Roman Catholic response to "born again"?

[reen12]

quote: reen12

The difficulty started when the “workers in the vineyard”
‘assemblers’] claimed that they ‘owned’ the vineyard ! =
‘sole interpreter’ - ‘unerring’ in such capacity.]

quote: mercygate

reen, what you are really claiming is that the Scriptures have an existence independent of the Church. The Church, as you acknowledge, was the instrument of their production and the matrix of their meaning. Your hired-hand image of the Church discredits the Body of Christ. The Church is the Servant of the Word.

‘Workers in the vineyard’ is an image used by Christ Himself…Who told us to be servants of all.

And, in another context:

“The harvest is great, but the laborers are few.”

Matt. 9: 37
usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew9.htm

The Church was to be the “servant” of the Word, given to her.

And how “matrix of their meaning”?

The Scriptures were given to a group of Christians who then proceeded to give a ‘meaning’ that is not in Scripture…making the claim that these interpretations and Tradition were protected by the Holy Spirit.

Wonder what the eventually Christian Bereans would have made of papacy, sacraments, infallibility, indulgences, purgatory, dispensing graces, mediators…

Acts 17: 11
usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts17.htm

As to:
quote: mercygate

reen, what you are really claiming is that the Scriptures have an existence independent of the Church.

The Church is far broader than the CC.

In Christian Churches, all over the world, Scripture finds a
home - so that the scriptures do not have “an existence independent of the Church.”

This is the real point of disagreement, I think.
The Church, the Body of Christ, is far broader than the CC.

If one chooses to view the Scriptures as
infallibly interpreted by the CC, and accept that
all of Tradition is scripturally cogent - i.e., that
the magisterium has the protection of the Holy Spirit,
in stating doctrine that has no scriptural basis - I have no
difficulty with that. I just don’t agree with it.
[e.g. The Assumption]
This may or may not be the case, but to declare
same ‘dogma’ without a scriptual basis…

reen12

 

[mercygate]

reen12:

And how “matrix of their meaning”?

The NT Scriptures arose in the context of the worshiping, believing Church. Much of what they say makes sense against the background of what we know from outside Scripture was the actual practice of the first Christians. The continuity of the Catholic Church – on historic grounds alone, never mind the charismatic mandate – certainly does give it a privileged place in the interpretation of those documents.

The Church is far broader than the CC.

That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. But she stands and affirms the role that she has been given by Christ himself.

In Christian Churches, all over the world, Scripture finds a
home - so that the scriptures do not have “an existence independent of the Church.”

But they do not maintain their full significance outside the Church. Many Christian bodies actually reject six of books of the canon. Other Christian bodies read the book. But it is perfectly consistent for a Catholic to believe that only out of the heart of the Church to which they were entrusted by the Holy Spirit is their message sent forth with authority and authenticity.

 

[reen12]

quote: mercygate

But they do not maintain their full significance outside the Church. Many Christian bodies actually reject six of books of the canon. Other Christian bodies read the book. But it is perfectly consistent for a Catholic to believe that only out of the heart of the Church to which they were entrusted by the Holy Spirit is their message sent forth with authority and authenticity.

The key word, in the above, I think, is “believe.” I don’t have
a problem with individuals holding that belief.

As to:

Many Christian bodies actually reject six of books of the canon.

“actually reject” simply means: the judgement of the
CC, on the canon of scripture, in six cases, is rejected.

quote: mercygate

But it is perfectly consistent for a Catholic to believe that only out of the heart of the Church to which they were entrusted by the Holy Spirit is their message sent forth with authority and authenticity

This, as you say, is “perfectly consistent” for a Catholic
to believe.

quote: mercygate

But they do not maintain their full significance outside the Church.

Again, an assertion, based on what is held to be true, in your
denomination. As I say, I can respect that one would
hold the above, while disagreeing with same.

reen12

 

[mercygate]

“actually reject” simply means: the judgement of the CC, on the canon of scripture, in six cases, is rejected.

Since the canon was established by the Church and for the Church, then changing the canon is not a legitimate rejection. I say that although I perfectly sympathize with anyone who believes Bel and the Dragon to be at the very least “odd.”

Again, an assertion, based on what is held to be true, in your
denomination. As I say, I can respect that one would
hold the above, while disagreeing with same.

If you are not Catholic, nobody expects you to believe anything the Church teaches.

It must be emphatically asserted that the Catholic Church is, indeed a Church, and in no way shape or form can it be thought of as a “denomination,” as if it were one of a number of more or less equal confessional possibililties from which one might select the model most suited to his own taste. Good grief. If that’s all it were, I would still be a High Church Episcopalian!

 

[Sherlock]

MarkR:

I was once asked if I had a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” (implying that because Im Catholic I don’t). I replied “Yup, in fact I’m a member of the Church He started”. That’s when the fur began to fly Lol.

Now that’s a great reply. Thanks, Mark!

 

[Malachi4U]

I spent 26 years as a Protestant. I read the Bible and discovered it wasn’t Baptist or Lutheran or Episcopol or Methodist, etc… I found out Jesus founded the Catholic Church so now I’m a

BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC!

---

Im a prodigal son. I went away, drifted in Protestant meyhem. Now I found my way back to the visible body of Christ on earth, His Catholic Church! Praise God! I thank the Holy Spirit often for guiding me home and putting up with me while I thought I was just another Protestant Pope.

I went to the Tulsa State Fair a couple months ago and went to the Amazing Grace Ministry booth. It is booth of Baptists that are ‘saving’ souls and leading Catholics out of the Catholic Church and to Jesus. They even gave me anti-Catholic pamplets to help me excape! Anyway, during the conversation the ‘lady’ preacher asked me if I was Born Again. I replied, “Of course I am, I’m a Born Again Catholic!” You should have seen the look on her face!:whacky: She was stumped and just changed the topic.

 

[reen12]

quote: mercygate

It must be emphatically asserted that the Catholic Church is, indeed a Church, and in no way shape or form can it be thought of as a “denomination,” as if it were one of a number of more or less equal confessional possibililties from which one might select the model most suited to his own taste.

In the world at large- where those who are non-Catholics live and move and have their being, too, the CC is considered a denomination: hierarchy, organization, clearly defined set of religious beliefs.

As in: Several denominations were represented here, today: Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists…

Baptist Church, Roman Catholic Church, Methodist Church, Pentacostal Church, Church of Christ…each refers to itself as “Church,” yet each is viewed, by non-members, as a denomination.

quote: mercygate

It must be emphatically asserted that the Catholic Church is, indeed a Church, and in no way shape or form can it be thought of as a “denomination,”…

I agree with the term: “emphatically asserted” for that is what this is…an assertion, based on belief.

As to:
quote: mercygate

…and in no way shape or form can it be thought of as a “denomination,”…

Yet, you see, she not only can be thought of as a denomination…she is thought of, as such, by
those who do not share her beliefs.

If it were said:

The Catholic Church holds that it is not a denomination…I would happily assent - for that is what the CC, indeed, holds.

quote: mercygate

Since the canon was established by the Church and for the Church, then changing the canon is not a legitimate rejection.

“legitimate” expresses the belief that one group holds the sole office of “legitimizing.” I realize that the CC holds that she, alone, can establish an unchallenged canon - which, while interesting, is, again, an authority not ceded by most other Churches.

[And, of course, the Orthodox Church claims that she is the sole, truely catholic and orthodox Church.]

The CC will state: We were given the authority by Christ.

And, the rest of the Churches may well respond:

“And now we have indulgences, ‘treasury of grace,’ purgatory,
the Assumption as dogma, infallibility, sacraments that
‘dispense’ grace…”

While I respect the fact that others hold these to be
spiritual realities, I cordially decline.

reen12

 

[NotWorthy]

Reen? Do you honestly think there is no biblical basis for the Papacy? The Trinity? Indulgences? Sacraments? Mediators?

Are we reading the same bible?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

Hello, NotWorthy,

quote: NotWorthy

Reen? Do you honestly think there is no biblical basis for the Papacy? The Trinity? Indulgences? Sacraments? Mediators?

Are we reading the same bible?

With the exception of the Trinity…no, I see no
biblical basis for same.

As to:
“Are we reading the same bible?”

I believe that question was asked *of *Rome -
by the Reformers.

reen12

 

[NotWorthy]

reen12:

Hello, NotWorthy,

With the exception of the Trinity…no, I see no biblical basis for same.

As to:
“Are we reading the same bible?”

I believe that question was asked *of *Rome -
by the Reformers.

reen12

So there’s no biblical basis for the Sacrament of Baptism and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the Eucharist and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the power of men to forgive sins?

No correlation between the office established in Isaiah 22:21-22 and Matthew 16:19?

And so, I ask you again, are we reading the same bible?

Notworthy

 

[mercygate]

reen12:

quote: mercygate

In the world at large- where those who are non-Catholics live and move and have their being, too, the CC is considered a denomination: hierarchy, organization, clearly defined set of religious beliefs.

As in: Several denominations were represented here, today: Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists…

Baptist Church, Roman Catholic Church, Methodist Church, Pentacostal Church, Church of Christ…each refers to itself as “Church,” yet each is viewed, by non-members, as a denomination.

quote: mercygate

I agree with the term: “emphatically asserted” for that is what this is…an assertion, based on belief.

As to:
quote: mercygate

Yet, you see, she not only can be thought of as a denomination…she is thought of, as such, by
those who do not share her beliefs.

If it were said:

The Catholic Church holds that it is not a denomination…I would happily assent - for that is what the CC, indeed, holds.

quote: mercygate

“legitimate” expresses the belief that one group holds the sole office of “legitimizing.” I realize that the CC holds that she, alone, can establish an unchallenged canon - which, while interesting, is, again, an authority not ceded by most other Churches.

[And, of course, the Orthodox Church claims that she is the sole, truely catholic and orthodox Church.]

The CC will state: We were given the authority by Christ.

And, the rest of the Churches may well respond:

“And now we have indulgences, ‘treasury of grace,’ purgatory,
the Assumption as dogma, infallibility, sacraments that
‘dispense’ grace…”

While I respect the fact that others hold these to be
spiritual realities, I cordially decline.

reen12

reen, you are not Catholic and not held to any Catholic definition of Church or anything else. Nevertheless, the fact that people in the 21st Century in the USA have blurred the distinction between a “True Particular Church” and a denominational faction does not change that fact that the two are not the same thing. I respect your respectfulness of the “right” of Catholics to hold their own faith, as if it were something you accord to us out of the generosity of your own heart. That’s more than we get from most people outside the Church.

A separate-but-equal ecclesiology is, at best, a naive attempt to define Catholicism from without. The Catholic Church will stand where she has stood for 2000 years, patiently waiting for those who turn from her to enter her embrace, standing firm against those who batter her walls.

 

[estesbob]

NonDenom:

I cant believe that you said this. This is one of the most blaitent display’s of arrogance I have witnessed on this site. The scriptures are GOD’S love letter to HIS people and do not belong to some church. (Edited uncharitable and judgemental personal attack)

And his people are members of the Church he founded-the one, true Church. The Church that established the cannon of the Bible, the Church that nutured Christinaity for 2,000 years in spite of mere men distorting HIS teachings and rejecting the word of God some 500 years ago. We are the only Church who’s members can follow Our Lords instructions to eat his body and drink his blood. Our Church is led by the Vicar of Christ who can trace his lineage in an unborken line back to St Peter. This is not arrognance-this is Truth and Catholics should not be releuctant to state the truth and state it forcefully.

Of course, as our Church makes clear, salvation for our seperated bretheren is posssible (becuase of their invincible ignorance) BUT only through the Church whether they acknowledge it or not. The beliefs and practices of our Seperated Bretheren are mere shadow of the joy and blessings accrued by the members of HIS Church.

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

So there’s no biblical basis for the Sacrament of Baptism and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the Eucharist and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the Sacrament of Anointing of the Sick and the Graces that it provides?

No biblical basis for the power of men to forgive sins?

No correlation between the office established in Isaiah 22:21-22 and Matthew 16:19?

And so, I ask you again, are we reading the same bible?

Notworthy

“And so, I ask you again, are we reading the same bible?”

is simply a variation of the perrenial question that given

Catholics tend to ask - of those who do not find the following

in scripture:

indulgences, ‘treasury of grace,’ purgatory,
the Assumption as dogma, infallibility, sacraments that
‘dispense’ grace…"
[please refer to the questions that you [/color]posed, in the quote, highlighted above]

quote:NotWorthy

So there’s no biblical basis for the Sacrament of Baptism and the Graces that it provides?

There is no biblical basis for the ‘constructs’

“sacrament” and “dispenses grace” = "…the Graces

that it provides."

or for:

indulgences, ‘treasury of grace,’ purgatory,
the Assumption as dogma, infallibility…

There are a billion people who accept that there* is a basis…via* Petrine authority and the Magisterium, and who hold that the CC enjoys the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit - in
terms of the Petrine office and magisterial teaching. [infallibility]

sola fides sola gratia sola scriptura

thread after thread…many…carry the debate over

the *solas vs. *Petrine authority, Scripture, Tradition…

Scriptural quotes are exchanged - often, I find, at a

dizzying pace. Papal writings, Trent, Church Fathers, and

Scripture are cited…and those who hold to

*sola scriptura *reply: read the scriptures.

---

As I said, above:

quote: reen12

“And so, I ask you again, are we reading the same bible?”

is simply a variation of the perrenial question that given

Catholics tend to ask - of those who do not find the following

in scripture:

indulgences, ‘treasury of grace,’ purgatory,

the Assumption as dogma, infallibility,

sacraments that

‘dispense’ grace…"

The bases for all of these is said to be found ‘indirectly.’

Or, “Tradition tells us…” and off we go, debating the

validity of Tradition. The CC does not stand on

scripture alone…when other Christians inquire over

indulgences, treasury of grace.

Well, in a sense, that’s where the debate begins and

ends. Once hold infallibility - and an argument can

be constructed to address any question posed - by

those who say: “Huh”?

The numbers of people who are saying same is apparently

growing. I watch this with increasing interest.

Best to you, NotWorthy,

Maureen

 

[NotWorthy]

Maureen, as always, my best to you.

Baptism? Old Testament References?*"For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and I will bring you into your own land. And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And I will put My Spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My Commandments, and to keep My judgments and to do them." Ezek 36:24-27
Sounds like the graces from the future baptism were prophesied.

New Testament?"But Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be Baptized *every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’." Acts 2:38

**Notworthy

Should I continue?

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

A separate-but-equal ecclesiology is, at best, a naive attempt to define Catholicism from without.

“separate but equal ecclesiology” is, again, a form
of the assertion: “The CC is the sole, true Church.”

“separate but equal ecclesiology” additionally asserts a
definition of “Church”, held by the CC.

That both assertions are held to be true is, again,
interesting, but certainly not acknowleded by those
who do not share these faith-based beliefs.

Best,

reen

 

[NotWorthy]

reen12:

quote: NotWorthy

“separate but equal ecclesiology” is, again, a form
of the assertion: “The CC is the sole, true Church.”

“separate but equal ecclesiology” additionally asserts a
definition of “Church”, held by the CC.

Excuse me, but when did I say that? I have enough trouble backing up what I said, now I have to go look up separate-but-equal-ecclesiology just to see what it means?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

Should I continue?

Providing a scriptural basis for the CC sacramental system?

Sure, if you like.

There may be a person, following this thread,

who would like to know the scriptures that the

sacramental system is based on.

For myself, I’d like to know which Church writings

advanced the concept of a sacrament that dispenses

grace.

Thanks,

reen

 

[NotWorthy]

NotWorthy:

Maureen, as always, my best to you.

Baptism? Old Testament References?"For I will take you from among the Gentiles, and will gather you together out of all the countries, and I will bring you into your own land. And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh. And I will put My Spirit in the midst of you, and I will cause you to walk in My Commandments, and to keep My judgments and to do them." Ezek 36:24-27
Sounds like the graces from the future baptism were prophesied.***

New Testament?"But Peter said to them, ‘Repent and be Baptized ***every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’." Acts 2:38

I’m sorry, I was trying to prove that these Sacraments bestow Graces (hence, the underlines).

Isn’t that what you were questioning?

Notworthy

 

[reen12]

quote: NotWorthy

I’m sorry, I was trying to prove that these Sacraments bestow Graces (hence, the underlines).

Isn’t that what you were questioning?

Notworthy

I’m sorry, if I was not clear.

If I take the definition of a sacrament to be:

“An outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give grace”

then what I am questioning is the theological construct

‘sacrament’ - as well as Catholic theology concerning

‘grace.’

If you read non-Catholic Christian theology, the
concept of grace itself is seen much differently.
*

Got to go make lunch. [It’s approaching 2PM on the East Coast]

reen*

 

[Adonia]

awalt:

Actually, this article has another good explanation, and I liked the last paragraph so much I borrowed parts for my sig:

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I *will be *saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

Bravo! Nicely said.