The Catholic Church and Scripture...Please discuss

[ralphinal]

Yes, I would.
Jon

Would I be going too far as to say that instead of the “three legged stool” that the Catholic Church uses, Lutherans use a tree stump and a rock? The stump is the Bible and the rock is tradition, and you sit on the stump and rest your feet on the rock.

Only real analogy I could think of without having a chair with one long and one short leg.

In the end, tradition to the Lutheran must not conflict with the Bible and is not as important. I cannot say must be supported by the Bible, because, for example, you folks only have Three Wise Men too.

 

[Wesley7]

If you’re using the CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church to read the Bible, that gives it a Catholic bias and puts in a Catholic context.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

To the pro’s and con’s to this discussion leaves me with a question? Who possesed the “All” interpretation that Jesus revealed and then handed down to whom? and who are they today? Who are they that are able to discern the scriptures as Jesus revealed them?

This revelation does not come from a text book but from God himself. Who is able to posses such knowledge unless it was handed down to him. Because not “ALL” that Jesus said and done got written down, so this leaves out Sola Scriptura, if Jesus revealed the “ALL” to his apostles from Old Testament Scriptures? Remember the New Testament eye witness accounts, were not written yet, and again not everything got written, but handed on…

Question? does the Holy Spirit reveal one Truth, or multiple truth’s of biblical interpretations? Which Christian teaching has existed since the Apostles?

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, **he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures. **

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

 Romans 10: 16 But not everyone has heeded the good news; for Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what was heard from us?" 17 Thus faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes through the word of Christ.

If faith comes from what is heard, then what did one hear to succumb to their faith? Should one test the spirits to see if the spirit one recieves is the True Holy Spirit, and how can one be sure if he has the Spirit? The Catholic faith begins in what we have heard from the beginning that Jesus come in flesh, in his Eucharist, Christianity is founded and built upon the true presence of Jesus (flesh) body, blood, soul and divinity. When did this written and Oral Sacred Tradition ever change?

2 Peter 2: 1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.

1John 2: 18 Children, it is the last hour; 9 and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour.
20 But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, 11 and you all have knowledge.
22 Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist.
23 No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well.
24** Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. 13
25 And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life.
26 I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
27 As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. **

1 John 4: 1 Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: **every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, **3 **and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 2 does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world. **
4 You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5 They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.

Ephesians 4: 11 And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers,
12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, 5 for building up the body of Christ,
13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, 6 to the extent of the full stature of Christ,
14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming.
15 Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, 7

1Corinthians 10:16
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

1Corinthians 11:23
11 For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the Lord Jesus, on the night he was handed over, took bread,
24
and, after he had given thanks, broke it and said, “This is my body that is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
25
In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”
26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.
27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.

 

[ralphinal]

If you’re using the CCC Catechism of the Catholic Church to read the Bible, that gives it a Catholic bias and puts in a Catholic context.

There are two main reasons for this thread. The first is to clear up some half-truths posted by someone who is not Catholic about what the Catholic CHurch teaches about Scripture. The other is to look at how non-Catholics might disagree (or, shockingly, agree) with how the Church sees Scripture.

It really isn’t to get the Catholic view on any particular verses.

 

[ralphinal]

We will revisit the Tradition concept later. Here is the next passage

It is strange to me that the person who helped cause this thread has yet to participate.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

1. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

1. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
   118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

 

[JonNC]

=Gabriel of 12;6057842]To the pro’s and con’s to this discussion leaves me with a question? Who possesed the “All” interpretation that Jesus revealed and then handed down to whom? and who are they today? Who are they that are able to discern the scriptures as Jesus revealed them?

That, of course, is the big question. If the ALL interpretation was in one Church - until 1054, now where is it? Who, or maybe where are they?

This revelation does not come from a text book but from God himself. Who is able to posses such knowledge unless it was handed down to him. Because not “ALL” that Jesus said and done got written down, so this leaves out Sola Scriptura, if Jesus revealed the “ALL” to his apostles from Old Testament Scriptures? Remember the New Testament eye witness accounts, were not written yet, and again not everything got written, but handed on…

Not if one understands that sola scriptura does not exclude other revealed truths, only that scripture is the final norm by which all teachers and teachings are measured. No other revealed “truth” could possibly contradict what is already revealed in scripture, could it?

Question? does the Holy Spirit reveal one Truth, or multiple truth’s of biblical interpretations?

That isn’t truly the question, because we all know there is but one truth. The question is, which, if any, of these interpretations are completely true?

Which Christian teaching has existed since the Apostles?

Scripture - that which was written from their time, and before.

Luke 24:27
Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That, of course, is the big question. If the ALL interpretation was in one Church - until 1054, now where is it? Who, or maybe where are they?

NO one ever said the “All” interpretation was in one church until 1054? No one teaches such a teaching? What does 1054 have to do with Apostolic teachings? 1054 is a schism of authority, the teachings are already handed down, in both the East and Western Catholic communities. 1054 revealed those (few Orthodox not all Eastern Orthodox are in schism) who have 1000 years later oppose the already existing authority of the Pope and the successors to the Apostles, this schism did not change the Apostolic faith, only opposition arose from pride of men (on both sides) to the authority of the Chair of Peter where each Pope resided with unbroken succession since the time of Peter.

When the apostolic teachings get misinterpreted anew begins in the 16th century beginning with Martin Luther who introduces a new teaching into the apostolic Traditional teachings handed down, which the Apostolic Faithful rejected Martin Luther’s new theologies.
Since Maritn Luther’s new teachings got introduced, his freedom of biblical interpretation opened up the flood gates of personal interpretation resulting in what is today many, many different biblical interpretations that are in opposition to the Apostolic, biblical interpretations handed down and practiced these past 2000 years.

Not if one understands that sola scriptura does not exclude other revealed truths, only that scripture is the final norm by which all teachers and teachings are measured. No other revealed “truth” could possibly contradict what is already revealed in scripture, could it?

 

[JonNC]

Hello again Gabriel. I always enjoy our encounters as I find I learn from you.

NO one ever said the “All” interpretation was in one church until 1054? No one teaches such a teaching? What does 1054 have to do with Apostolic teachings? 1054 is a schism of authority, the teachings are already handed down, in both the East and Western Catholic communities. 1054 revealed those (few Orthodox not all Eastern Orthodox are in schism) who have 1000 years later oppose the already existing authority of the Pope and the successors to the Apostles, this schism did not change the Apostolic faith, only opposition arose from pride of men (on both sides) to the authority of the Chair of Peter where each Pope resided with unbroken succession since the time of Peter.

What it has to do with apostolic teaching is, even these two great apostolic Churches, do not agree enough on doctrine in some areas to remain in communion. And I am not yet convinced either way who is right about the Authority issue.

When the apostolic teachings get misinterpreted anew begins in the 16th century beginning with Martin Luther who introduces a new teaching into the apostolic Traditional teachings handed down, which the Apostolic Faithful rejected Martin Luther’s new theologies.
Since Maritn Luther’s new teachings got introduced, his freedom of biblical interpretation opened up the flood gates of personal interpretation resulting in what is today many, many different biblical interpretations that are in opposition to the Apostolic, biblical interpretations handed down and practiced these past 2000 years.

Not sure what you mean by “freedom of biblical interpretation”, but I think you make a point for Lutherans to consider; what teachings were not in keeping with the history of the Church, particularly the East, which was not touched by the abuses in the West just prior to and during Luther’s time.

So then I take it that your interpretation of Sola Scriptura accepts the Catholic Church teaching, that the last revelation ended with the last living apostle? Because scripture does not conflict with this Church teaching. So why does Martin Luther introduce a new revelation of biblical interpretations and teachings of his new Sola theology? Is he greater than an apostle?

Where Catholic Church teaching is not in conflict with scripture, yes. Luther was not greater than an apostle, but neither is the Bishop of Rome. Luther made no claim of universal jurisdiction, or infallible teaching, both of which are jejected by the other sees.

Where was Truth after the last living apostle, and before the New testament letters were ever canonized into the bible for the first 400 years? So then, if there was no Sola Scriptura (no bible) to hold too in faith for the first 400 years, where is Truth proclaimed and from whom in this time period? If these early Christians did not have a Sola scriptura faith to hold too? Then why was it invented 1600 years later?

Now if we were to hold to a Sola Scriptura? then who possessed the authority to authenticate what is Sacred Scripture and what is not? Who possessed the Keys to bind and loose at this time, to bring in the Written Word as we have the bible today? Why is Sola Scriptura necessary? when no one outside the Apostolic authority possesses the Keys of authority to bind and loose a biblical interpretatioin or teaching. All these many personal truth’s which exist now, since Martin Luther, are limited to the individual interpretation not the whole of Christianity. Because they conflict with Early Christian sacarmental belief’s and True presence of Jesus Christ.

All of this was done as a united Church, in true ecumenical council. This Tradition is not denied or excluded by sola scriptura. Look at the Book of Conocrd: the first Lutheran symbols are the three creeds, the ecumenical symbols of the whole Church. The keys were and are possessed by all of the Church, not an exclusive property of the Bishop of Rome. The Church, united, possessed the authority to determine sacred scripture. This is not denied or rejected by sola scriptura.

If Jesus is Truth; would it be logical thinking that; Truth would reside where the True Presence of Jesus exists? Now we can begin to discipher which interpretation of scripture holds to the Apostolic faith. By what authority then does one go too? for a correct interpretation of scripture? How far back do you go for an interpretation of scripture? My Catholic faith reaches back to the early second century confirmed by the written letters from the New Testament which the Catholic Church canonized, which as she canonized the scriptures never conflict with her biblical Apostolic interpretations and practices.

And Orthodoxy makes the same claim. And so for me, which biblical apostolic interpretations and practices should I believe?

Peace be with you

And also with you.

Jon

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Greetings JonNC; its a pleasure to hear from you again, I pray this season finds you in good health and joy of the season always be with you

What it has to do with apostolic teaching is, even these two great apostolic Churches, do not agree enough on doctrine in some areas to remain in communion. And I am not yet convinced either way who is right about the Authority issue.

What you introduce here about two Apostolic church’s does not carry with them the same definition that I have of the one body of Jesus Christ. What you may view as two seperate Church’s, I don’t percieve this notion from a biblical, and Roman Catholic view recorded in the Catechism, from a spiritual perspective that there cannot ever be two but only one.

What we have as doctrine is concerned, is not the faith, but how the Pope and magisterium have defended and defined an already existing Catholic Belief. It is the description and definition that brings opposition to the defined doctrine from authority not the belief. For one example, “Transubstantiation” never denies the true presence but confirms it in a new language definition, which never exhausts the mystery of the Eucharist. Although the definition is oppossed by some Orthodox, not all of them, but the same apostolic faith in the true presence is practiced by all Apostolic Catholic church’s.

Not sure what you mean by “freedom of biblical interpretation”, but I think you make a point for Lutherans to consider; what teachings were not in keeping with the history of the Church, particularly the East, which was not touched by the abuses in the West just prior to and during Luther’s time.

Well stated; in retrospective, the Eastern Orthodox Church in early times also introduced new heretical teachings, which were rejected by the Apostolic Church, which counciled to defeat them, for example the Council of Nicea. Although Arianism survived for many more centuries, it never infected the Western Church. So looking through an hour glass, we have new teachings being introduced on both sides of the Roman Catholic Church. “Freedom of biblical interpretation” is the result from Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, etc… which denies authority placed on earth by Jesus in Peter and the apostles successors in the Magisterium and the Popes Apostolic biblical and Traditional teachings handed down to us today.

Where Catholic Church teaching is not in conflict with scripture, yes. Luther was not greater than an apostle, but neither is the Bishop of Rome. Luther made no claim of universal jurisdiction, or infallible teaching, both of which are jejected by the other sees.

We have a different definition attributed to the Bishop of Rome, universal jurisdiction, and infallible teaching. History records that all the above was accepted and practiced until 1054 a.d. If the correct interpretation of these topics are applied to history when they were excercised? Later what takes place from these historical records and actions, the Pope and magisterium places the titles to such practiced belief’s, when the title of such practices were silent in terminology, because the authority of the Pope (not the Bishop of Rome), universal jurisdiction and infallible teachings were already accepted and believed less the terminology, again for example the defined doctrine of the blessed Trinity, made doctrine 4 hundred years later after the resurrection.

In short, the Bishop of Rome is an equal among all the successors to the apostles, this gets confused by those in scism with the Pope. Now the Pope, cannot be the Pope without holding an Espiscopate office (of Bishop). The Pope who resides in Peter’s Chair, never attends a Church council, and excercises a different role than a Bishop of Rome, and yet both are the same. When one reads these defintions from the catechism, one reads them with Church history and apostolic biblical interpretations from scripture, from the Early church Fathers, not those Orthodox in scism since 1054 a.d.

cont.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

All of this was done as a united Church, in true ecumenical council. This Tradition is not denied or excluded by sola scriptura. Look at the Book of Conocrd: the first Lutheran symbols are the three creeds, the ecumenical symbols of the whole Church. The keys were and are possessed by all of the Church, not an exclusive property of the Bishop of Rome. The Church, united, possessed the authority to determine sacred scripture. This is not denied or rejected by sola scriptura.

That’s an interesting perspective coming from a True Sola Scripturalist, than what I have come to know from Sola Scripturalist of the late century. We are not far at all here. True the Church possesses the keys and authority to forigive sins, to bind and loose on earth in the successors of the apostles. The Bishop of Rome by himself does not possess these exclusively, we are in agreement.

I call your attention then to a historical problem that existed and will continue to exist when heresy or apostates enter the Church, from historical records, who played the pivotal role that united all the Bishops, and called those Bishops back to the fold when they fell into apostacy or heresy? Even the Eastern Church Saints who were excommunicated by their own heretical Bishops, these sought the Pope’s authority, to reinstate them. Jesus prophecy of Peter’s authority echoes on throughout history, “Peter after you have regained your faith, go and bring your brethern back to the faith”. In fact infallibility has been excercised in every Church council including the canonnization of the bible. So infallibility is not nothing new, only the definiton and clarifictian made from historical Apostolic practice recorded in the new testament and history.

And Orthodoxy makes the same claim. And so for me, which biblical apostolic interpretations and practices should I believe?

I would hope the Orthodox Church makes the same claim to the biblical Apostolic faith because they can and possess the Apostolic faith. Again these two are not seperate body of believers. The only thin line that maintains a tear (scism), not a separation, is the excuse that comes from pride of men in the case of “Authority”. Authority will always haunt humanity (societies). God willing in the next two years much of this scism wil be getting addressed by the Pope and the magisterium, something to look foward too. I see this small tear slowly get repaired, but as history records there will be some who object to the Pope and the magisterium’s authority to repair, or bring back the fallen brethern. In any case it will one day not exist God willing. To note, humility will be required on both sides, and make Jesus Christ the focus at all costs.

 

[joe370]

This gets a bit dicey, doesn’t it? While I am willing and indeed obliged to look at the whole of tradition, I am not willing to say that Tradition is the equal of scripture.

Jon

Hey Jon…

The living Tradition is why you and I possess the books of the OT and the NT. In some cases, the CC in both east and west has a clear memory of just who wrote a given book and could remind the faithful of this. So, for instance, when a second century heretic named Marcion proposed to delete the Old Testament as the product of an evil god and canonize the letters of Paul (but with all those nasty Old Testament quotes snipped out) - and a similarly edited gospel of Luke (sanitized of contact of course, with Judaism) - the CC responded with local bishops (in areas affected by Marcion’s heresy) - proposing the first canons of Scripture. Note that the CC seldom defines its teaching (and is in fact disinclined to define it) - until some challenge to the Faith (in this case, Marcion) - forces it to do so. When Marcion tries to take away from the Tradition of Scripture by deleting Matthew, Mark and John and other undesirable books, the CC applies the basic measuring rod of Tradition and says, "This does not agree with the Tradition that was handed down to us, which remembers that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.

It was on this basis that the early CC also vetoed some books and accepted others, (including the still-contested-by-some-Protestants) - deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Baruch as well as some pieces of Daniel and Esther. The churches founded by the apostles could trace the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in public worship (a Greek translation of the Old Testament which includes all these books) - back to the apostles. What I learned on my journey home was that many of the citations of Old Testament Scripture by the New Testament writers are, in fact, citations of the Septuagint (see, for example, Mark 7:6-7, Hebrews 10:5-7). Therefore, the Body of Christ (church) - living after the apostles simply retained the apostles’ practice of using the Septuagint on the thoroughly traditional grounds; If it’s good enough for them, then shouldn’t it be good enough for us. In contrast, the churches had no apostolic tradition handed down concerning the use of, say, the works of the Cretan poet Epimenides (whom Paul quotes in Acts 17), therefore they did not regard his works as Scripture, even though Paul quotes him. It was by this living Tradition that the churches books were judged.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

This living Tradition is even more clearly at work in the canonization of the New Testament, especially in the case of Hebrews. There was, in fact, a certain amount of controversy in the early CC over the canonicity of this book (as well as of books like 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Some ECF’s, especially in the west, rejected Hebrews (in no small part because of its lack of a signature). Yet the CC eventually accepted it. How and why? It was judged apostolic because, in the end, the CC discerned that it passed the litmus test when stacked up against the living Tradition of the CC.

The CC had long believed that Hebrews said the same thing as the Church’s Sacred Tradition handed down by the bishops. Thus, even ECF’s (like Irenaeus) who rejected it from their canon of inspired Scripture still regarded it as a good book. That is, it always met the standard. How then did it meet the standard? In a nutshell, despite the lack of attestation in the text of Hebrews itself, there was an ancient tradition in the CC (beginning in the East, where the book was apparently first sent) - that the book originated from the very pen of Paul. That tradition, which was at first better attested in the east than in the west (instantaneous mass communication being still some years in the future) - accounts for the slowness of western the ECF’s (such as Irenaeus) - in accepting the book. But the deep-rootedness of the tradition of Pauline authorship in the East eventually persuaded the whole CC. In short, as with the question of circumcision in the book of Acts, the status of Hebrews was not immediately clear even to the honest and faithful (such as Irenaeus). However, the CC in council, trusting in the guidance of Holy Spirit, eventually came to consensus and canonized the book on exactly the same basis that the Council of Jerusalem promulgated its authoritative decree.

Conversely, those books which the Church did not canonize as part of the NT were rejected because, in the end, they did not meet the litmus test of the Church’s Sacred Tradition. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, were not included in the final canon, even though they were read in the church in various places, since their authors were not held to be close enough to the apostolic circle - a circle which was, in the end, drawn very narrowly by the Spirit-led Church and which therefore excluded even Clement since he, being “in the third place from the Apostles” was not as close to the apostles as Mark and Luke (who were regarded as recording the gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively). The CC relied on Sacred Tradition, not to keep adding to the New Testament revelation but to keep it as lean and close to the apostles as possible. This, of course, is why some books which did not meet the standard of Sacred Tradition, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Church without hesitation, as completely spurious.

Of course, this didn’t happen overnight. The canon of Sacred Scripture did not assume its present shape until the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the CC (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible, the Bible for the CC in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today). Once again, we are looking at Sacred Tradition which is not fully developed until a) the Reformation tries to subtract deuterocanonical books from Scripture and b) the Council of Trent in the 16th century finally makes that Tradition fixed and binding. This is the origin of the myth (which I once believed) - that the Catholic Church “added” the deuterocanonical books to Scripture at Trent. It is as historically accurate as the claim that the Catholic Church “added” opposition to embryonic stem cell research to its tradition during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

So, to surmise, the early Church canonized books because they were attested by the living and sacred Tradition of the Apostles. The books we have in our Bibles (and the ones we don’t) were accepted or rejected according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards which were based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Mystical Body of Christ, the church.

 

[guanophore]

No…not at all the catechism is church doctrine, I believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ, I buy 100% into the Catholic church and you or no one else will sway me from the truth…rather suffer the fate of a martyr than lose my faith…understand?:knight1:

Sheesh. Sounds to me like you need to join the HLS club!