To live by faith

[twb1621]

Right.

I’m very glad this much common ground is now cleared . It makes me very happy . That’s one more little piece of unity we now share.

And by the way, we don’t reject the role of the elders at all. The word for “elder,” in the Greek, is “presbuteros.” The English words, “presbyter,” “priest,” and “elder” all come from that word. New Testament “elders” are our “priests.” Those two words are just different English translations of the original Greek word, “presbuteros.”

It’s the same job: leadership of a local Christian community. We also recognize the other biblical roles, “episcopos” (bishop) and deacon. The meaning of these scriptural roles, while not always altogether clear in the New Testament itself, was clearly defined in the Church by the end of the first century, as we can see from the writings of St. Ignatius. And we still use them, in that original form . Some more positions have been created when necessary, because of the simple fact of the Church’s size, nowadays, but it’s still the same basic structure. This 1st century, Bible and Fathers based structure is the closest to a scriptural model of government that can be gotten.

The same is true of the Magesterium and Papacy, as I know we’ll discuss further. They too are part of that original Biblical and Patristic model of Church government, a stupendous blessing given through the Spirit to all believers. We’ll talk about that more in the future, I know.

Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible.
2. Also, we still have Acts 1:20, which shows Matthias receive the place of “apostleship” that Judas left vacant. So we know, scripturally, that the apostles were appointing successors. And we also, of course, have heard about the reality of apostolic succession from the Early Church (the best interpretive source we could hope for), the friends of the apostles who went to martyrdom for the faith, men of great integrity who claimed to be duly appointed successors of the apostles. Whether or not you believe in their infallibility regarding matters of Sacred Tradition, they still are the very best available interpretive and historical witness to the meanings and deeds of the apostles.
3. I have one further point, regarding this. The names of all twelve of the apostles were written on the foundations of the wall, in Revelation. However, only three of the original 12 apostles wrote books of the New Testament (John, Peter and Matthew). Nonetheless, apostles like Simon the Zealot, Matthias and Bartholemew have their names written on foundation stones of the Church, even though they aren’t even quoted in the Scripture. It is very hard for me to see the scriptural testimony of the apostles as the way they serve as eternal foundations of the Church, when only three of them wrote books of the Bible, and some of them aren’t even quoted in Scripture. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

Lief; I wanted to say first off you are without doubt blessed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Craig,
I would like to try and raise the consideration level a bit higher in regard to the Heart of Christ during this time we are reflecting on through the scriptures that may help you in your discernment along the way. What our Lord was teaching us came from the divine love He had for all of us so His emotions in everything He did and all He spoke had tremendous influence on those who were blessed enough to witness Him. If you could imagine what He was actually teaching, there is no way the apostles could have presented it all and been able to express the heart and love in a written format. As we recognize even in this format, the words we use can come across in different ways unlike speaking to others directly where tone and expression reflect the emotions supporting the words. Love, frustration, disappointment, anger, compassion toward others, the joy Jesus reflected in those who recognized Him for who He was and the affection toward children who approached Him, not to mention the overwhelmingly joyful aching of the heart one must have felt to hear His words “your sins are forgiven you, go sin no more”.
Jesus had no intention of presenting His teachings in written word alone. He recognized our limitations and knew in order to teach an emotion, which is what love is expressed through, it could not be as effectively presented without expression. In His teachings, it was clear to the apostles how this was to be accomplished. There could be no other way. The evidence for this is clear just considering the substance of what Jesus was offering, the fact that so little was in writing and the apostles devotion to go wherever necessary as often as necessary to preach the word of God throughout their ministry. The unimaginable humiliation, pain and suffering He submitted to as an outward expression of the Love He had for all of us and the salvation He was offering for all then and now through the pouring out of His blood. Could there be any question as to why so many devoted Christians in such mass numbers were able to accept such horrible deaths themselves for the love of God.

 

[M_Leakos]

I am new here. What does it mean “to swim the Tiber”?

 

[Cinette]

I am new here. What does it mean “to swim the Tiber”?

Hello!

This is just an expression which means to convert to Catholicism.

Welcome, M Leakos, I hope you will share and learn with us. We are not a bad bunch -

Cheers
Cinette :hug1:

 

[Cinette]

To live by Faith -

To live by Faith is to strive for perfection in the Kingdom Of God. It is living our lives in obedience to God’s commandments so that we can claim the gift of salvation which was won for us through Jesus’ death on the cross.

Faith evokes love, charity, dedication, trust, mercy, loyalty, belief, devotion, dedication, commitment but above all it evokes God in our lives. It is all that is good – we need to live out the seven corporal and the seven spiritual Works of Mercy. This is based on Matthew 25:31and in line with Jesus’ teaching.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy are: to admonish the sinner, to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive all injuries and to pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy are: to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to harbour the harbourless, to visit the sick and to bury the dead.

Community is vital to a faith-filled life as we are to love and support one another. Through two thousand years of our Christian Faith, the Church has, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced well defined guidelines for our benefit. The Sacraments, from which we receive grace, are important for our faith formation and practice. The Scriptures are a prime resource to guide and instruct us.

As human being we are weak and fall into sin and as Catholics we have the Church to keep us on track when we waver. The Church Authority, appointed by Jesus through the Apostles - defined by the Pope and the Magisterium - lead and we, the laity, have our role to play in supporting and reaching out to one another. We are missionaries and priests and we must minister to one another. In compliance with the spiritual work “to admonish the sinner” we need to be vigilant and alert one another when we stray.

The spiritual and corporal works of mercy as defined by the Church are a constant reminder of our commitments to God and to one another.

There are many trials and temptations with each age producing different challenges. Without our very special support system we are lost and will find it very difficult to resist the temptations of this world and the evil one.

These are just a few of my thoughts on how Catholics should live their Faith. I am sure you will all be able to add your thoughts as well.

 

[MaryHerboth]

Hi,

I think in the heart of every Christian living by faith is the same. We wake up each morning and say “Good Morning God, I love you, help me to get through this day without messing things up too much!” You know what I mean. Every Christian who loves God and wants to be close to him learns that our faith is in an eternal, all merciful, all loving God who we think we can know and love back - at first - and then we realize how small we are compared to him - how little our love is compared to his - and how meager our efforts are. That’s when we really begin to live by faith. We throw ourselves into his hands and try our best to stay there - where it’s safe!

Faith is a gift and you know we all mess it up at times. We neglect the gift, we take it for granted etc. but it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

A Catholic spiritual life brings some prayers and devotions that are unique - but available to all - like the rosary which helps us to see moments in Jesus life where he walked through joy and sorrow - where his divinity was made known - and how his passion and death ended in glory. The content is much the same as a bible study - but the method is different.

Of course the Mass is a huge source of grace - where we come into the presence of Emmanuel, God with us. But it’s also a thing that tests our faith. Do we believe Jesus’ words that “this is my body.” or do we say “this teaching is too hard.” I think most Catholics have done both.

Thank you for your respectful question. May God bless you and give you great faith!

In Christ,

Mary
BROKEN ALABASTER
http://www.brokenalabaster.com

 

[twb1621]

Hi,

I think in the heart of every Christian living by faith is the same. We wake up each morning and say “Good Morning God, I love you, help me to get through this day without messing things up too much!” You know what I mean. Every Christian who loves God and wants to be close to him learns that our faith is in an eternal, all merciful, all loving God who we think we can know and love back - at first - and then we realize how small we are compared to him - how little our love is compared to his - and how meager our efforts are. That’s when we really begin to live by faith. We throw ourselves into his hands and try our best to stay there - where it’s safe!

Faith is a gift and you know we all mess it up at times. We neglect the gift, we take it for granted etc. but it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

A Catholic spiritual life brings some prayers and devotions that are unique - but available to all - like the rosary which helps us to see moments in Jesus life where he walked through joy and sorrow - where his divinity was made known - and how his passion and death ended in glory. The content is much the same as a bible study - but the method is different.

Of course the Mass is a huge source of grace - where we come into the presence of Emmanuel, God with us. But it’s also a thing that tests our faith. Do we believe Jesus’ words that “this is my body.” or do we say “this teaching is too hard.” I think most Catholics have done both.

Thank you for your respectful question. May God bless you and give you great faith!

In Christ,

Mary
BROKEN ALABASTER
http://www.brokenalabaster.com

Beautifully said and obviously heart felt

 

[rinnie]

I, like you, regret the splintering that has occurred within the Christian Church.

Humbly, I say, I do not have all the answers; if I did I would not be on this forum searching for better answers than I have NOW.

However, there are some convictions that I have conscientiously and firmly formed on my Christian journey. One such conviction is that the UNITY of the Church, at whatever level it meets, in earth or in heaven, derives from the Lord of the Church, who is its one Head.

This is why I believe that the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PART OF CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL CHURCH, but it is not - in and of itself - the Church which Christ founded.

In Christ, Craig

Well lets put it this way Craig, It’s the Church Peter founded and Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. So maybe that will help. Now if it is the Church Peter started how could it not be the first church. See what I mean Jesus left Peter to start the Church. He left him the Great shepherd, the leader. Remember Craig he even told him 3 times. When he said that to Peter, Peter do you love me feed my sheep, etc; What does that mean to you Craig? Just curious.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi Craig, I’ve just logged in and would like to ask if you can see the practical point of God appointing one man to “hold the key” versus several or many.
Yours in Christ,
Mark

Hi Mark,

Yes, I do see “the practical point of God appointing one man to “hold the key” versus several or many.”

God in His wisdom invested the “teaching authority” of a local assembly or congregation in a plurality of elders, because He wanted to remove any thought of an elder assuming DICTATORIAL FUNCTIONS.

The elder does his work among the flock, and he has this prospect that “when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.” (1 Peter 5:4)

Mark, thank you for this outstanding question. As much as I share much common ground with Catholics and, indeed, genuinely respect and esteem them, my answer reflects why I could never actually convert to Roman Catholicism per se.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Thanks, Craig, for returning the favor. I always try to remember to do the sign of the cross before starting to type, otherwise…

Do you subscribe to a denomination? (Just curious.) You don’t sound like the born-again Christians I know. They would have me roasting in Hell in a jiffy just for believing in the Mother of God.

Hi Snowy,

I’ve just made the sign of the cross before posting this reply…to show respect for you.

I am probably a MAINSTREAM BAPTIST - which means that I believe in the gospel, but I am not a Fundamentalist.

You will not roast in hell for believing in the Virgin Mary and showing her due honour, believe you me! LOL. And, by the way I do not believe that the Pope is the Antichrist or that he is the architect of some “spiritual scullduggery”…blah, blah, blah…ROFL.

Over the years I have mixed with a variety of people and God has, graciously, given me an ability to appreciate people different from me but who have credible insights into truth.

God has helped me over the years to read widely, and this has convinced me of the eminent piety that has been shown by many Roman Catholics.

I have always seen true Catholics who practise their faith as part of CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL CHURCH. I have, furthermore, always been utterly convinced that true Catholics and true Protestants will comprise the CHURCH TRIUMPHANT IN HEAVEN.

I have no agenda to pursue on this forum. I am happy to fellowship with anyone, from any denomination, who is a genuine Christian; who actually lives and practises their faith; who is clean and pure in their heart, desires and thoughts; and who loves their neighbour as themselves.

I put much emphasis that the Bible says that it is the PURE IN HEART who will see God. I have no time for deliberate hypocrisy or phoniness.

I have appreciated the opportunity afforded me on this forum to learn more about what Catholics actually believe. Although I cannot myself “go all the way” in this respect, I have been blessed by this process.

There we are, Snowy…I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

“To me, what proves Christianity without the need of faith is human experience” – . I love the way you say “without the need of faith……………” we see the evidence all around us every day.

*“If you have reasonable theological proof, for example, that Mary ascended to Heaven bones and all, I’d like to hear it.” *

When I was a little girl I remember learning the definition of Faith from the “Penny Catechism” – “Faith is believing without doubting whatever God has revealed”. If we understood everything there would be no need for Faith. You, Snowy claim proof without the need of faith – that is wonderful. Faith is a mystery just like the mysteries in which we believe: The Incarnation, the Paschal mystery (passion, crucifixion death, burial, descent into hell, resurrection and ascension) – we find the latter in our Creed.

The Catechism tells us that Jesus’ whole life is a Mystery. Our Faith is a mystery.

As I grew older I began to question more and I would insist that I needed to understand everything until a friend quoted Augustine to me, “Seek not to understand that you may believe but believe that you may understand.” Of course!

So, if you believe the Blessed Mother to be pure, good, full of grace, the Mother of our Lord, immaculately conceived and you also look at the many miracles and apparitions and what she teaches and stands for as she leads us to Jesus, then to believe in her ascension into heaven “bones and all” is not difficult to accept.

My husband was an atheist for many years. He converted to the Catholic Church 3 years ago. A Jewish scientist led him to believe in God. He then attended Mass with me for 11 years before he “swam the Tiber”. He would be moved during Mass by the reverence of the faithful around us. I would notice him taking off his glasses and rubbing his eyes with the palm of his hand and I knew that he was wiping away tears. I see his Faith now and his acceptance of the Church’s teachings and there is a childlike belief that is so pure and so beautiful.

Jesus told us to be like little children.

Cheers
Cinette

A great post, Cinette.

I gained a lot from reading this - thank you.

God bless, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

To live by Faith -

To live by Faith is to strive for perfection in the Kingdom Of God. It is living our lives in obedience to God’s commandments so that we can claim the gift of salvation which was won for us through Jesus’ death on the cross.

Faith evokes love, charity, dedication, trust, mercy, loyalty, belief, devotion, dedication, commitment but above all it evokes God in our lives. It is all that is good – we need to live out the seven corporal and the seven spiritual Works of Mercy. This is based on Matthew 25:31and in line with Jesus’ teaching.

The Spiritual Works of Mercy are: to admonish the sinner, to instruct the ignorant, to counsel the doubtful, to comfort the sorrowful, to bear wrongs patiently, to forgive all injuries and to pray for the living and the dead.

The Corporal Works of Mercy are: to feed the hungry, to give drink to the thirsty, to clothe the naked, to ransom the captive, to harbour the harbourless, to visit the sick and to bury the dead.

Community is vital to a faith-filled life as we are to love and support one another. Through two thousand years of our Christian Faith, the Church has, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, produced well defined guidelines for our benefit. The Sacraments, from which we receive grace, are important for our faith formation and practice. The Scriptures are a prime resource to guide and instruct us.

As human being we are weak and fall into sin and as Catholics we have the Church to keep us on track when we waver. The Church Authority, appointed by Jesus through the Apostles - defined by the Pope and the Magisterium - lead and we, the laity, have our role to play in supporting and reaching out to one another. We are missionaries and priests and we must minister to one another. In compliance with the spiritual work “to admonish the sinner” we need to be vigilant and alert one another when we stray.

The spiritual and corporal works of mercy as defined by the Church are a constant reminder of our commitments to God and to one another.

There are many trials and temptations with each age producing different challenges. Without our very special support system we are lost and will find it very difficult to resist the temptations of this world and the evil one.

These are just a few of my thoughts on how Catholics should live their Faith. I am sure you will all be able to add your thoughts as well.

Hi Cinette,

I enjoyed this post immensely. Great stuff!

Blessings, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi,

I think in the heart of every Christian living by faith is the same. We wake up each morning and say “Good Morning God, I love you, help me to get through this day without messing things up too much!” You know what I mean. Every Christian who loves God and wants to be close to him learns that our faith is in an eternal, all merciful, all loving God who we think we can know and love back - at first - and then we realize how small we are compared to him - how little our love is compared to his - and how meager our efforts are. That’s when we really begin to live by faith. We throw ourselves into his hands and try our best to stay there - where it’s safe!

Faith is a gift and you know we all mess it up at times. We neglect the gift, we take it for granted etc. but it’s a gift that keeps on giving.

A Catholic spiritual life brings some prayers and devotions that are unique - but available to all - like the rosary which helps us to see moments in Jesus life where he walked through joy and sorrow - where his divinity was made known - and how his passion and death ended in glory. The content is much the same as a bible study - but the method is different.

Of course the Mass is a huge source of grace - where we come into the presence of Emmanuel, God with us. But it’s also a thing that tests our faith. Do we believe Jesus’ words that “this is my body.” or do we say “this teaching is too hard.” I think most Catholics have done both.

Thank you for your respectful question. May God bless you and give you great faith!

In Christ,

Mary
BROKEN ALABASTER
http://www.brokenalabaster.com

Thanks Mary,

I got a lot out of your post and I appreciated the link “broken alabaster.”

Phew! I’m really learning here all the time.

Blessings in Christ, Craig

 

[twb1621]

…

Craig, tell me, you can’t possibly be able to go over all this information with due consideration in this short time. I hope you don’t go and burn yourself out over it all before you get the chance to dwell on it all…

:whacky: :doh2:

Bless you my Brother

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Well lets put it this way Craig, It’s the Church Peter founded and Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. So maybe that will help. Now if it is the Church Peter started how could it not be the first church. See what I mean Jesus left Peter to start the Church. He left him the Great shepherd, the leader. Remember Craig he even told him 3 times. When he said that to Peter, Peter do you love me feed my sheep, etc; What does that mean to you Craig? Just curious.

Hi Rinnie,

My reply is not intended to agitate or frustrate Catholics, you will understand.

The practice of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH to ordain men to the ‘PRIESTHOOD’, so that they become a special group deputed to MEDIATE between God and men, is something that I cannot find in scripture.

The references you have made about Peter can just as easily, quite honestly, be interpreted in another way, which I realise is not your Roman Catholic tradition.

The teaching of the New Teastament is that all believers are “priests” unto God - please see, read and study 1 Peter 2:5-9, in this connection. It is believers who are termed a “holy priesthood” because of the approach they have to God at all times; and it is, moreover, believers who are termed a “royal priesthood” because of the testimony they are empowered to give to humans.

It is by THE NEW BIRTH that we are constituted “PRIESTS.” The believer is always a Priest! In the believer’s individual life, home life and in his/her church life such a person has the privilege of exercising priestly functions “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Although I believe that Peter was foundational to the formation of Christ’s universal/catholic (please notice the small c for catholic, I have deliberately used, simply meaning universal), I do not believe it was Christ’s intention to make Peter UNIVERSAL BISHOP OF ROME. It is this latter idea and concept I reject. The Roman Catholic Church developed later as an historical phenomena and, therefore, is part of CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL CHURCH but it is not, in essence, the Church Christ founded on the Day of Pentecost.

I understand this is not your position. I do not wish to offend you in anyway. However, you did ask for my opinion and I have promised this forum honesty at all times; just ask Lief Erikson!
I will always be myself on this forum - I have nothing to hide and I have no agenda to pursue.

God bless you, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Right.

I’m very glad this much common ground is now cleared . It makes me very happy . That’s one more little piece of unity we now share.

And by the way, we don’t reject the role of the elders at all. The word for “elder,” in the Greek, is “presbuteros.” The English words, “presbyter,” “priest,” and “elder” all come from that word. New Testament “elders” are our “priests.” Those two words are just different English translations of the original Greek word, “presbuteros.”

It’s the same job: leadership of a local Christian community. We also recognize the other biblical roles, “episcopos” (bishop) and deacon. The meaning of these scriptural roles, while not always altogether clear in the New Testament itself, was clearly defined in the Church by the end of the first century, as we can see from the writings of St. Ignatius. And we still use them, in that original form . Some more positions have been created when necessary, because of the simple fact of the Church’s size, nowadays, but it’s still the same basic structure. This 1st century, Bible and Fathers based structure is the closest to a scriptural model of government that can be gotten.

The same is true of the Magesterium and Papacy, as I know we’ll discuss further. They too are part of that original Biblical and Patristic model of Church government, a stupendous blessing given through the Spirit to all believers. We’ll talk about that more in the future, I know.

Thanks. I’m glad we can agree on some more things, now! Though I don’t agree with your interpretive shift of the word “apostles” to “apostolic testimony.” I have three points regarding this, for you.

1. What do you do with the lack of scriptural support for this interpretation? Neither of the two passages that refer to the foundation of the apostles refers to “testimony.” The two passages that explicitly talk about it just refer to “the apostles” themselves. Their “names” are written on the foundations that support the wall, not their books of the Bible.
2. Also, we still have Acts 1:20, which shows Matthias receive the place of “apostleship” that Judas left vacant. So we know, scripturally, that the apostles were appointing successors. And we also, of course, have heard about the reality of apostolic succession from the Early Church (the best interpretive source we could hope for), the friends of the apostles who went to martyrdom for the faith, men of great integrity who claimed to be duly appointed successors of the apostles. Whether or not you believe in their infallibility regarding matters of Sacred Tradition, they still are the very best available interpretive and historical witness to the meanings and deeds of the apostles.
3. I have one further point, regarding this. The names of all twelve of the apostles were written on the foundations of the wall, in Revelation. However, only three of the original 12 apostles wrote books of the New Testament (John, Peter and Matthew). Nonetheless, apostles like Simon the Zealot, Matthias and Bartholemew have their names written on foundation stones of the Church, even though they aren’t even quoted in the Scripture. It is very hard for me to see the scriptural testimony of the apostles as the way they serve as eternal foundations of the Church, when only three of them wrote books of the Bible, and some of them aren’t even quoted in Scripture. Doesn’t that make sense to you?

Hi Lief,

You’ve done it again! What can I say?

The three points you have raised are substantial and I do need time to meditate and mull over the issues involved.

I’m glad you understand that I am never evading you. It is just that sometimes I tear home from work and, inevitably, only have a short turn around time until the next day. I am married with children and, therefore, I need a little time to respond to the excellent points you are raising.

I agree with twb (Tom) that the Holy Spirit is with you in the overall sense.

I will come back to you.

Blessings in Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Lief; I wanted to say first off you are without doubt blessed and guided by the Holy Spirit.

Craig,
I would like to try and raise the consideration level a bit higher in regard to the Heart of Christ during this time we are reflecting on through the scriptures that may help you in your discernment along the way. What our Lord was teaching us came from the divine love He had for all of us so His emotions in everything He did and all He spoke had tremendous influence on those who were blessed enough to witness Him. If you could imagine what He was actually teaching, there is no way the apostles could have presented it all and been able to express the heart and love in a written format. As we recognize even in this format, the words we use can come across in different ways unlike speaking to others directly where tone and expression reflect the emotions supporting the words. Love, frustration, disappointment, anger, compassion toward others, the joy Jesus reflected in those who recognized Him for who He was and the affection toward children who approached Him, not to mention the overwhelmingly joyful aching of the heart one must have felt to hear His words “your sins are forgiven you, go sin no more”.
Jesus had no intention of presenting His teachings in written word alone. He recognized our limitations and knew in order to teach an emotion, which is what love is expressed through, it could not be as effectively presented without expression. In His teachings, it was clear to the apostles how this was to be accomplished. There could be no other way. The evidence for this is clear just considering the substance of what Jesus was offering, the fact that so little was in writing and the apostles devotion to go wherever necessary as often as necessary to preach the word of God throughout their ministry. The unimaginable humiliation, pain and suffering He submitted to as an outward expression of the Love He had for all of us and the salvation He was offering for all then and now through the pouring out of His blood. Could there be any question as to why so many devoted Christians in such mass numbers were able to accept such horrible deaths themselves for the love of God.

Hi Tom,

This is an excellent post.

I make “ditto” remarks in replying to this as I have made to Lief Erikson’s post number 376.

I will come back to you, friend in Christ.

I know you understand the position. All of this information is too good to skim over it.

Blessings in Christ, Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Craig, tell me, you can’t possibly be able to go over all this information with due consideration in this short time. I hope you don’t go and burn yourself out over it all before you get the chance to dwell on it all…

:whacky: :doh2:

Bless you my Brother

Thanks Tom,

Phew! I’m wiping the sweat from my forehead as I write (tongue in cheek!), dear brother. LOL.

Yea, point taken - I am going to have to slow down, somewhat! You are telling me to do this; Lief is telling me the same; and my dear wife is at my elbow asking me to do the same!

I will always reply as I have time - therefore, if a few days go by and I haven’t posted, don’t despair! I’m still around! I am enjoying this discussion and dialogue, though!

Please further read my responses in Posts 391 and 392, in this connection.

God bless, Craig

 

[rinnie]

Hi Rinnie,

My reply is not intended to agitate or frustrate Catholics, you will understand.

The practice of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH to ordain men to the ‘PRIESTHOOD’, so that they become a special group deputed to MEDIATE between God and men, is something that I cannot find in scripture.

The references you have made about Peter can just as easily, quite honestly, be interpreted in another way, which I realise is not your Roman Catholic tradition.

The teaching of the New Teastament is that all believers are “priests” unto God - please see, read and study 1 Peter 2:5-9, in this connection. It is believers who are termed a “holy priesthood” because of the approach they have to God at all times; and it is, moreover, believers who are termed a “royal priesthood” because of the testimony they are empowered to give to humans.

It is by THE NEW BIRTH that we are constituted “PRIESTS.” The believer is always a Priest! In the believer’s individual life, home life and in his/her church life such a person has the privilege of exercising priestly functions “to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2:5)

Although I believe that Peter was foundational to the formation of Christ’s universal/catholic (please notice the small c for catholic, I have deliberately used, simply meaning universal), I do not believe it was Christ’s intention to make Peter UNIVERSAL BISHOP OF ROME. It is this latter idea and concept I reject. The Roman Catholic Church developed later as an historical phenomena and, therefore, is part of CHRIST’S UNIVERSAL CHURCH but it is not, in essence, the Church Christ founded on the Day of Pentecost.

I understand this is not your position. I do not wish to offend you in anyway. However, you did ask for my opinion and I have promised this forum honesty at all times; just ask Lief Erikson!
I will always be myself on this forum - I have nothing to hide and I have no agenda to pursue.

God bless you, Craig

No, No thats cool Craig, But if I came on too strong my mistake, didnt mean to. But Ok You said you believe that Jesus did have Peter start the Church, Okay then if he didn’t intend Peter to be the leader again the feed my sheep, and also what do you think he meant when he gave him the keys to the kingdom. Now think about it, it was the kingdom on this earth. Why would Jesus have said that to Peter? Here is something else to think about, He changed Abram to Abraham. Now he changed Simon to Peter. Now Jesus was always the Rock. Now the meaning of Peter and Abraham is also Rock. Now the reason we believe that the Apostles have the Power to pass on the Holy Spirit is because Jesus said that. What my Father has given me, I know give to you. Now while we are all to be a royal Priesthood, and I do agree with you. Jesus did not say I give you the power of the Holy Spirit like he did the Apostles. See what I mean? Luke 45 He opened their mind to scriptures. We do not have that power, we cannot define scripture, the bible tells us that. But yes we can all be a Royal Priesthood and that is to be ChristLike. Living examples of his faith and Love. But he never said make teachers of everyone. Give them the Gift of the Holy Spirit. (we call that Holy Orders) . Remember we don’t pick Jesus he picks us. Jesus picked his Apostles. That is why it is a special calling from God to become a Priest. Not all are called. But we can be priests in the sense that we can be Christ Like. But I Craig do not have the power like I said to define scripture, Marry People, Baptise People, Forgive sins of others. Only God can do that, and it is through a Priest that he works.

 

[benedictus2]

Thanks, Benedictus 2, I do respect theologians. As far as I can tell, though, the only thing they can prove through reason is the existence of a very “generic” God that created the Universe from scratch, and with that as your only weapon you are not going to convince anyone who doesn’t want to believe in the first place

. Most of my life I’ve been an atheist (not an antitheist), and if I hadn’t taken the first step I doubt that God would have graced me with faith. To me, what proves Christianity without the need of faith is human experience:

**if the apostles hadn’t seen Jesus dead and resurrected,**there’s no way they would have put themselves through martyrdom to spread his teachings.

But human experience too has disproved Christianity as such. My atheist friend denies the existence of God purely from human experience.

And as to the highlighted words above, Paul did not see Christ die and rise again and neither did the rest of us who came after the apostles. So it is not really the apostles seeing Christ’s death and ressurection that made them die for the faith, it is rather the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. As Christ said, blessed are those who have not seen but believed.

Remember that prior to Pentecost, after the ressurection, they were still a bunch of fearful followers who would not dare proclaim their faith in Him.

It is this same Holy Spirit that guides these theologians (and I am lumping here all those who have been great apologists for the Church though not technically theologians because I think this is more in keeping with your first post).

G.K. Chesterton is a very good example. The funny thing about him is that he was ushering people into the Catholic Church even before he himself entered because he could see the rationality behind the Church’s claim.

I was a lot like you, very happy about my faith and quite content to leave it that. It was only when a protestant guy joined our company and challenged me. He told me that I know a lot about my faith but because I cared more about people’s opinions than the Gospel I would not even speak up. That certainly got me going and I started reading more on apologetics and this is when I really came to appreciate the great minds that have contributed to the Church’s understanding of salvation, God’s Grand Plan. What a treasure trove they were. And because of that I saw a glimpse of the vast richness of my faith. And it is so rich I am just touching the tip of it at this stage in my growth.

Yesterday I decided to print the exchange in this thread because due to time constraints there were so many posts that I’ve only skimmed through. Most of the time I just check if Craig has a question for me and I would respond whenever I can. I decided to make this my train ride reading.

By golly, these posts were brilliant. I was really quite dumbfounded by the responses of Tom, Rawb and Dempsey, et al. But most of all I was very impressed by Lief. The rationality of his thinking that led him to the Church was in most ways similar to those of Scott Hahn, Cardinal Newman and Thomas Howard.

One of the books that I am so thankful God has so kindly put in my path was “Why does God Permit Evil” by Dom Brunno Webb. Reading this I got a glimpse of the beauty of the Grand Plan of God and how we all fit in it. It made me realize even more the greatness of His Love for us.

Lastly, for some, to come to a “generic God” is the first **essential **step to coming to know the Trinity, the God who is Love.

There are also those who have believed against their will.

I was thinking were I not born Catholic, because I love clear, logical, rational arguments, St Thomas and the like would have lit my path on my way Home.

 

[benedictus2]

The more I learn about Catholicism beyond the Gospels, the thinner my capacity for faith gets stretched. If you have reasonable theological proof, for example, that Mary ascended to Heaven bones and all, I’d like to hear it. I would still have faith in her if the Church taught that she was a representation of God’s feminity, or something New-Agey like that. (Having faith in her is the least we can do for our sisters.)

I suppose we are different this way. I don’t see the Assumption as being “beyond”. Rather I see it as a logical extension of the Immaculate Conception which in turn derives from the Incarnation. The conclusions are not entirely non-Biblical either.

As I mentioned before, once I started looking at it from the Grand Plan rather than the bits and pieces of the Grand Plan, it made so much more sense to me.
A lot of times, the part can only be clearly understood when referenced back to the whole.

As for the New-Agey view of Mary, it is completely wrong. No wonder the Protestants ridicule us for our veneration of Mary. They have in their mind that we think of her as a goddess which is so totally wrong.

I suppose this is the reason why there is less new-age influence in protestant church than in the Catholic church.