The Rosary - What is Not Understood?

[dronald]

The point is The way to salvation is the same. through the church and the sacrements.

Salvation is the same for all of us, and that is through Christ and His Church.

Not all EO deny aor sacrements

But some do… So if I’m unsure, who do I ask in the EO? And if a Catholic Priest says something different (based on their dogma’s) what do I do?

the differences between us are more political then theological.

That’s more of an opinion than fact.

You say they don’t believe in the real presence as we do. Yet we accept theirs as valid and not others . Hmm

Do they all accept yours as valid?

 

[Kliska]

The point is The way to salvation is the same. through the church and the sacrements.

I hope everyone takes this how it is meant, or I wouldn’t post it, but it can be seen as a teaching opportunity, probably for both sides.

This is so fascinating to read as a protestant of my ilk. I’m just being honest with my reaction as it is so strong; The Way to salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the Way, and there is no other name by which we must be saved. We become part of the church by faith in Him, not the other way around. I think that this is an example as to why certain protestants react the way they do. Now, is there some misunderstandings? Sure. But just for general FYI, this is a big area of contention especially for evangelicals and/or fundamentalists. It’s something both sides need to work on; how they phrase the salvational message alongside justification and sanctification.

 

[Steveabrous]

But it isn’t just me, is it? No, it isn’t. So, we are left with several possibilities including the one where the Roman Catholic Church is in the wrong, and protestants are in the right. I don’t expect you to agree with that, but it is a possibility. It’s also a possibility that all protestants and the Orthodox branch of Christendom are all also wrong, and the RCC is right. You believe one thing and I believe another.

Well let’s see the RCC and orthodox branches have been around from the beginning and agree on almost everything, including the first 7 ecuminicle councils, the sacrements, the real presence, apostolic succession, etc…

There are countless Protestant branches how can’t agree on anything, and have only been arounf 500 years or so.

Yea tough call

BTW, most of protestants also profess the Apostle’s creed including the bit about the catholic church, we just don’t believe it is the Roman Catholic Church in institutional form.

Interestingly that comes from a council and the fact that you don’t believe the bit about the Catholic church means the institutional church doesn’t change the fact that that is what the council meant

It didn’t if you could show where the Old Covenant was fulfilled, which is what Jesus did, which was what the gospel is all about. That’s what Paul regularly showed by arguing from the OT and preaching Christ and Him crucified.

Where in the old testament does it say you no longer have to be circumcised or obey jewish law?

That was a decision made by church leaders in a council under the guidance of the holy spirit. And is no where in the old testament.

. We don’t deny that the fledgling churches asked for help from those that had brought them the gospel in the face of others coming to verbally talk to them about circumcision, and it did NOT stop all from teaching their legalistic ideas.

Were does it say in the bible that the christian community asked them for this decision?

Now, you didn’t answer my question; why a letter? And, in the future if the question came up again, don’t you think that letter would also make an appearance?

Yes, in fact all decisions from all the ecuminicle council came to us in written form. I guess that means they are all valid?

The written word functions as a benchmark, and we know about these happenings because of scripture itself.

Yet it was a series of councils in the Catholic church that set what is and is not scripture.
Don’t you think the church that formulated the bible would be the one who knows how to interpret it?

You know about them because of scripture. We know about them because we are the church that did them.

 

[taylorf]

Have you ever felt led to something by the Holy Spirit?

Yes…the Roman Catholic Church.

Honestly though, you’re view of the Holy Spirit is eerily consistent with what the Mormon church teaches and is one of the reasons I left. I believe that God exists but there has to be only one truth, and I can’t believe the Holy Spirit would lead His children in 40,000 different directions back to Him. Makes Him look a little scatterbrained, don’t you think?

 

[Steveabrous]

Yes…the Roman Catholic Church.

Honestly though, you’re view of the Holy Spirit is eerily consistent with what the Mormon church teaches and is one of the reasons I left. I believe that God exists but there has to be only one truth, and I can’t believe the Holy Spirit would lead His children in 40,000 different directions back to Him. Makes Him look a little scatterbrained, don’t you think?

You don’t understand. Those churches are wrong because the holy spirit lead klista to the truth and anyone who disagrees with her ( I think it’s a her) isn’t listening to the holy spirit. She knows this because they don’t agree with her,

 

[PRmerger]

Have fun with that then. As for me and mine, we will serve the Lord. When He tells us to do something we will do it, when He tells us to refrain, we will refrain, with the grace of God.

As the Church reveals what God wants, so will we do it.

Otherwise, once you divorce yourself from His Body, you end up with the very vile or erroneous or heretical beliefs of my pridian post.

All of them, BTW, justified because God “tells us to do something”.

Catholics can say, “Nope, we don’t follow that paradigm.”

 

[pocohombre]

I’m glad you think so. Honestly, I’ve gotten so tired of the caricatures (whether spoken by Catholics or by protestants) that “Converts to protestantism are like this, but converts to Catholicism are like that.”

Amen.

 

[PRmerger]

Wao! Great post! Nothing to add.:clapping:

:curtsey:

 

[PRmerger]

No, they also relied on tradition and their opinion. Some agreed with all their conclusions in all the councils, some did not.

Indeed.

And it is thanks to a council that you are a Trinitarian.

If those who did not agree with the council had their way, you would be a Unitarian right now.

Thankfully, the Church of God prevailed and God’s Word was properly interpreted to mean: 3 persons, One God.

It is ONLY because of a council, a Catholic council, to which you defer tacitly, that you are a Trinitarian.

 

[pocohombre]

So if it’s not forbidden, then it’s permitted.
That seems to be the paradigm you’ve espoused, right? Otherwise, you would have object to–

 

[PRmerger]

The Way to salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the Way, and there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Amen! This is very Catholic.

We become part of the church by faith in Him, not the other way around. I think that this is an example as to why certain protestants react the way they do. Now, is there some misunderstandings? Sure. But just for general FYI, this is a big area of contention especially for evangelicals and/or fundamentalists. It’s something both sides need to work on; how they phrase the salvational message alongside justification and sanctification.

That Protestants have such a reactionary opinion to the statements that we are saved by the Church and the sacraments is curious, given the fact that they* don’t have the same reaction when St. Paul states that he saves. (Yep, he actually says this. HE saves. Where the antecedent to the pronoun is Paul. Not Christ.)

*Here “they” excludes the Christians who have, bizarrely, decided that the writings of St. Paul are satanic. And, they claim this, BTW, under the inspiration of the HS.

 

[PRmerger]

No ,You brought it up. My opinion is not primarily based on this and no paradigm is set on direct silence on a matter.

So what is your understanding:

If Scripture is silent about an issue, it is permitted

OR

If Scripture is silent about an issue, it is forbidden.

Which is your belief, poco?

It has to be, logically, one or the other.

 

[pocohombre]

I absolutely disagree with this.
I could provide a myriad list of weird, bizarre, vile, beliefs that each of the proponents claims has been whispered to him by the Holy Spirit.

Throw out the baby with the bath water. Nothing bizarre, unloving has ever happened when the church/church officer tells you to do something. Nothing bizarre or unloving has ever happened when one listens to the bible either. So, the bible, the church or officers, the Holy Spirit whispers can not be ascertained infallibly. “Let every man be a liar for only God is true”(and perfect).

 

[pocohombre]

I would also submit that at the time of the council of Jerusalem the decision made most definately contradicted the scripture at the time, Since all they had was the old testament.

James at the council sealed the deal with Scriptura:
"And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15… So where is the scripture contradiction** at Jerusalem** .It only contradicted a wrong magisterium ,for the council found that** OT scripture was fulfilled, not contradicted**

 

[pocohombre]

So what is your understanding:

If Scripture is silent about an issue, it is permitted

OR

If Scripture is silent about an issue, it is forbidden.

Which is your belief, poco?

It has to be, logically, one or the other.

media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ld1kpZAm1qbgytb.gif

 

[pablope]

I

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablope View Post
Yes…if you go on your own and claim it is the truth…as protestants do, isn’t it/

That would be your perspective, yes.

But it is true…you just do not want to see that way or admit to it…right…

Quote:
But it was the RCC that collected the writings now known as the Bible…and it intended these to be used for its Liturgy.

There is no one canon agreed upon by all Christendom, nor was that the only use of the manuscripts for the OT nor NT.[/QUO

It was for the early church…the reason for sifting the writings was for a uniform set of readings for the Liturgy.

And my question is not about the canon…but of interpretation…if the unified Church in Ad382 or so settled on a set of writings to be read during the Liturgy,…which is now the Bible…so can the RCC or OC not interpret it correctly and protestant can?

You are basically using a book intended to be used for the Liturgy…of the CC…so how can you interpret it correctly?

QUOTE]Quote:
So…can you explain how the RCC can interpret the Scripture wrongly?

This seems like a rhetorical question, but again, Orthodox and Protestants don’t believe that the Roman Catholic Church has some type of infallibility when it comes to interpreting scripture.

When you think or decide that your interpretation is correct…you are invoking some sort of infallibility…whether you want to admit it or not.

And it is not a rhetorical question…it is based on your claims and premises. So…how about answering the question…So…can you explain how the RCC can interpret the Scripture wrongly?..if the Bible canon was the result of sifting through the various writings so as to have a standard set of readings for the Liturgy?

Quote:
Okay…who in the protestant view can interpet the Scripture correctly?

Any believer that is sealed and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. It does take, as recorded in scripture, prayer, and diligent study and searching. A teacher blessed with the gift of teaching doesn’t hurt either. The Gospel is all about Jesus and what He has done, fulfilling the OT and establishing the NT.

So any individual protestant decides what is the truth for himself? So basically, each one is his own pope?

But why has this resulted in differing interpretations in the protestant world? Is there a different HS that guides each individual?

Quote:
Okay…can you then demonstrate how the HS would tell one person if they disagree with the HS? How would the individual know?

Have you ever felt led to something by the Holy Spirit?

Sure…Then what?

Quote:
And how about the individual who disagrees with your interpretation of a Scripture passage…who would you say has the correct interpretation?

It would depend on the passage, the interpretation, and the discussion and whether or not it is something I had studied, prayed over and searched out. Tithing is a good example. Many pastors teach the tithe, I thoroughly studied it, prayed about it, searched scripture, esp. the OT and then the NT idea of giving. I’ve concluded that the the tithe is not mandatory for us, but supporting our churches and teachers of those churches is called for. So, if I talk with someone that says the tithe is mandatory for NT believers, I’d say they are wrong.

How would I approach that? Through discussion and scripture.

So basically…when you can say someone is wrong in their interpretation…you are acting as the decider of truth…as if you are then the RCC which you criticize.

In effect, you are making in infallible decision when you decide someone is wrong and you are correct or vice versa in a biblical interpretation.

Let me cite an example…the CC and OC both believe and practice apostolic succession to this day…and you say there is no apostolic succession…so who is correct…the CC/OC or you?

Quote:
And who did God use to give us the Scripture? Did the a piece of paper come down from heaven all of a sudden?
The lists of authors is readily available via “Google.”

You are evading…i am not asking about authorship…though you will not know who authored certain books by merely reading the Bible…the titles were added later.

Again…the question is…how did God give us the Scripture…the list of books of the Bible?

Quote:
Again…how does God provide us the correct interpretation?

Same answer; the Holy Spirit.

How does the HS accomplish this?
[/quote]

 

[adf417]

It would be quite a feat for even me to do that… there’s a lot of us. The idea is that we are personally accountable to God for what we believe if we are mentally able. When I share here, I choose to share what I believe. No one protestant speaks for the rest, not even Luther.

Grace and Peace!

So recapping…

1. 
   *]You are unable to declare which protestants are right and which protestants are wrong in their interpretations but you can declare the CC interpretation is wrong.
   
   *]No protestant can determine which protestant is right and which is wrong in their interpretations.
   
   *]Protestants are right in their interpretation.
   
   Do I have this correct?

 

[Steveabrous]

I hope everyone takes this how it is meant, or I wouldn’t post it, but it can be seen as a teaching opportunity, probably for both sides.

This is so fascinating to read as a protestant of my ilk. I’m just being honest with my reaction as it is so strong; The Way to salvation is Jesus Christ. He is the Way, and there is no other name by which we must be saved.

Absolutely. But what means did he establish for salvation?

Did he establish sacraments?
Or did he establish revival meetings?

 

[PRmerger]

media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m0ld1kpZAm1qbgytb.gif

That doesn’t answer my question, poco!

What does your pastor say regarding what you are to do if Scripture is silent on an issue?

Is it permitted or forbidden?

I wonder why you cannot answer this question.

It is quite elementary and foundational.

One ought to have an easy answer for this, if one is a Sola Scriptura advocate.

 

[Steveabrous]

James at the council sealed the deal with Scriptura:
"And this conversion of Gentiles is exactly what the prophets predicted. As it is written:

After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world." Acts 15… So where is the scripture contradiction** at Jerusalem** .It only contradicted a wrong magisterium ,for the council found that** OT scripture was fulfilled, not contradicted**

OT does not say gentiles would not have to be circumcised or obey Jewish law, The holy spirit revealed that in a council. since by a simple reading of the OT text it would seem that the old laws should be followed. I mean after all the scriptures did not say that gentiles didn’t have to follow the law, and the verse James quoted doesn’t say we no longer have to be circumcised. You would agree that if all you had was OT scripture said scriptures really seemed to be favoring the other side right?
Absolutely the council made the right decision. But the truth on that issue was not in scripture at that time, in fact scripture seemed to say the opposite.
So this goes back to my original point. Why did the Holy spirit reveal this only to the church leaders in a council why didn’t he reveal this to all christians? why were all other chirstians expected to “obey” the councils decision?