think is as good of a name for referring to these churches as any.) Their varying liturgies, hierarchies and even biblical canons is evidence of significant diversity, at least outside the bounds of basic agreement reached at Nicaea. I don’t see any way one could claim there was only one church for 1,000 years.

Hi Dave -

Was the word “church” in the scripture verses that I quoted plural in the greek?

Fr. Groeschel is excellent. Good for you to listen to him. I say this to all those reading this post, listen and watch Ft. Groeschel on EWTN on Sunday night. You can also listen to many podcasts available through ETWN’s audio library. Same goes with Fr. Mitch Pacwa. Listen to as many of his homily’s as possible, available on youtube plus there is much on the audio library. He’s one well educated Jesuit…as they all are (“nothing better than a Jesuit”).

I don’t mean to dismiss the ancient churches that Groeschel speaks to. They each have their own story but their roots are directly or indirectly Catholic. They were not protestors. For instance, nearly all of the them believe in praying for the dead and even though their liturgies were different, long distances in ancient times made communication difficult. I had an Indian Priest over to my house a few weeks ago, and we can thank St. Thomas for bringing the Catholic church to India. He has quite a following in that country as the other disciples do in other countries. Fr. Pacwa for example, is a Maronite, one of the other Eastern churches. Each have a fascinating story (IMHO).

maronitemonks.org/MaroniteCatholics.htm

 

[stewstew03]

Xian,

That is great when you finish come back and dialogue, by that time I will be a Forum Elder.

Nobody likes a show-off…