Questions about the Catholic Faith from a Protestant

[Orionthehunter]

jpete79:

I have been told many things by many people. I have been told that binding and loosing means that Priests are able to absolve sins because that was a commandment given to Peter.

Yet, in Matthew 18; Christ is not only talking to Peter but to the rest of his disciples as well. In this context he is also talking about when a person sins directly against US as people. Also, Christ is making Peter the next step for the foundation of the Church, however; he is speaking to ALL the disciples when he says they have the power to bind and loose…he’s talking about freedom from sin through Salvation and the truth within them not about the absolvation of sins as only God can do that.

What I do find amusing though is everyone’s little glibs…

arms are too short to box with God
and
Protons have mass

Then I take it that you confess your sins to another person?

Can I ask a personal question? Is this person a single spiritual director, your spouse, a trusted friend, or do you take each of your sins to the person who you sinned against? If that latter is the case, who do you confess your sins to when the sins don’t have a direct wronged person (ie if you drove wrecklessly to the point you put others in danger) or don’t know how to recontact the person against who you sinned (ie went to a whorehouse or stole an item left on a chair in the airport)?

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79:

I agree with Baptism but not infant…I agree that sins need to be confessed but not to a Priest, etc

…I feel as if this is a dead horse issue and I have to head off now anyways, so have a great night everyone and God Bless you all.

jpete79.

You have many questions, and I really recommend you try to treat each one individually. For example, you could start a new thread asking “why do Catholic’s baptize babies?”. There are many threads on that subject, but you are welcome to open a new one to deal with your specific objections.

It is difficult to properly handle each one of the many topics in this thread because each one requires careful consideration. For example, regarding baptism of babies. The objection to infant baptism only exists (in my opinion) when a person does not understand what actually occurs at baptism. We need to define what actually happens at baptism, which in turn requires a proper understanding of Original Sin. If you undestood Baptism as it is understood in Catholicism, I am convinced you would say “of course infant baptism is necessary and appropriate.” (if you doubt me, try me…ask the question in a new thread specifically dealing with that topic).

For now I suspect you are coming at it from the concept of baptism as a kind of right of initiation, a turning point of sorts that involves turning one’s will toward God, a conscious decision which of course would require a person reach the age of reason. But I would argue that such a view is a misunderstanding of what Baptism acutally is. It is not that your logic is flawed, but that perhaps you do not understand what Baptism actually is.

I (and many others here) would be pleased to offer you a thorough explanation of our belief, but it really needs to occur in a more orderly fashion. As it stands, this thread has become a series of assertions and accusations and brief, perhaps inadequate, rebuttals (not just by you I might add), few of which have the potential of resulting in you understanding what it is you are objecting to. Already we’ve seen the Bible canon, tradition, baptism, confession, the eucharist, the priesthood, the authority of scripture, the role of the Bible in Catholicism, the Mystical Body of Christ, justification, and other topics attempting to be discussed all at once.

Please take no offense to this post, I mean none by it. I’m merely suggesting again that you deal with these objections one at a time in individual threads.

Peace,
Chris W

BTW, if you start a new thread, please let me know the title here, so I can join you there.

 

[jpete79]

Chris,

I am not taking offense. I’m curious as to more than anything where Catholicism gets its base of knowledge…is it from the Catechism which everyone is telling me to read or from the Bible.

I have heard people tell me that there should be one consistent Church that is the perfect Church. That is true and will one day come to pass. I have also heard people ask how can I stay protestant when there are various denominations with various viewpoints. I can simply say because in the 2000 years since the Bible was written…MAN is translating it and there is no man that is perfect. Paul says that the charismatic gifts such as prophesy, knowledge, tongues, etc will come to pass when all is made complete (and if its directly translated its conclusive that he’s talking about the Canon of the Bible). This means that no new knowledge can come to us divinely. I feel the Catholic Church has put it on themselves to say they have divine knowledge that is not directly from the Bible.

I can say with 100% assurity that I know Jesus Christ as my Savior, my Redeemer, the Author and Perfector of my Faith, the Rock, the High Priest of the Church, my mediator and arbitrator in Heaven, and through Him I can say that I am 100% certain that he speaks to God on my behalf. I can say that I live my life for the purpose of seeing God glorified in myself and in others and I can say that I will spend eternity with God and Jesus in Heaven when I leave this earthly body and on the New Earth when the body is resurrected.

The Bible has been deemed to be authoritative and divinely inspired. It is a source of light direct from God that any person can look to.

In the meantime I got onto another tangent but while I am still here, please let me here about this idea of infant baptism and why you are saying I don’t fully comprehend it. We’ll start with that first and work our way through.

Thanks,
Jim

 

[jpete79]

Orionthehunter:

Then I take it that you confess your sins to another person?

Can I ask a personal question? Is this person a single spiritual director, your spouse, a trusted friend, or do you take each of your sins to the person who you sinned against? If that latter is the case, who do you confess your sins to when the sins don’t have a direct wronged person (ie if you drove wrecklessly to the point you put others in danger) or don’t know how to recontact the person against who you sinned (ie went to a whorehouse or stole an item left on a chair in the airport)?

This means that if someone sins directly against me, I am to forgive them. Forgiveness is the point of the passage not confession of sins. Its directed to say that I should forgive anyone who sins against me.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Jim:

Just wanted to say WELCOME!!!

You have legitimate questions indeed. You will find that the Catechism and the Bible are beautifully symphonic to each other. I do want to point a few things out after reading the thread. One, keep in mind that the theology of the CC is a cohesive whole in the sense that the whole thing builds on each other, there are no teachings straying on its own without affecting other teachings. Two, we must be able to properly appropriate things in their proper order: dogma, doctrine, history, practice and the human element to continue having productive dialog. Lastly, in a spirit of charity all of us who profess faith in Christ must work towards the prayer of Christ himself ‘that they be one.’ I think you’ve already taken the first step in your case to fulfill this.

in XT.

 

[patrick456]

I’m not an apologist,so this is the best i can do :
John 3:8
“The wind blows where it will.
You hear the sound it makes
but you do not know where it comes from,
or where it goes.
So is everyone begotten of the Spirit.”
i quote from a book i have(The Roman catholic faith and the Bible by Rev. Fr. Gerardo Tapiador)
:"Here, Jesus makes it clear that the work of the Spirit is far greater than our own limited human awareness, so that the one who is baptized in spite of his being an infant does not have to be aware of the work of the Spirit in his life. The roman Catholic Church, thereby does not limit the grace of baptism only to those who can already be aware of what is happening to them but rather extends it to all, whether infant or adult. In this sense, the church fulfills the mission entrusted to her by Christ:“Go therefore, and make disciples of ALL THE NATIONS. Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Teach them to carry out everything i have commanded you. And know that i am with you always,until the end of the world.(Matt 28:19-20)”

hope i helped…

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79:

Chris,

I am not taking offense. I’m curious as to more than anything where Catholicism gets its base of knowledge…is it from the Catechism which everyone is telling me to read or from the Bible.

Great question. I think too much of the time there is a stumbling block in looking at Catholicism because there is an assumption (and some times a legitimate concern) that what Catholics believe is merely because “the Church said so”.

While it is true that I do accept what the Church teaches as authoritative, that is not the exclusive basis for Catholic belief. There is very little, if anything, that we cannot defend, explain, and demonstrate via the very same means you use to develop your beliefs (the Bible).

For now, I do not think you need to even consider the authority of the Church. For now it is a non-issue because we can stick to the words of the Bible and with an in depth discussion, decide together what is most reasonable to believe. With this approach, and adequate time given to each specific topic, I believe you will come to see (though it may cause a reaction of “What? This can’t be!” ) the beautiful harmony between the Catholic faith and the Bible we all hold so dear (as AquinasXVI mentioned).

Peace,
Chris W

 

[rbrooks]

jpete79:

I’ll agree that this has an anti-Catholic ring to it and I didn’t want to come back accusatory and apologize if I did.

As far as beliefs on Churches, like I said before; the true Church of Christ are the believers of Him. Whether Catholic or Baptist or Reformed, etc. Belief being something that is whole-hearted and true and proven through the life-styles and actions of a person and that is what is a prerequisite for Salvation, BELIEVING Christ. Living for Him and being a modern-day apostle.

Hi and welcome, I have a few questions myself.
Where is that said in Scripture??? In fact, where is it the bible that the bible is the innerent infaallible, Word of God. John 1:1 for what I can tell says Jesus is the word. and Paul tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. What came first, the bible or the church??

We are told to love God and to follow Him in the Gospels. Scripture tells us to analyze anything that is said with SCRIPTURE.

Could you let me know where that is please??

Again in the Bible I don’t see infant Baptism but older people who knowingly choose that they want in on God’s family.

Luke 18:15 – Jesus says, “Let the children come to me.” The people brought infants to Jesus that he might touch them. This demonstrates that the receipt of grace is not dependent upon the age of reason.

Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized the entire house of Cornelius, which generally included infants and young children. There is not one word in Scripture about baptism being limited to adults.

Acts 16:15 - Paul baptized Lydia and her entire household. The word “household” comes from the Greek word “oikos” which is a household that includes infants and children. Acts 16:15 - further, Paul baptizes the household based on Lydia’s faith, not the faith of the members of the household. This demonstrates that parents can present their children for baptism based on the parents’ faith, not the children’s faith.

When someone asked Simon (the first Pope) if they could purchase the Holy Spirit, Simon turned them away and said repent your sins to God for forgiveness; he did NOT take it upon himself to absolve the sins of that person. 1 John talks about how confession is made and Christ absolves us of sin…

Try this: scripturecatholic.com/confession.html#confession

I didn’t get into transubstantiation before but to think that we are actually eating and drinking the Saviors body and blood is grotesque and against the Law in which God gave Moses.

scripturecatholic.com/the_eucharist.html

Whether you have ties that go directly to Paul is meaningless to me as I don’t need 2000 years of man’s traditions to know Christ. All I have I need in Scripture and Word. I am told that I have been redeemed by BELIEVING IN GOD and knowing the true only way to Him is through Christ Jesus. I don’t need 2000 years of a Church saying that I don’t have access to God as the Bible says.

Christ was against tradition not for it…

scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html again I’ll just make this simple.

I am actually going to drop out of this discussion now, as I came here for answers and to seek out truth more indepthly…not to argue and debate points harshly which is what has happened and for that I apologize.

Sir, really??? If you were truely seeking the truth open mindedly, you would not have made such an effort to argue. Jack Chicks web site??? PLEASE!!! You can definately do better than that.

However, it is said in the Bible that Scripture is truth and there are stern warnings about tradition and about adding to the truth.

Please, again tell me where it is that the bible says this??

I feel that many traditions in the Catholic Church are unfounded by Scripture and are adding rules which is something I don’t agree with.

You finished with the exact reason there are how ever many denominations of christianity in the US that there are. YOU don’t agree. As Paul says, “There is one spirit, one body, one God and Father of all.” If this is so, why are so many people dissagreeing about what the bible says? Where are they going to go to settle the argument?? The Church gave us the bible, not the other way around. I think the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15), and is the only authority to settle these issues.

God bless you!

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79

I just have two things to say:

(1)The first Christians had a ‘catechism.’ It was called the Didache and was probably written before John’s biblical writings.

(2)Christ didn’t condemn all tradition, only corrupt tradition. In fact, you yourself believe in tradition if you believe in the Trinity (which is not explicit in the Bible - Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t accept this doctrine and they use the Bible too, in fact the Mormons use your beloved KJV), if you go to church on Sunday (not biblically explicit either - that’s why the SDA’s object to this), or if you accept the Bible as the Word of God. When it comes to the Bible, you can’t get past the “table of contents” without Tradition. By the way, somewhere above, you mentioned that you don’t need 2000 years of Tradition. I think 2000 years of Tradition is better than only 1600 years of Tradition (the Bible) plus 500 years of Protestant man-made traditions* (notice the lowercase “t”). But then again, that’s only my opinion.

God bless.

Sincerely,
Jon

*Bible-alone is not only a corrupt tradition of men, but is actually unscriptural. Nowhere does the Bible say that it should be the sole authority. How ironic!

*Faith-alone: only needing a “personal relationship with Christ,” “accepting Jesus into your heart as personal Lord and Savior,” being “born again” (in the Protestant sense), and “The Sinner’s Prayer” are all unbiblical traditions. Plus, the only place you find the phrase “faith alone” in the Bible is in James 2:24.

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

jpete79

I just have two things to say:

(1)The first Christians had a ‘catechism.’ It was called the Didache and was probably written before John’s biblical writings.

(2)Christ didn’t condemn all tradition, only corrupt tradition. In fact, you yourself believe in tradition if you believe in the Trinity (which is not explicit in the Bible - Mormon’s and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t accept this doctrine and they use the Bible too, in fact the Mormons use your beloved KJV), if you go to church on Sunday (not biblically explicit either - that’s why the SDA’s object to this), or if you accept the Bible as the Word of God. When it comes to the Bible, you can’t get past the “table of contents” without Tradition. By the way, somewhere above, you mentioned that you don’t need 2000 years of Tradition. I think 2000 years of Tradition is better than only 1600 years of Tradition (the Bible) plus 500 years of Protestant man-made tradition (notice the lowercase “t”). But then again, that’s only my opinion.

God bless.

Sincerely,
Jon

Jon:

Thank you for an informative response which was not malicious or offensive to me.

I agree that the Sabboth does not have to be Sunday…I have no problem going to a Church Service any day of the week. As far as the Trinity goes, that is too much information to put here and I’ve already started enough debate as is.

What I really want to know is why do we need the Catechism today? In Biblical times it was essential for people to use word of mouth for teaching as the literacy rate was extremely low. Therefore the apostles would go into communities to live Christ-like lives. Today however, the Bible has been translated (and can be found in original form if it is to be translated by oneself). Why is there a need for an organizational body to translate it for you in another document. Why can’t the Bible stand on its own two feet without the Catechism.

I’ve heard lines from Luke used to defend infant baptism and yet not once is the Greek word for baptize used in that passage. When I hear that the disciples baptized households (I believe there were 3); there is no explicit evidence that any children were present. To me that sounds like adding words.

When Christ tells people to bind and loose in Matthew 18, he is talking about if a brother is offensive to you. He is saying that we have to forgive sins as we were forgiven. He is talking about offenses to us…not to God, yet that was taken out of Scripture for me to hear that Priests have the power to bind and to loose.

I have been told the Catechism and the Bible are in direct symphony

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entruste d to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.” (Pg. 27, #85)

The Bible says that it is not to be used for private interpretation

“… no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21

Sasying the teaching office of the Church alone sounds like a private interpretation and there are various other cases where the Bible and the Catechism disagree because things are being added (like children being baptized) and taken away (like the statements about one being offended).

Thanks for the non-malicious remarks again and I appreciate the time to talk to me.

Sincerely,
Jim

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

 

[JSmitty2005]

Jim, somewhere in this thread I remember you asking why we believe that membership in the Catholic is important for salvation. I’ve been asked this question before. If you’re interested in my response, you can find it here:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27422461&blogID=65277014&Mytoken=27027D52-2FB1-493F-AB1C15AC5420D9741280029234

Maybe that will help. Take care. And feel free to PM me if you’re getting offended by the others.

-Jon

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

Jim, somewhere in this thread I remember you asking why we believe that membership in the Catholic is important for salvation. I’ve been asked this question before. If you’re interested in my response, you can find it here:

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=27422461&blogID=65277014&Mytoken=27027D52-2FB1-493F-AB1C15AC5420D9741280029234

Maybe that will help. Take care. And feel free to PM me if you’re getting offended by the others.

-Jon

Jon:

Thanks for the link. I admit that Christ wanted a visual Church in which Peter was considered a founder (I will not use the term rock as Christ is the true rock and High-Priest of the Church).

Also when using the words from Timothy, they should be used in context.
14Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He[c] appeared in a body,[d]
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

God’s household? What does His household mean? Well, God calls all of us who receive Christ sons and daughters and part of His family. So the Church in this sense is ANYONE who has come to Christ.

So what is the Church that Peter is the foundation of, its the Church that holds to the teachings of Christ. Where can we find these teachings…IN SCRIPTURE as it is considered divinely inspired.

As far as the term tradition itself goes, translated from Greek the word means teach. So when we hear about tradition it means what was taught. Where do we see what was taught was directly from the Bible.

Christ alone stands as my cornerstone and as my authority and the Scriptures are His words and show how to live a life worthy of Him.

Here are two links on the authority of Scripture alone being needed

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-bible.html

PS-In no way shape or form am I saying that you are not a brother in Christ. I truly believe seeing your writings and your attitude that you have a heart for Him in you. You believe in Christ as do I so I have no problem saying this to you or most others on this board.

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79:

What I really want to know is why do we need the Catechism today?..Why is there a need for an organizational body to translate it for you in another document. Why can’t the Bible stand on its own two feet without the Catechism.

I have read the Bible from cover to cover, Jim. I have contemplated and studied the things contained in the Bible. I presume you have done the same, right? Okay.

Are you and I of the same belief?..regarding the sacraments, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, and on and on.

We do not agree. Yet we have both read the Bible and prayed and studied, asking for guidance of the same Holy Spirit. How can this be?

That is the answer to your question. We need a Cathecism not instead of the Bible, but so that we can understand the Bible…so each and every person doesn’t have to recreate the wheel, so to speak, by discovering anew all the historical, metaphorical, allegorical intircacies of the Word of God.

Can you offer an alternative that you and I (both Christian men of good will) can use to come to agreement?

jpete79:

The Bible says that it is not to be used for private interpretation

“… no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” 2 Peter 1:21

Sasying the teaching office of the Church alone sounds like a private interpretation and there are various other cases where the Bible and the Catechism disagree because things are being added (like children being baptized) and taken away (like the statements about one being offended).

I’m confused. Are you arguing for or against private interpretation? It sounds like you’re arguing against it, but isn’t that what you yourself do?

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

I admit that Christ wanted a visual Church in which Peter was considered a founder (I will not use the term rock as Christ is the true rock and High-Priest of the Church).

Why don’t you consider Peter the rock when Christ Himself called him that? Actually, He not only called him that, He named him that.

 

[jpete79]

Chris W:

I have read the Bible from cover to cover, Jim. I have contemplated and studied the things contained in the Bible. I presume you have done the same, right? Okay.

Are you and I of the same belief?..regarding the sacraments, the Church, the forgiveness of sins, and on and on.

We do not agree. Yet we have both read the Bible and prayed and studied, asking for guidance of the same Holy Spirit. How can this be?

That is the answer to your question. We need a Cathecism not instead of the Bible, but so that we can understand the Bible…so each and every person doesn’t have to recreate the wheel, so to speak, by discovering anew all the historical, metaphorical, allegorical intircacies of the Word of God.

Can you offer an alternative that you and I (both Christian men of good will) can use to come to agreement?

I’m confused. Are you arguing for or against private interpretation? It sounds like you’re arguing against it, but isn’t that what you yourself do?

Chris:

I have read and studied the Bible cover to cover (although I have not studied any of the books not in the modern day Bible).

You (and I’ve said this to another poster named Jon) are a good-willed Christian and I agree with that. Your tone and attitude show that to me which makes you a Brother in Christ.

The reason we are at a disagreement with the Sacraments, the Church, the Forgiveness of sins is for one reason. I use the Bible as my authority and you rely on someone else (the Catholic Church) for yours. It is put plainly in Scripture for all to read so why not interpret for yourself? With a completely objective attitude towards God and without the Catechism by your side, read it and then make an opinion on it.

As far as private interpretation, I am sorry I was misunderstood. When the verses talk about private interpretation they are talking about making sure that we don’t interpret Scripture without the presence of the Holy Spirit among us. The Spirit is given to each person who believes in Christ as a gift. So, why does the Catholic Church decide what the doctrine is when it is in plain view of you?

Again, I am not saying you are not Christian because you obviously have a desire to love God and love Christ but the Church talked about in Timothy is one of a body of believers. All who are under God’s household…that means all family of God, which is every man, woman and child who believes in Him.

The Church should tell you how to believe because it is your belief in Christ that makes you part of the Church. Logically, if we are called sons and daughters of God, then we ar of God’s household which is the Church talked about in Timothy. The Spirit has been given upon you so that you can read the Scripture for yourself and decide what it means for yourself (this is not easy as there are many confusing verses but the Bible needs nothing else to affirm it as it affirms itself).

Anyways, again; I was born and raised in a Catholic Church. I left before I was old enough to really understand its doctrine; however, I was confirmed. As years went by, I decided to learn a little more about it, somehow that led me here.

The Church need not bring us to Christ as it is Christ who brings us into the Church.

God Bless.

 

[jpete79]

JSmitty2005:

Why don’t you consider Peter the rock when Christ Himself called him that? Actually, He not only called him that, He named him that.

Because of translation. The Greek word for rock that Christ uses is of a similar meaning but not the same meaning of the word rock when Christ is talking about the wise and foolish builder. This is because Peter may be a founder of the Church but Christ is still the head of the Church.

 

[mattrue]

Christ IS head and the centerpiece of the Catholic Church.

 

[Chris_W]

jpete79:

The reason we are at a disagreement with the Sacraments, the Church, the Forgiveness of sins is for one reason. I use the Bible as my authority and you rely on someone else (the Catholic Church) for yours. It is put plainly in Scripture for all to read so why not interpret for yourself? With a completely objective attitude towards God and without the Catechism by your side, read it and then make an opinion on it.

Oh. I see what you’re getting at now. Okay. You’re idea is that I cannot read the scriptures without the bias of instruction I have received, essentially. A fair enough objection.

Consider this: I have been at odds with Catholicism on issues in the past, albeit unwittingly. For example regarding Original Sin. I did not believe the same as the Church teaches on this matter. Same goes for the infallibily of the Church.

When the issue came up, I compared my understanding with the Church understanding. In every single instance, the Church had an expanation I simply could not find fault in…once I looked into the explanation. Whereas, on the surface, what I understood to be the Church’s position was contrary to what I understood from my reading.

Does that make sense? I don’t read the Scriptures with an attitude of “this is how I must interepret this”. Rather it is with an attitude of “hmmm…this is how I would interpret it…but the Church seems to teach such and such…I’ll investigate why the Church teaches such a thing.”

I can tell you I have never been disappointed, Jim.

Understanding the Catholic faith in the beginning is like looking at one of those posters from the '80’s where you just see thousands of dots. As you look at it correctly though, an basic shape emerges, and then an object…and then another…and then another, in more and more clarity, until you realize you are looking at a whole intricate picture in 3D…and you can’t help but smile that now you see what before was hidden. And then you can’t wait to encourage someone else to look at the poster.

 

[jpete79]

Chris W:

Oh. I see what you’re getting at now. Okay. You’re idea is that I cannot read the scriptures without the bias of instruction I have received, essentially. A fair enough objection.

Consider this: I have been at odds with Catholicism on issues in the past, albeit unwittingly. For example regarding Original Sin. I did not believe the same as the Church teaches on this matter. Same goes for the infallibily of the Church.

When the issue came up, I compared my understanding with the Church understanding. In every single instance, the Church had an expanation I simply could not find fault in…once I looked into the explanation. Whereas, on the surface, what I understood to be the Church’s position was contrary to what I understood from my reading.

Does that make sense? I don’t read the Scriptures with an attitude of “this is how I must interepret this”. Rather it is with an attitude of “hmmm…this is how I would interpret it…but the Church seems to teach such and such…I’ll investigate why the Church teaches such a thing.”

I can tell you I have never been disappointed, Jim.

Understanding the Catholic faith in the beginning is like looking at one of those posters from the '80’s where you just see thousands of dots. As you look at it correctly though, an basic shape emerges, and then an object…and then another…and then another, in more and more clarity, until you realize you are looking at a whole intricate picture in 3D…and you can’t help but smile that now you see what before was hidden. And then you can’t wait to encourage someone else to look at the poster.

I hated those posters

Anyways, I admire that you are a searcher and are seeking truth which is great.

I am wondering though, have you only looked at the Church’s standpoints when in dispute or have you looked at other literature as well? I’m not endorsing it as if you are satisfied in your relationship with God that is what matters (notice I said with God and not with the Church) but I would suggest reading all pieces of literature (not everything will be good literature though, I can tell you I’ve read a lot of crud myself but that’s the great thing about the Spirit).

Well have a good one and sorry if I offended you in any way during this discussion.

 

[JSmitty2005]

jpete79:

The reason we are at a disagreement with the Sacraments, the Church, the Forgiveness of sins is for one reason. I use the Bible as my authority and you rely on someone else (the Catholic Church) for yours. It is put plainly in Scripture for all to read so why not interpret for yourself? With a completely objective attitude towards God and without the Catechism by your side, read it and then make an opinion on it.

As Catholics, we do use the Bible as our authority. However, it is not our only authority. Like you pointed out, we also have the Church’s Magisterium and Sacred Tradition (like a 3-legged stool). I myself do read Sacred Scripture without the Catechism by my side. In fact, Scripture is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic. However, I would warn you that: Jesus is “not concerned with anyone’s opinion.” He gave us the Church to whom He promised to send the Holy Spirit which would guide her into all truth as well as His promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. That is why we listen to the Church - because Jesus has promised to protect her from error. You can’t really raise Scripture up above the other 2 authorities because the very authority of Scripture depends on them. The canon was determined by the bishops of the Catholic Church using Sacred Tradition. Finally, the pope had to “okay” it.

jpete79:

As far as private interpretation, I am sorry I was misunderstood. When the verses talk about private interpretation they are talking about making sure that we don’t interpret Scripture without the presence of the Holy Spirit among us. The Spirit is given to each person who believes in Christ as a gift. So, why does the Catholic Church decide what the doctrine is when it is in plain view of you?

As the successors of the Apostles, the bishops of the Catholic Church, with the successor of St. Peter (the pope) at its head, were given the authority by Christ to decide on these issues. You say that the Spirit is given to those who believe in Christ. You also rightly pointed out that both you and I believe in Christ. Therefore we must both be guided by the Holy Spirit when interpreting Sacred Scripture (using your logic). However, both of us have come to different conclusions. There are 3 possible explanations for this: either you are right and I am wrong, I am right and you are wrong, or we’re both wrong. The only option that is not possible is for us both to be right. This can’t be true if we hold differing opinions. Now, God is not the author of confusion, so I don’t think that we are being guided by the Holy Spirit in our interpretations or we would be in agreement.

jpete79:

The Spirit has been given upon you so that you can read the Scripture for yourself and decide what it means for yourself (this is not easy as there are many confusing verses but the Bible needs nothing else to affirm it as it affirms itself).

Where does the Bible say this?

jpete79:

Anyways, again; I was born and raised in a Catholic Church. I left before I was old enough to really understand its doctrine; however, I was confirmed. As years went by, I decided to learn a little more about it, somehow that led me here.

It is nice to see a former Catholic inquiring with an open mind about the Church. Too many leave the Church and become very anti-Catholic. It’s nice to see that that didn’t happen with you.

jpete79:

The Church need not bring us to Christ as it is Christ who brings us into the Church.

I tend to agree with you on this, at least on the second part. Jesus brought me to the Catholic Church. I am a Catholic because of my fidelity to Christ. However, I do believe that the Church can also bring us closer to Christ, after all, that’s why He established it.

You sound like you sincerely seek unity amongst Christians. There is a lecture by Peter Kreeft that I found on the internet. Here it is:

Click here. (it may take a while to load, it’s an mp3 and it’s an hour long)

I look forward to hear what you think about what he has to say. Talk to you later.

-Jon

PS - You said this earlier:

“For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Revelation 22:18-19

I would just like to clarify that “this book” does not mean the Bible. John is referring to Revelation. He never saw a Bible.