The Catholic Church is just another denomination

[MrS]

The bible is not a book which belongs to the Church of Rome. And Christ, the founder of the universal catholic church, would agree. I have no doubt.

again, your read what is not there.

I said the Bible is the book of the Church which the Church gave to the world.

and yes Christ did found only one Church… to which the universe is invited to join.

offtopic:
I found it strange how many other faith communities were closed on Good Friday… guess they forgot that it took a Good Friday to get an Easter.

back on topic…

 

[nerfherder]

My hope is in the Lord and accepting everything as Grace… even discussing your erroneous presentation of His Word.

Protestants hope is too often in their own choosing of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior…

I am a would-be convert to RCC. Does this observation help me in any way? Would it help anyone else who is also minded to convert?

I am not aware that I have made any erroneous presentation of His Word, and have no intent to do so. Why would I?

I assume that you too have chosen Jesus as your Lord and Saviour - after, as for all of us, God chose us when we were born. I assume that you, like me, walk with Christ in you, and you in Christ, that the Beloved is in you, and you are in the Beloved, that God is your Abba Father.

This perspective I have learned through RCC adult enquiry and spiritual direction. I think it is correct.

 

[fix]

I said the Bible is the book of the Church which the Church gave to the world.

What is constantly missed in these discussions is that the bible came out of the Church. She decided the canon. She says it is inspired.

 

[MrS]

I am a would-be convert to RCC. Does this observation help me in any way? Would it help anyone else who is also minded to convert?

I am not aware that I have made any erroneous presentation of His Word, and have no intent to do so. Why would I?

I assume that you too have chosen Jesus as your Lord and Saviour - after, as for all of us, God chose us when we were born. I assume that you, like me, walk with Christ in you, and you in Christ, that the Beloved is in you, and you are in the Beloved, that God is your Abba Father.

This perspective I have learned through RCC adult enquiry and spiritual direction. I think it is correct.

Actually I believe He knew me before I was in the womb.

 

[MrS]

What is constantly missed in these discussions is that the bible came out of the Church. She decided the canon. She says it is inspired.

And she, the Catholic Church, has the God-given authority to declare such… and to require all Christians to abide in those declarations.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus set the Old Testament Canon.

Actually, the Council of Trent (Catholic Popes and Bishops) did that - not surprisingly, they went with the 46-book set that had been used by Christ and the Apostles, and which also had become customary for use in the Catholic Church throughout the period of history beginning with Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

The canon of the New Testament was set by Popes Damasus and Innocent I in the very late 300s and early 400s AD, after consultation with the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. (Catholic Popes, and Catholic Bishops.)

 

[nerfherder]

Quote:

Originally Posted by **nerfherder **
The bible is not a book which belongs to the Church of Rome. And Christ, the founder of the universal catholic church, would agree. I have no doubt.

again, your read what is not there. I said the Bible is the book of the Church which the Church gave to the world. And yes Christ did found only one Church… to which the universe is invited to join.

Confusion is rife. You have said the Bible is a book which belongs to the Church of Rome. I disagreed with you. You said that Christ founded one Church, the Church of Rome. I disagreed with you.

You are perhaps implying that we ‘other’ Christians should be grateful to RCC for supplying both Bible and Church doctrine for the rest of us, for inviting us to join RCC. Many of us have a different perspective, and I know that you could appreciate that if you tried.

It must be emphasised particularly that the Bible is the scripture of all Christians, and parts of it the scripture of **Jews **and Muslims. No Muslim or Jew would ever agree that the Bible belongs solely to RCC, that it was initiated by RCC, or that it is given by RCC to the rest of the world. And I agree with Muslims and Jews on this point.

Where have I misread you?

 

[jmcrae]

The Bible is the scripture of all Christians, and parts of it the scripture of Jews and Muslims. No Muslim or Jew would ever agree that the Bible belongs solely to RCC. And I agree with Muslims and Jews that the Bible is not the sole property of the RCC.

Actually, I’m quite certain that both the Muslims and the Jews would agree that the New Testament came from the Catholic Church (RC).

The majority of Jews and Muslims are not even aware of the many Protestant groups: it would not occur to them to think that “Christianity” is anything other than the RC Church, with the Pope as its leader and spokesman, as Successor to the Apostle Peter.

In fact, they view Christianity in much the same way that I happen to view Buddhism.

They acknowledge that Christ founded the Church, just as I acknowledge that Buddha founded Buddhism (hence the name), and they acknowledge as historical fact that Peter became the leader of His Church after He ascended into Heaven, just as I acknowledge as historical fact that the Dalai Lama is Buddha’s lawful successor. I don’t have to believe anything supernatural about Buddha to acknowledge his lawful successor, and nobody has to acknowledge anything supernatural about either Christ or the Church in order to recognize the role of the Pope in the Church.

I am vaguely aware that there are splinter sects in Buddhism that don’t acknowledge the authority of the Dalai Lama, of course. But his pedigree is available for all to review - just as is the Pope’s.

 

[guanophore]

You obviously hate reproof.

Not at all, believers. However, reproof would require also correction. Instead of reproof, you are giving insults. If you know that your brother considers that Jesus meant what He said, and is following by that to the best of his ability, and you make derisive comments, it is the same as calling your brother a “fool”. It is not reproof, but pejorative. Besides, I have been derisive myself at times on here, and you can see in my posts that I have been reproved more than once!

 

[nerfherder]

What “denomination” do you speak of? what interpretation is that?

I think that those who disbelieve God will not want to be in His presence, and will find themselves elsewhere.

God is above all a God of love. That is at the core of our belief.

If we believe that, and if we believe that God infuses us with a divine spark of life when we are born, that we are therefore all divine and that we are all equally divine, then God will not turn his face from those who are not of the RCC denomination, nor from people of other faiths.

This is clearly stated in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, where the Vatican II Council Fathers wrote:

“Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God [and His plan of salvation] in various ways…the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation.”

In this sense, as hard as it may appear to believe, moral non-Christians in the Western world are also under God’s care.

 

[Katholikos]

. It is not the morals of the Catholic Church I object to. Indeed only its arrogance to see itself as the excluse refuge of Christ’s people, that I find objectionable.

Yeah, maddening isn’t it? Such arrogance! I once thought so, too. But the Church is the Bride of Christ, and Christ has only one Bride. You think He has a harem?

 

[nerfherder]

Educated catholics do not hate reproof; they do disdain misinformed, bigoted “false reproof” based in the illegitimate sola scriptura movement’s mistaken beliefs.

Is it not possible to discuss these significant issues with a degree of common sense and civility? This sounds like moot court and point scoring.

Your first para includes the words:

hate
reproof
disdain
misinformed
bigoted
false
illegitimate

Your second moves on to

heretics.

Surely we can do better than this! Or else where are we trying to go?

 

[nerfherder]

Actually, you need to prove that you can use something other than the Word of God. I don’t need to prove that the Bible alone is the authority.

No. If you make a statement, then you are the one who must deliver the proof.

On sola scriptura:

The Calvinistic reformers and the Reformed confessions often referred to sola scriptura passages (e.g., Dt. 4:2, Pr. 30:6). That is all I am offering on that topic.

 

[nerfherder]

I replied as I did for a whole host of reasons. As a Catholic I am called to the truth of Christ’s Church as defined by its doctrines, teachings and traditions. In Carol’s threads and posts she as expressed disbelief in many of the core beliefs of the Church and she has done so with passion. To name a few…

She does not believe in transubstantiation based upon the ‘immutable laws of nature’. Obviously, the laws of nature are suspended whenever a miracle takes place; the resurrection of Christ, when Jesus healed the sick, raised the dead etc. I can only assume that either Carol does not believe in miracles.

She does not believe in the ‘oral tradition’ of the Church (see her response’s to posts on the thread, “Transubstantiation is a device of Man”.)

She does not believe in the ‘inerrancy of the bible’.

She does not believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Universal Catholic and Apostolic Church…it’s just another denomination in her opinion. In this thread she opined, “I find the discussion of which denomination is ‘better’ (which is not the title of the thread) dry and dusty” and went on to suggest that, "proselytizing has no place on the Forum, as I understand it, but there seems to be an insistence among RCC brothers and sisters that the errant sheep must be gathered into the fold of the One True Faith. Unless I’m missing her point, is she not suggesting that forum Catholics are breaking the rules? This is from a person who has presented herself as two different people on this forum and, in some cases, has used one persona to defend the other. What Carol characterizes as proselytizing is actually the discussion of core Catholic beliefs…by participating Catholics…on a Catholic forum.

Many times questions posed to Carol go unanswered or she responds to them based only in the context of her individual and personal beliefs…e.g., on one occasion when responding to post with a scripture reference that conflicted with her position she simply pointed out that ‘she didn’t trust anything handed down orally’.

Carol is investigating the Catholic faith but has not embraced many, many of its beliefs…that is why I believe she has a long way to go and why I responded the way I did. It appears to me that Carol wants to join the RCC only if she can reshape it in the image of her personal beliefs.

I offer these comments with the best of intentions. I urge Carol to remain in the forum and join the discussions with an open heart.

Iowa Mike

Three comments:

I offered you the hand of peace, and you bit it, hard.

As I said to you previously, Christ held hypocrites in contempt.

I hold beliefs which are consistent with mainline Christianity, and I refuse to be brainwashed by any particular denomination. If I can get my feeble mind around the doctrine, dogma, creeds and practices of RCC, I wish to join the Church, and would be delighted if this were possible.

 

[jmcrae]

Three comments:

I offered you the hand of peace, and you bit it, hard.

As I said to you previously, Christ held hypocrites in contempt.

A “hypocrite” is someone who speaks to appease and please others, rather than to convey the truth.

I don’t see where Mike said anything that he does not actually believe.

I hold beliefs which are consistent with mainline Christianity, and I refuse to be brainwashed by any particular denomination. If I can get my feeble mind around the doctrine, dogma, creeds and practices of RCC, I wish to join the Church, and would be delighted if this were possible.

Why would you wish to be a member of a Church that you suspect of wanting to “brainwash” you?

 

[nerfherder]

It’s not proof to you because you don’t believe it. He that hateth reproof shall die. I’m always open to reproof. BUT only by the Word of God. So, correct me with the Word of God only. Not by mere words of philosophy.

This is not a matter of philosophy, but of simply parsing the sentence.

You were asked to prove that scripture is the sole authority. One quote you used was

Pro 15:10
Correction [is] grievous unto him that forsaketh the way: [and] he that hateth reproof shall die.

To put it another way, *the guy who makes a mistake does not like to be corrected, and if he dislikes reproof, he dies. *

What on earth has this got to do with the authority of the scriptures?

 

[nerfherder]

This is speaking about the 46 books of the Old Testament - Protestants reject 7 of those books.

We say, “Believe Jesus Christ, or go to Hell.”

Honest to goodness! When will you ever learn?

First of all, virtually all Bibles in use contain *all *the books of the Bible - if not as part of the OT or NT then with the deuterocanonical books in the middle between the two. You are wrong on this count. Get over what happened during the Reformation!

Second, it is absolutely unChristian to continue to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your belief system will/should/can go to hell (wherever that is). That is unChristlike - when would he ever have spoken like that - and it is tantamount to playing God.

You must learn to curb your sharp tongue. I am learning - slowly - but think I am probably a bit ahead of you in this.

 

[nerfherder]

And she, the Catholic Church, has the God-given authority to declare such… and to require all Christians to abide in those declarations.

That is your opinion. It is not the opinion of others. Please remember that.

 

[jmcrae]

Honest to goodness! When will you ever learn?

First of all, virtually all Bibles in use contain *all *the books of the Bible - if not as part of the OT or NT then with the deuterocanonical books in the middle between the two.

Maybe in Africa this is so. Not here.

You are wrong on this count. Get over what happened during the Reformation!

Only when they repent and rejoin the Church.

Second, it is absolutely unChristian to continue to suggest that anyone who disagrees with your belief system will/should/can go to hell (wherever that is). That is unChristlike - when would he ever have spoken like that - and it is tantamount to playing God.

I was responding in kind to his message. And by the way, I was responding to him. I doubt that I have hurt his feelings in any way. He seems tough enough to handle it - at least, the way he dishes it out, I hope he can handle it.

Anyway, it is merely a statement of fact that those who do not hear Jesus go to Hell. I was not speaking of any particular individual. (What we cannot judge is who hears Jesus, or whether they will hear Jesus, before they die. But we aren’t called to play the idiot, or to lack discernment.)

 

[nerfherder]

Actually, the Council of Trent (Catholic Popes and Bishops) did that - not surprisingly, they went with the 46-book set that had been used by Christ and the Apostles, and which also had become customary for use in the Catholic Church throughout the period of history beginning with Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.

The canon of the New Testament was set by Popes Damasus and Innocent I in the very late 300s and early 400s AD, after consultation with the Councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. (Catholic Popes, and Catholic Bishops.)

Great! You went on the internet and got some good facts. Congrats.