Upon this Rock.... Enter the lists

[RaisedCatholic]

If referring to priests, they made a vow to God, Catholic priests are standing in persona Christi. They are married to the Church, which is the Bride of Christ, but there are rites in the Catholic church that do allow married priests.

If priests are “married” to the Church, then aren’t priests from “other Rites” also “married” to the Church? Why are they allowed to marry, if they are “married” to the Church too?

On Fridays and during Lent we abstain from meat

Isn’t that the exact word Paul used? “Abstain”?

Only one can be right. God only started One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. There can not be two truths.

Agreed. But I was talking about the difference between the different groups’ definition of the word “church,” based on how it’s used in Scripture vs how it’s understood & used in Catholicism.

Then there is a variety of denominations to choose from but most people choose the one that holds to what they already believe.

Which, again, is not what Protestantism is about, nor what sola scriptura is about. I would argue (and I assume you would agree), that most “sola scriptura” Protestants are NOT truly sola scriptura based on “their” traditions that aren’t found IN Scripture. But, again, that doesn’t negate sola scriptura, simply because they are not adhering to it. It’s no different that 70% of American Catholics who reject transubstantiation.

I did not say they desire to privately interpret Scripture but that they do. They pretty much have to, there is no Church for them to take it.

Again, based on the difference of what the definition of “Church” means between the two groups, based on the meaning from Scripture vs. tradition.

Both the pastor and associate pastor continued saying the same thing, “I am standing on the authority of the Bible” but both read that authority different.

Then, logically, that would mean either one (or both) are understanding it wrong. But, again, that doesn’t equate with sola scriptura & Protestantism being “wrong.” Only that someone isn’t exegeting the text hermeneutically. If they did, they would agree. But since they don’t, then that means they aren’t.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

If priests are “married” to the Church, then aren’t priests from “other Rites” also “married” to the Church? Why are they allowed to marry, if they are “married” to the Church too?

In other rites, married men are allowed to become priests, but not allowed to marry once becoming a priest. If their wife dies they remain single. Also in certain other rites, they abstain or remain continent (no sexual relations) from the evening before the liturgy until after the liturgy is over. So, yes they are still seen as being married to the Church in their roles.

Isn’t that the exact word Paul used? “Abstain”?

Again, Paul was talking about those who saw meat as evil and abstained from meat always. Abstain is not a bad word. It is just restraining oneself from doing something. In this case giving up a good for a greater good, not because it is evil. I am sure as a protestant you will be fasting at times. I know as a protestant we would be asked for a certain time to “fast” or give up something in order to draw closer to Our Lord.

meaning from Scripture vs. tradition.

Scripture and Tradition (leading of the Holy Spirit). You need the Holy Spirit, otherwise you will drift from every wind of doctrine. Been out there, it’s not fun.

Then, logically, that would mean either one (or both) are understanding it wrong. But, again, that doesn’t equate with sola scriptura & Protestantism being “wrong.” Only that someone isn’t exegeting the text hermeneutically. If they did, they would agree. But since they don’t, then that means they aren’t.

That is very true. Especially, yes, since they aren’t agreeing one or both are not understanding Scripture correctly. That is it exactly. Protesting or protestantism is a spiral that continues on and on and to all the different denominations that are out there. There is absolutely no way, that everyone will agree. Human equation. There has to be a leading and a protection from the Holy Spirit. God is not the author of confusion.

As you are leaving the Catholic church and going deeper into protestantism you will see what I mean. As I said before, I made all these exact same arguments. Catholics who leave the Church pick up on the confusion quicker than those who are raised protestant and especially those raised in one particular denomination.

I will keep you in my prayers. All roads lead to home.

 

[whatistrue]

The ‘traditions’ which Paul says that were to be received ‘by word of mouth or by letter from us’ aren’t different traditions (ie: one tradition by mouth & a separate tradition by letter), but rather the same traditions that would ‘either’ be ‘taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.’

Nope, not buying it. The plain meaning of the passage is that the method of transmission isn’t the deciding factor, but that it is a tradition taught by the Apostles. That brings us to the real point of the Supreme Court analogy, however imperfect, which is that there is a single body charged with definitive and authoritative interpretation. Still wondering how you explain “by letter or by letter” though.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

In other rites, married men are allowed to become priests…they are still seen as being married to the Church in their roles.

But, again, if priests in the Latin Rite are “forbidden” to marry because they are “married to the Church” - and that is the reason for them not allowing to be married, and if married non-Latin Rite priests are also “married to the Church,” yet they are allowed to be married AND be a priest, it seems they are “married” to two entities. So, why doesn’t Rome extend that option to Latin Rite priests also. I get the Catholic “rules,” and “how” it’s explained differently. I’m asking you to think about “why” it’s different.

Paul was talking about those who saw meat as evil and abstained from meat always.

I understand the immediate context of Paul. Nevertheless, voluntary fasting is not the same as an ecclesiastical entity “mandating” a believer to “abstain” from meat or any other food, whether perpetually or temporarily, which is what Paul’s point was, since - as you said - everything God made is good, including food. This is why God commanded Peter to “get up & eat,” & why we don’t have any commands from our Lord or the apostles about “abstaining” - even temporarily - from any kind of food, on certain “feast days” or holy days. In fact, Paul states just the opposite (Romans 14:5-6; Colossians 2:16-17).

Scripture and Tradition (leading of the Holy Spirit).

Again, I was referring to the difference between how the two groups DEFINE the meaning of “Church”: Scripture, which defines “church” as a local assembly where local believers gather to worship (eg: Revelation Ch.2 & 3) & as the larger “church” that Jesus built, which is simply a sinners who God “called out” from the world. Contrast these meanings to one based on “tradition” that defines it as an ecclesiastical hierarchy. That is what I meant by “Scripture vs. Tradition.”

There has to be a leading and a protection from the Holy Spirit. God is not the author of confusion.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit (the Helper) gave us that “protection” through God-breathed (Inspired) Scripture to be able to compare teachings TO them (Acts 16:10-11). That is why Peter stated “the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). Even Peter viewed the written word above even his own personal experience at the Transfiguration, because Scripture is God-breathed. Of course, not everyone is going to base their faith on the “prophetic word” (or they will & they will add to it). But, again, that doesn’t negate it.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

As you are leaving the Catholic church and going deeper into protestantism you will see what I mean.

I “left” Catholicism several years ago. And as I studied Scripture, I began to see things Rome taught that conflicted with Scripture, particularly when I began studying the Biblical languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, & Greek. If anything, my Catholic upbringing benefited me, because I was already aware of the “traditions” & “when” they were first taught in Catholicism, which many do not date back to the apostles, including priests (from ANY Rite) not marrying, abstaining from meat on Good Friday & Lent, and Peter being the rock Jesus built His church on.

Blessings to you. I will keep you in my prayers as well. BTW, I am home. But thanks for the prayers. I always welcome them.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Nope, not buying it. The plain meaning of the passage is that the method of transmission isn’t the deciding factor, but that it is a tradition taught by the Apostles. That brings us to the real point of the Supreme Court analogy, however imperfect, which is that there is a single body charged with definitive and authoritative interpretation. Still wondering how you explain “by letter or by letter” though.

Yes. and again, if you read the previous verses BEFORE the one where Paul talks about “by letter or by word,” THOSE are the “traditions” he is talking about. But if you simply take a single verse & lift it out of its context, you will not get the author’s intended meaning.

And if you use the SCOTUS analogy, then since throughout time, this “single body” has contradicted its own previous rulings, then is it really a good example? That is why we must use an “authority” which cannot contradict itself, which we can use to explain itself: Scripture to explain Scripture.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

I get the Catholic “rules,” … I’m asking you to think about “why” it’s different.

Then I guess you already understand why Latin rite priests are celbate and why Pope John Paul II gave permission for other rites to allow married men to become priests with permission on a case by case basis and if you get the rules and the why’s then I guess I don’t need to expound any further on it. In all charity though, as far as asking me to think about it, I follow the Catholic church. I am long gone from questioning God’s Holy Church.

we don’t have any commands from our Lord or the apostles about “abstaining” - …

Jesus Himself said, “when you fast”, not if you fast. Again, it all goes back to interpretation of Scripture. Who is allowed to interpret Scripture, the Catholic church.
What Peter binds, Peter binds. What Peter looses, Peter looses.

Fasting and abstaining rules are disciplines also. The rules have changed a lot over the centuries. Early Christians fasted and abstained way more over the liturgical seasons than what is asked of us today. It was a deep expression of their love and unity.

Personal interpretation of Scripture, reminds me of the Israelites grumbling against Moses and wanting to have just as much authority as he did.

God chooses who He wants to be in authority and in Roman’s tells us to be subject to those governing authorities.

Again, I was referring to the difference between how the two groups DEFINE the meaning of “Church”: Scripture, which defines…

I know what you meant but again, you are trying to take authority and interpret scripture in your way, but Our Lord did not give you that authority.

Yes, and the Holy Spirit (the Helper) gave us that “protection” through God-breathed (Inspired) Scripture

I completely agree it is God breathed inspired Scripture, but God’s protection goes beyond that. He actually, by the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic church, protects Scripture. As God protects the Catholic church and leads it into all truth, He is also protecting His Word.

I “left” Catholicism several years ago.

I kind of thought so…

And as I studied Scripture, I began to see things Rome taught that conflicted with Scripture,

I understand, I did the same thing. Many Catholic reverts will say that is why they left at first, reading Scripture on their own or through protestantism.
I have been studying Scripture for over 25 years and when I first started studying it, I thought I knew more than Rome also and left and thought I was finally home too. I finally came to a point of wanting to pull my hair out if I heard one more, “I believe” this means…contradicting someone elses, “I believe” this means.

Took a while but I finally came to realize I didn’t know as much as I thought I did and the Catholic church was right all along.

 

[SaberBob]

Back in the This Rock archives there is an article on the primary core difference between Catholics and Protestants and that being we Catholics believe in a VISIBLE Church and Protestants do not–not really, despite some protests to the contrary. Without one authority who can make once and for all declarations, believer s in the (not found in Scripture) doctrine of the invisible Church have no choice but to to appoint the Bible as a paper Pope, which REALLY means each believer is potentially a Pope all on their own and with the level of infallibility falsly attributed to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[whatistrue]

Yes. and again, if you read the previous verses BEFORE

Still nope. I just went to the first site I found (it was an NIV translation, so you can’t claim that I only pay attention to Catholic sites, and you may also notice if you bother to check that I AM NOT CATHOLIC). At least not yet. But back to the point, the previous verses in combination with the one under discussion in no way imply a limitation on which traditions are being written about. It is still simply (paraphrasing) stick to what we taught you, whether we told you in person or wrote it in a letter.

That is why we must use an “authority” which cannot contradict itself, which we can use to explain itself: Scripture to explain Scripture.

And where did Scripture come from? Specifically, who decided which of the plethora of available writings were actually Scripture and which weren’t?

And if you use the SCOTUS analogy, then since throughout time, this “single body” has contradicted its own previous rulings, then is it really a good example?

Did you perhaps miss the part where I specifically said it was not a perfect analogy, and for that very reason?

 

[JimG]

I was thinking of these words from the end of Matthew’s gospel:

“Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.””

Jesus didn’t tell them to wait until the New Testament had been completed. collected, and the canon determined. And the Church did not delay in following his instructions, but immediately began to spread the gospel to all nations. The Church was teaching even as Saul was still persecuting; his epistles were yet to be written. Had the Church delayed its mission waiting for the NT to be written and the canon to be compiled, they would have had to wait for several decades at least. The bible was produced by the Church for the Church, but it did not precede the Church.

 

[Gorgias]

That is why we must use an “authority” which cannot contradict itself, which we can use to explain itself: Scripture to explain Scripture.

And how does that ‘authority’ itself have authority? From itself? Where do we see that Scripture is said to have the authority of a rule of faith?

 

[AlmaRedemptorisMater]

Scripture to explain Scripture

This is essentially treating the Scripture like the Koran. But we as Christians were not given a covenant by a book, we were given a covenant by a person - Jesus Christ. And Jesus told us what He left behind - the Church, not the Bible.

Only those who held authority in the Church - Peter, Paul, the Evangelists, etc. - had the authority to write Scripture. They did not exist outside of the Church.

Fundamentally the Scriptures cannot be their own authority. They were not created in a vacuum, they do not exist in a vacuum, and they would have no meaning in a vacuum. They exist within an under the Church that wrote, compiled, canonized, and interprets them.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

And where did Scripture come from? Specifically, who decided which of the plethora of available writings were actually Scripture and which weren’t?

When talking about the OT canon, the apostle Paul stated ALL Scripture is inspired (God-breathed) (2 Timothy 3:16). Although not all Jews believed in the exact same OT writings, nonetheless, they were inspired the moment they were penned. And Jesus clearly held them accountable for knowing what it was (“Have you not read?” / “As it is written” / “the Scriptures say” etc). So, the OT canon was written by the OT JEWS, not the church, which Jesus knew what the boundaries were & expected the Jews to know what its limits were.

The NT canon was also inspired the moment it was penned. Jude acknowledged Peter’s writings as Scripture, as did Peter acknowledged all of Paul’s, & Paul acknowledged Luke’s who he said he got it from other sources, such as the other “synoptic” gospel writings, Matthew & Mark. So, by the mid-first century, virtually all of the NT had been recognized in the mid-first century church as being just as God-breathed as the OT.

Where Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, & others differ are the boundaries of the OT. Since this thread is not about the canon, but the identity of who or what the “rock” Jesus built His church on, I will refer you to this discussion on CAF:

Why Protestant Bibles Are Smaller

 

[RaisedCatholic]

In all charity though, as far as asking me to think about it, I follow the Catholic church.

Well, it really boils down to this, and the true reason for the disagreement between Catholics and non-Catholics.

I am long gone from questioning God’s Holy Church.

Which Protestants don’t “question” either. They just disagree to the identity of what that “church” is.

Jesus Himself said, “ when you fast ”, not if you fast.

“When” is not a command, just as observation. Since the early church was Jewish, not Gentile like today, they fasted because it was the custom from the OT for Jews to fast. And even then, it wasn’t a mandatory “command” to do so on certain days. Then, like now, “if” believers fasted, it was voluntary, not a “command” to “abstain” on specific feast days like it’s “commanded” to do in Canon Law.

The rules have changed a lot over the centuries.

If fasting “rules” were a “command” from our Lord, why would the “rules” have “changed”?

What Peter binds, Peter binds. What Peter looses, Peter looses.

Which got extended to the rest of the church (Matthew 18:18), not just Peter. Peter was simply the first to speak up who Christ was (Matthew 16:17), which gave him the authority to bind & loose based on a person’s declaration of faith in “Who” Christ was (the Christ, the Son of the living God).

I know what you meant but again, you are trying to take authority and interpret scripture in your way

An “interpretation” is based on a “translation” from another language. That is what “interpretation” means - not “personal view.” And a direct translation from the Hebrew to Greek for “rock” is “'cela” to “petra” not “keph” to “petra.” This translates “an immovable rock, a boulder or crag.” The direct translation from “keph” to Greek is “petros,” which simply means “stone” (not pebble) but stone, but not “rock” (petra) either. This is what it means to translate exegetically, not to be confused with a personal “view” that doesn’t translate exegetically.

[cont]

 

[RaisedCatholic]

[cont]

He actually, by the leading of the Holy Spirit in the Catholic church, protects Scripture.

Scripture is “protected” by its own authority since it is God-breathed. It is the responsibility of the church to adhere to it. And, again, the difference between Catholics & non-catholics is the exegesis of passages, like Matthew 16:18, based on how it is “translated” either exegetically or eisegetically. At least that is from the Protestant understanding (not challenging Catholicism in ANY way!)

I finally came to a point of wanting to pull my hair out if I heard one more, “I believe” this means…contradicting someone elses, “I believe” this means.

I completely understand this. To be honest, I feel the same way when I hear this. But if you study church history, you will find yourself pulling your hair out, even with different proclamations between ecumenical councils! Again, all this means is that when different groups (whether they be Protestant, Catholic, or something else) differ with each other, it simply means someone is not exegetically translating from the original languages correctly, not that the entire sect is incorrect. So, to discern, we must go back to the actual meaning of the original languages to find out “who” is right.

 

[whatistrue]

I will refer you

Objection, your honor. Non-responsive.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

… They just disagree to the identity of what that “church” is.

It is usually those who were raised Catholic or a non Christian seeking the truth, who first question Catholic teaching.

Then, like now, “if” believers fasted, it was voluntary , not a “command”

Examples:

Esther instructed everyone to fast when the Jewish people were being threatened by Haman.

The king of Nineveh instructed all the people of the city to fast when Jonah came and warned them that they were offending God.

Jehosephat proclaimed a fast when there was a fear of being attacked.

If fasting “rules” were a “command” from our Lord, why would the “rules” have “changed”?

Christ instructs us to fast, He gave the Catholic church the authorioty to proclaim how and when to fast.

But if you study church history, you will find yourself pulling your hair out, …

Yes, There were many disagreements that came along in Church history. I will not deny that but then again that always leads us back to the absolute need of the Catholic church and its being led by the Holy Spirit to answer those disagreements, which is why Christ commanded us to take it to the Church and St. Paul said the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth.
No more need to pull my hair out. I have peace knowing God is in control. God is not the author of confusion but rather promised to lead us into all truth.

Then, and I truly mean this in all charity but you are attacking the Church Christ gave us. I realize you feel you have figured out the answers and know more than the Church but I suggest two things because you are only putting your soul in jeopardy and the souls of those you are influencing who may not have experience or knowlege.

So two things. Pray the prayer St. Francis prayed before the San Damiono crucifix. He too was confused by what he thought God was telling him. The “true faith” part of the prayer hit me hard when I was protestant and confused.

Most High, glorious God,
enlighten the darkness of my heart
and give me
true faith,
certain hope,
and perfect charity,
sense and knowledge,
Lord, that I may carry out
Your holy and true command

Next there are a couple of other people who were once protestant and have written some very good books. Of course, you probably heard of Scott Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home. He also has a very good website:

St. Paul Center

Another good one is Fullfilled by Sonja Corbitt.

https://ascensionpress.com/collections/fulfilled

I have already been away from the Catholic church. There is nothing you could say, no trying to tell me that you know what a scripture verse means over what the Catholic church says, that will cause me to leave the Catholic church, Christ in the Eucharist, Blessed Mother, saints and more. Nothing you could say could take me back to the protestant way.

My fear is for those vulnerable Catholics who will be led astray and their souls put in danger.

 

[SaberBob]

“All Scripture is inspired…” because Scripture says it inspired. OKAY, let’s bring on in the Koran, the Book of Mormon, Science and the Key to the Scriptures.
.or let’s not. Of course a claim by itself is no proof or evidence and neither is any claims of Divinely-induced feelings of confirmation of any texts’. validity.

 

[RaisedCatholic]

Esther instructed everyone to fast when the Jewish people were being threatened by Haman.

The king of Nineveh instructed all the people of the city to fast when Jonah came and warned them that they were offending God.

Jehosephat proclaimed a fast when there was a fear of being attacked.

Again, these are TEMPORARY and SINGLE fasts, not commands to be observed on specific holy days, like Ash Wednesday and Good Friday during Lent.

Christ instructs us to fast

Again, Jesus saying “when” is not a command, and this was based on his audience being Jewish, not Gentile believers. Gentile NT believers are never commanded to fast, since fasting was a “Jewish thing.” Nor did our Lord command us to fast on particular feast days, and Paul specifically commanded the church not to abstain from certain foods.

why Christ commanded us to take it to the Church

In context, this was BEFORE Pentecost, which is when the “church” was established. Jesus was using the Greek word to mean to take sinners to the “local assembly” of believers. An ecclesiastical hierarchy did not e it’s back then.

St. Paul said the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth.

Which goes back to what Paul went on to say what disqualifies a body from being that “church” is “forbidding men from marrying” and “abstaining from certain foods.”

There is nothing you could say, no trying to tell me that you know what a scripture verse means over what the Catholic church says

Nor am I trying to, and like I said, this is the real source of division between Catholics and non-Catholics. And I appreciate the prayer suggestion, but I will pray the way our Lord commanded, “Our Father,” since Jesus is our High priest, which in the OT was the ONLY one who could petition before God in the Holy of Holies. But thank you anyways.

 

[JimG]

An eccliastical hierarchy existed from the beginning, first the Apostles, appointed by Christ himself, who were the first bishops, then their successors, then presbyters and deacons. Jesus did not leave the Church leaderless.