What happens if I'm wrong?

[reen12]

Hi, Mickey,

quote: Mickey

If, on the other hand, you feel that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and allowed it to fall into error, then you would most likely follow the precepts of protestantism.

I would reverse the order here, Mickey.
Because the hierarchy abandoned Scripture in it’s
fulness, the Holy Spirit left her to her own devices.

Additionally, I would state it as: I think, after reasoned
consideration, that X is the case; rather than I “feel”
X to be the case.

Once quit the fulness of Scripture, and a “theology of
grace” is generated, that conflicts with St. Paul.
As I said, above: once the workers in the vineyard [scripture]
started claiming that they ‘owned’ the vineyard, all sorts
of interesting interpretations began to arise.

As to debates over “petrus” “petra” “Keys”…let others
argue those points. I stand back, look at the CC,
look at Scripture, and say:
Whatever “Church” is, it’s not this.

Kindest regards,

reen

[BTW, note how I now employ CC rather than RCC. ]

 

[reen12]

quote:

Ummmm, Reen, the quote to which you are responding is not mine.

Whoa! My apologies. The quote was by john ennis.
Thank you for the kind manner in which you brought
this to my attention, and, again, my apology.

Best,

reen12*

 

[reen12]

quote: smelton

I don’t think the Catholic Church preserved it, I think God did it through the Catholic Church

Exactly.

reen12

 

[reen12]

As to your question, addressed to smelton, in

post #75:

I am made aware of that through the Holy Spirit.
How do I know that it is the prompting of the Holy Spirit?
Through conscience.
To whom do I have to answer, in this regard?
God.

reen12

 

[YinYangMom]

As to your question, addressed to smelton, in

post #75:

I am made aware of that through the Holy Spirit.
How do I know that it is the prompting of the Holy Spirit?
Through conscience.
To whom do I have to answer, in this regard?
God.

reen12

Post #75:

YinYangMom:

But you’re certain God, at some time, used the Catholic Church to preserve His Truth, yes?

And you became certain of that, how?

So, you’re still saying you’re certain God chose to use the Catholic Church to preserve His Truth, yes?

And you’re saying you became certain of that through the Holy Spirit guiding your conscience, correct?

I didn’t ask to whom you had to answer so I’ll skip that part.

My next question becomes, then, when did God chose to no longer use the Catholic Church to preserve His Truth?

 

[mercygate]

reen12:

I would reverse the order here, Mickey.
Because the hierarchy abandoned Scripture in it’s
fulness, the Holy Spirit left her to her own devices.
[BTW, note how I now employ CC rather than RCC. ]

Hmm. Catholics would say, of course, that deleting 6 books from the canon kind of takes the wind (!) out of that one.

The claim that the Church is the final authority in the interpretation of the book she wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who has been sent to “guide her into all the truth” because the Lord had more to say to her “but you cannot bear them now” is not circular.

The Church bases her authority from the witness of 1) the widespread manuscript evidence that our Scriptures are consistent and accurate across several centuries and many languages; 2) the witness of the early martyrs to their unshakeable conviction that the Resurrection was real; 3) the acceptance that if the Scriptures are accurate and the martyrs’ conviction led them to sustain such hideous deaths for what they believed is true, then Jesus can very likely be acknowledged as the Son of God, as the Scriptures claim. 4) if that is true, then we know that he would do what he said he would do, and he promised to build his Church in a way that the gates of the netherworld cannot prevail against it; 5) looking at both the early history and the history of the Church throughout the ages, there is only one Church that has remained intact, visible, identifiable all that time.

It would be for another thread to go into the reasons why Catholics absolutely reject the notion that the Church has somehow abandoned Scripture. But, as you know, we are used to that and can deal with it elsewhere.

 

[mercygate]

reen12:

As to your question, addressed to smelton, in

post #75:

I am made aware of that through the Holy Spirit.
How do I know that it is the prompting of the Holy Spirit?
Through conscience.
To whom do I have to answer, in this regard?
God.

reen12

Just me and God? Is that how the Church works? Not my church or your church but Christ’s Church – whose mission it is to “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.”

Would Christ give a charge without the charism to achieve it?

And he did promise: “lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

 

[LSK]

smelton:

As a protestant I leave open the possibility that I may not understand everything and I actually might have a few things wrong. I often ask myself, “What if I’m wrong?” about my faith. I’ve been visiting this board for a few weeks and I’m baffeled by the fact that anytime someone questions a Catholic Church stance there seem to be individuals who without question believe everthing the Catholic Church believes. I want to pose the question “What if the protestants are wrong?” what does that mean for us protestants. Also “What if the Catholic Church is wrong?” what does that mean for Catholics?

You have asked a great question.

For Catholics, there is a comfort in knowing that The Holy Mother Church Herself can NEVER be wrong…some of its leaders have been wrong in their actions and in their words. However, the doctrines and dogmas of our Faith are not wrong because they are the same as that which was taught by The Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ Himself.

The Catholic Church, oddly enough, has never been wrong in matters of faith and morals. It has been vilified for its stance on certain things - such as artificial birth control, abortion, the sanctity of marriage, etc - but it has never been wrong.

To be a Catholic Christian is not easy. It requires the virtue of obedience. Then again, if it was easy everyone would be a Catholic Christian, right? And while I may not always understand something, by accepting the teachings of the Church I am granted full communion with the Bride of Christ - and therefore I can partake of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Why would I EVER do anything to deny myself THAT???

 

[Melanie01]

I truely believe only God knows your heart and soul.

Pray for guidance and seek the Truth, may the Lord enlighten, guard and keep you

 

[reen12]

quote: mercygate

Just me and God? Is that how the Church works? Not my church or your church but Christ’s Church…

“Is that how the Church works?”

“Works”?

Perhaps there are others who would wish to follow
that line of thought.

The work has been accomplished, in full, by Christ.
We are to be His witnesses and proclaim His salvation,
accomplished once, for all.
That is why the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.

quote: mercygate

Would Christ give a charge without the charism to achieve it?

And he did promise: “lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Christ is with His Church until the end of the age, and
does give the charisms needed.

That the CC sees herself as the Mystical Body and
the receipient of these charisms is respected by me, even
while I do not acknowlege these claims.

Best,

reen12

 

[jimmy]

smelton:

As a protestant I leave open the possibility that I may not understand everything and I actually might have a few things wrong. I often ask myself, “What if I’m wrong?” about my faith. I’ve been visiting this board for a few weeks and I’m baffeled by the fact that anytime someone questions a Catholic Church stance there seem to be individuals who without question believe everthing the Catholic Church believes. I want to pose the question “What if the protestants are wrong?” what does that mean for us protestants. Also “What if the Catholic Church is wrong?” what does that mean for Catholics?

If protestants are wrong, then it depends on the state of their soul. Protestants have been baptized so they are a part of the Church to a degree. If they have been ignorant of the truth through no fault of their own and they live a good life they will be saved. If it is their fault they are not a part of the truth then they will not be saved because they rejected Christ. Only God knows a persons soul though.

If Catholics are wrong then all of Christianity is wrong and you have no salvation. If Catholicism got it wrong then Christ is still dead and we have not been ransomed. This is based on the fact that protestantism came from Catholicism, therefore if the root is wrong the branches are wrong as well.

 

[jimmy]

MariaG:

If the Catholic Church is wrong, why even bother being Christian because Scripture is a lie. Scripture tells us that the Church is the pillar and foundatin of truth, the church will withstand the gates of hell, and He will lead us to all truth. If the Catholic Church were wrong as Luther proclaimed, Scripture lied. (if you need the Scripture references, I’ll get them, but “it’s in there” )

If the Catholic Church is wrong, it means all Christians, Catholic and Protestant, are wasting their time, because God isn’t keeping the promises in the Bible.

God Bless,
Maria

Amen Maria. If I found that Catholicism was wrong chances are I would either be Orthodox Jew(but the loss of the Levitical priesthood is a blow to them) or Agnostic.

 

[jimmy]

smelton:

Let me try and give you a protestant point of view. Jesus alone is the attonment for our sins. I’d suspect everyone who is Christian would agree. When I came on to this board a very short time ago I read things that were simply ludicrous to me. It sounds like instead of people putting their faith in Christ and his action on the cross and in the tomb, it sounds like many Catholics put their faith in the church. This sounds very dangerous to me. My faith is not based on anything but Jesus Christ and his attoning actions. I believe the bible is infalliable, but my faith is in Christ. I’m an active member of my chuch but my faith is in Christ. When I read a lot of posts on here I see people using the words Catholic Church where I would only use Christ. I know many of you feel I’m probably some poor warped protestant that needs some straighting out. But I come to this board looking for understanding on the thoughts of a Catholic. Don’t you see a danger in not putting all your faith in Christ for your salvation? Maybe I just don’t understand what you really believe, which is a good possibility.

You must have faith in the Church and its witness to Christ. If the Church is wrong then how can you even say Christ atoned for our sins. If the Church is false then it is safe to say that the scriptures are false as well considering that they say the Church is the foundation of truth. Without the witness of the Church there is no way to know the truth.

 

[jimmy]

smelton:

I use this as an example, no offense meant Maria. If the Catholic Church is wrong, it does not nullify what Christ did. If the Christian Non-denomination church is wrong, it does not nullify what Christ did. My faith is in Christ and his grace not in the church.

The thing is, if you say the Catholic Church is wrong you are esentially saying both that Christ was wrong when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church, and also that the early Christian witness is wrong because they were strongly Catholic.

 

[jimmy]

smelton:

I don’t think the Catholic Church preserved it, I think God did it through the Catholic Church. I suspect he could have done it through many different instruments but that is how what he chose. That in my understanding doesn’t give infalibility to the church though. I don’t base my faith on anything but the Grace of God. I suspect on the day of Judgement I will fall on my face, if I was able to stand up at all, and claim the grace of God as my only messure of salvation. Not which church I went to, no action I ever took, but only in his Saving Grace.

Of course God preserved it through the Catholic Church but how are you to know that God did not preserve the faith in the Catholic Church as well? You have essentially made it your own judgement what God has preserved. You say that God preserved Sacred Scripture through the Catholic Church but say God did not preserve the faith through the Catholic Church. How can you trust the scriptures are preserved if the faith is not preserved? They were both through statements of the Catholic Church.

Yes, everything is by the grace of God, but that does not make all Christian denominations equal.

 

[mercygate]

jimmy:

If Catholics are wrong then all of Christianity is wrong and you have no salvation. If Catholicism got it wrong then Christ is still dead and we have not been ransomed. This is based on the fact that protestantism came from Catholicism, therefore if the root is wrong the branches are wrong as well.

Perfect. You beat me to it. :tiphat:

 

[BlindSheep]

smelton:

Nothing more than what keeps churches from making mistakes. Nothing but the Holy Spirit. Often times though He is simply ignored. I have heard absolutley horendous sermons in protestant churches. Misinterpreted scripture. Abuse of power. Man’s opinion pronounced as if it was God’s opinion.

I see. But how are you sure you are interpreting scripture correctly, and the pastor is not? How can you be sure it is really the Holy Spiit guiding you? With the vast number of differing interpretations in the protestant world, what makes you so certain that you have the right one?
Why would God allow such confusion?

 

[BlindSheep]

smelton:

That is a scary thought to me. The church is made up of sinners, sinners make mistakes. Seems to me a logical conclusion. What is to prevent the abuse of power that the Pope and the bishops have?

smelton:

Nothing more than what keeps churches from making mistakes. Nothing but the Holy Spirit.

 

[mercygate]

smelton:

Nothing more than what keeps churches from making mistakes. Nothing but the Holy Spirit. Often times though He is simply ignored. I have heard absolutley horendous sermons in protestant churches. Misinterpreted scripture.

You think Catholics never hear horrendous sermons with misinterpreted Scripture? Puh-leeze! Still, it doesn’t often happen because even priests with a dissident agenda are deeply trained in Scripture, theology and philosophy.

The difference between much Protestant experience and ours is that one preacher is not the whole ballgame. People get nervous about the concentration of authority in the papacy. But it isn’t really concentrated. The teaching of the Church must, and does, flow from the font. The pope is a guardian. Doctrine builds cautiously from doctrine, always tested by Scripture and through patient (well, not always “patient” but at least thoroough) deliberation, often over centuries. No apparently “new” way of thinking may contradict Scripture or the deposit of faith.

If you get a maverick Priest, there is recourse to the bishop. Orthodoxy resides in a much broader base than it does for most Protestants – even for those confessional Protestant groups which have a hierarchical organization, such as Lutherans, Presbys, Methodists. For all of these groups the foundation on “scripture alone” leads to, “My Holy Spirit can beat up your Holy Spirit!” Split, split, split – because I am following the Holy Spirit, and you’re not.

And now we have the comprehensive and seraphic Catechism of the Catholic Church*. *If you’re hearing something from the pulpit that sounds peculiar, you can check it against an authoritative source.

. . . I would say legalism runs a muck in our churches. It repulses me every time I hear it, it seems we are trying to negate God’s grace by adding rules.

This is an accusation often leveled against the Catholic Church as well. To this I can only say that “rules” arise only in response to a need. Catholics don’t write a rule unless there has been a problem which that rule addresses. I suspect that is true for Protestants as well.

I don’t know about the legalism of Protestant traditions, but I do know that canon law in the Catholic Church is really just a means of rendering into uniform, world-wide, practicable terms the way in which the fundamental principles of the Gospel can best be promulgated and lived out. When you sit down calmly and study Canon Law, each “rule” addresses a specific point of the day-to-day life of the Church. It can be quite illuminating.

 

[jpete79]

Hey All:

How’s everyone doing so far? It’s cold out in NY but it’s all good.

Anyways, I’ve heard a lot of defenses thus far. I’ve heard that Sola Scriptura is not Biblical, I’ve heard that people should not interpret the Bible for themselves, I’ve heard that Papal Succession is derived straight from the Bible, I’ve heard people don’t need to repent or believe to be Baptized (infant Baptism), and I’ve heard that people can be 100% correct on matters of faith and morals.

On the matter of Sola Scriptura…I’ve heard that the Catholic Church was the true Church to preserve it and therefore is the only rightful Church to interpret it, I’ve heard that Protestants took books away from the Canon. Well…
“Every scripture is inspired of God, and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

What is Scripture? Well it can be Old Testament as was generally the case, however; in Timothy, it was said that Paul’s Letters with OTHER Scripture (which means Paul’s Letters and the New Testament were indeed considered Scripture at the time).

The most important word here though is COMPLETE. We need Scripture to make the man of God COMPLETE. This is clear and shows no need for Tradition to be included in making a man of God COMPLETE.

Now, was the Church helpful in translating and making Scriptures widespread? Yes! I don’t deny that it wasn’t. I do, however; deny the authority that only the Church can translate Scripture. Scripture is not to be privately interpreted but only interpreted with the Spirit. Who has the Spirit? Anyone who believes in God. Does that mean that because there are 20,000 denominations that the Spirit has failed? NO! It means we are human and are not infallible. Look at what the Church of the New Testament taught. They kept it simple as belief, baptism and love. Know that Christ died for your sins and was resurrected. Know that he heals your sinful heart and will restore your place with God. These are what makes one Christian; not who baptizes us, not which Church we belong to. Why are there so many denominations? Because its so simple that man makes it more complex. The Magisterium being no exception.

Scripture was indeed meant to be read. Before the printing press there were still 1000’s of copies. It was meant to be read and meant to be read by the laypeople. Paul’s epistles aren’t to just Church leaders but to the Church’s they represented as well.

Now I would like to see where Papal Succession is indicated? True Christ says to Peter, “on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail.” True, he says that Peter, “will have the keys to Heaven; binding and loosing” but doesn’t he say that to all the Apostles? Thus doesn’t that mean that Peter has the same priviledges as all others.

Now I know alot is made up of the Petra/Petros controversy. But what about the pronouns. Petros has you indicated while Petra has this. Why is that important? If Christ had meant that Peter himself was the rock, would the pronoun not stay the same. You Peter on your rock. This rock means HIS ROCK; CHRIST’S ROCK!

Another huge aspect is that of the Gospel of Mark. Why is this important? Because in Mark, we see the same words about Peter declaring God the Christ but it ends there. The whole part about the rock is omitted. The very verses that Roman Catholicism stands upon is not in that Gospel. And the best part about it is that Gospel was edited by none other than PETER HIMSELF. Mark recorded what Peter had asked him to. Early Church fathers such as Origen, Iraneous, and Justin Martyr all admitted to Mark’s having Peter guide him; if Peter wanted everyone to know that he would be the rock that the Church would stand on; why not have Mark write it in here.

Last, for this idea of succession what about the story of Peter and his own words. In Acts we see Peter go to James for instruction at the Jerusalem Council. If he were indeed given a gift of infallibility, why does he need James’ assistance? Peter in his own writing never declares himself a Holy Father but an Apostle (and an Elder which is much different than a Pope). In action we see a difference than what we see in Popes. People fall face down to the Pope, kiss his hand, worshipping; when Cornelius saw Peter and bowed, Peter told him to get up as he is just a man himself.

Anyways, my break is over at work and maybe I’ll finish this later.