What Have You Given Up For Lent, Or Sacrificed?

[DCD]

What it comes down to is this. “this is what I think my Church teaches, and therefore, if you don’t agree with me, your invincible ignorant.” That is simply a logically wrong statement period. Calling it “charitable” is but a means to get around being charged with being insulting.

Thanks, glad to know I’m “incoherent and ranting.” LOL. …

I’m not interesting in attacking the RCC at all, never have been. Some here far exceed the church’s teachings and for that I am quite sad. She is conservative enough in my opinion without being in some cases misrepresented as even more so. But that as I said, is my opinion.

I think we have strayed far from the point of this thread. Thanks for you observations and opinions.

What it comes down to is this, Roman Catholic’s do not have to worry about the teachings of The Church because of the promise of Jesus Christ, all we have to do is be obedient. If you don’t agree then you don’t agree. However when you misrepresent The Church and it’s members, Roman Catholic’s have a duty to correct and evangelize. For instance, in this post you stated The Church is conservative. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is not conservative. She is not liberal. She is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. She is The Truth. In another post you claimed that Catholics on this board damned “all protestants including all Anglicans to Hell.” Where? Point me to that post. You also said, Roman Catholics on this board claim “non-RCC are just not smart enough or educated enough…” Where? Give me the quotes and I will try to correct them.

Many times you have stated that you feel disrespected. When one reads your claims without the evidence to substantiate them, I would say that is disrespectful. At least we agree on one thing we are off topic.

Peace,
David

 

[sambos671]

Many here do, and I think you have been a good example of Roman Catholicism, more in line with other Catholics I have known in my life and in my parishes when I was RCC myself.

However, when people:

1. Tell you you are unknowledgable about history etc because you don’t choose to be RCC that is disrepectful. Especially when the poster has absolutely no idea what my education in Church history or religion is.
2. When people claim that all Protestants including all Anglicans are going to hell–yes that has occurred her, or their souls are lost, or their priests or ministers are without authority and their Eucharist is wasted, that is disrepectful.
3. When people claim that non-RCC are just not smart enough or educated enough and when they become that they will surely become RCC adherents. This denies the plain facts of millions of people who are demonstrably brighter and more educated than either themselves or myself for that matter, and chose either another faith tradition or no faith. That is disrespectful.

I just participated in a day of silence. We were treated by our former diocesan bishop to lead our retreat. He has devoted his life to working for ecumenical reconciliation and spends all his time with RCC, other Protestants and other faiths, exploring our common ground. He told us today that the RCC at the highest levels is now exploring the placement of the “gift of peace” that we all share. It is place differently in the Catholic Mass from ours. They are beginning to think that it belongs, according to ancient tradition at the end of the general thanksgivings and intercessions, where we have.

What occurs on this forum is unseemly by both sides. Mature RCC leaders and mature Protestant leaders are able to work together, exploring those areas where we can meet. There is not rancor and name calling. Nobody suggests that either side is not beloved by God and under Jesus salvific grace. Only here ( and certainly on other such forums) do we find this. I guess I expected better from a site run by as I understand it clergy itself. Somebody ought to police it. As one poster said very clearly, Protestants must be charitable and not bash the RCC but they as RCC are not required to reciprocate because it is a RCC site. Imagine such a statement!

Just to let you know spiritmeadow, I left the Catholic church when I was 15 and remained a protestant for 26 years. Just within the Last year I returned. So, I understand you feelings with the first 3 points. There is a sin in Catholicism that is called presumption. Where you state that no matter what you’ll be saved. Primarily due to the fact that catholics also believe in Apostacy. The thing is I believe that the opposit for much the same reason is true to say that Non-Catholics or protestants will burn in hell is like presumption. Several Popes have dealt with this issue and have clarified Trent indicating that Non Catholics may be saved and that even though they are not members of the church that they are still saved through the church by the Power of God. Siting things like ignorance etc… So Catholics who spout of about protestants going to hell unconditionally are not following their own faith. The truth of the matter with regard to most catholics I’ve encountered is that they don’t know their own faith. Many ignore the second part of the Magesterium all together which is sacred scripture. (this is not true for all catholics but enough). I don’t really know why you left Catholicism other than for Moral disagreements which I wonder at but you are free to have them though from one catholic to a former catholic I will say that I believe you’re treading on dangerous ground but I will not treat you badly, I will hear what you have to say and disagree politely. Though I may argue points at times I will not presume about your salvation. I will trust in God to do his will with regard to your life. And I will pray for you.

 

[firstmode]

Are there any non-Catholics who observe the Lenten season? Do you know how Lent started and what it means? Thanks.

I am a Protestant Pentecostal Assemblies of God. Most Assemblies of God churches do 21 to 40 day fasts each year starting at midnight on January 1st. We do this to start the new year with a strong devotion to the Lord.

Our fasts consist of no food at all and just drinking water mainly and juices on occasion to put some calories in your body for thought processes.

Some do Daniels fasts, 21 day fasts giving up most good tasting foods (I would compare this to what the Eastern Rite does for lent but more restricting in most cases)

 

[firstmode]

Abstaining from meat, all Fridays (through the year,) and Wednesdays, in Lent. Fast on Wed and Friday. Came close to a Black Fast on Ash Wednesday, but weakened. Will try again Good Friday.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

If I was abstaining from meat on Fridays all year I would hit up the Indian Food buffet for lunch and dinner on those days! Tons and tons of great vegetarian food out there in decadent form!

 

[firstmode]

I am surprised at many of these postings saying that Protestants have it easier than Catholics and do not practice spiritual discipline.

My wife and I scoff at the terms of the Lenten fasts many times. Respectfully, we both see and understand that the Lenten fasts are done out of sacrifice and love to God and respected and holy. We do not go around trying to ever criticize the types of fasts that Catholics and EO do, because we recognize and love that Christians around the world are fasting as the Bible tells us to do so. But, for explanation purposes in this thread, the terms of many Lenten fasts listed on this site compare to what many Pentecostal’s children may fast as they are not grown up and just are learning spiritual discipline.

When the word fast is used in Pentecostalism, you are ONLY drinking water that day, unless a very long fast in which you would include some juices for calories. Also, to be clear, the fasts last the whole day, 24 hours, not sunrise to sunset.

Also, long fasts, such as 7, 14, 21, 40 or 50 day fasts do not have any Sunday breaks, They are fasts of NO FOOD on ANY of those 24 hour days. The only thing observed is The Lords Supper on Sundays.

I have known a man to do a 55 day fast with no food, only drinking mainly water, and some non-acidic juices. The longest I have ever done is 21 days straight without any food.

Also, many of the Pastors, Deacons, and church members of the church spend upwards of 3 hours every morning praying to God and studying his word. And yes, these are people who many have full time jobs and family. Also, most who are church members are usually at the church 2 to 5 days a week for many reasons as well.

My Pastor has a fasting schedule that many in the church follow along with as a guide. The schedule has us not eating any foods on Wed and Fridays every week the entire year and on the third week of each month, fasting 3 days straight without any food, Mon-Wed.

I hope you guys will see that Protestants are not just a bunch of un-disciplined Christians who are trying to escape the hard life that the Catholic church follows!

BTW, there are over 20 Million Assemblies of God church members across the world and we are just 1 of the many pentecostal denominations. I just wanted to make sure you understood the scale of many of the practices listed above.

 

[GKC]

If I was abstaining from meat on Fridays all year I would hit up the Indian Food buffet for lunch and dinner on those days! Tons and tons of great vegetarian food out there in decadent form!

Wife does a good vegetarian selection.

GKC

 

[GKC]

I am surprised at many of these postings saying that Protestants have it easier than Catholics and do not practice spiritual discipline.

My wife and I scoff at the terms of the Lenten fasts many times. Respectfully, we both see and understand that the Lenten fasts are done out of sacrifice and love to God and respected and holy. We do not go around trying to ever criticize the types of fasts that Catholics and EO do, because we recognize and love that Christians around the world are fasting as the Bible tells us to do so. But, for explanation purposes in this thread, the terms of many Lenten fasts listed on this site compare to what many Pentecostal’s children may fast as they are not grown up and just are learning spiritual discipline.

When the word fast is used in Pentecostalism, you are ONLY drinking water that day, unless a very long fast in which you would include some juices for calories. Also, to be clear, the fasts last the whole day, 24 hours, not sunrise to sunset.

Also, long fasts, such as 7, 14, 21, 40 or 50 day fasts do not have any Sunday breaks, They are fasts of NO FOOD on ANY of those 24 hour days. The only thing observed is The Lords Supper on Sundays.

I have known a man to do a 55 day fast with no food, only drinking mainly water, and some non-acidic juices. The longest I have ever done is 21 days straight without any food.

Also, many of the Pastors, Deacons, and church members of the church spend upwards of 3 hours every morning praying to God and studying his word. And yes, these are people who many have full time jobs and family. Also, most who are church members are usually at the church 2 to 5 days a week for many reasons as well.

My Pastor has a fasting schedule that many in the church follow along with as a guide. The schedule has us not eating any foods on Wed and Fridays every week the entire year and on the third week of each month, fasting 3 days straight without any food, Mon-Wed.

I hope you guys will see that Protestants are not just a bunch of un-disciplined Christians who are trying to escape the hard life that the Catholic church follows!

BTW, there are over 20 Million Assemblies of God church members across the world and we are just 1 of the many pentecostal denominations. I just wanted to make sure you understood the scale of many of the practices listed above.

What you are calling a fast (no food) is what folks like me call abstaining. Fast is less, abstain is none. Both are apporpriate in Lent.

Black fast is no food, say until sundown.

GKC

 

[emeraldcoast]

I am surprised at many of these postings saying that Protestants have it easier than Catholics and do not practice spiritual discipline.

My wife and I scoff at the terms of the Lenten fasts many times. Respectfully, we both see and understand that the Lenten fasts are done out of sacrifice and love to God and respected and holy. We do not go around trying to ever criticize the types of fasts that Catholics and EO do, because we recognize and love that Christians around the world are fasting as the Bible tells us to do so. But, for explanation purposes in this thread, the terms of many Lenten fasts listed on this site compare to what many Pentecostal’s children may fast as they are not grown up and just are learning spiritual discipline.

When the word fast is used in Pentecostalism, you are ONLY drinking water that day, unless a very long fast in which you would include some juices for calories. Also, to be clear, the fasts last the whole day, 24 hours, not sunrise to sunset.

Also, long fasts, such as 7, 14, 21, 40 or 50 day fasts do not have any Sunday breaks, They are fasts of NO FOOD on ANY of those 24 hour days. The only thing observed is The Lords Supper on Sundays.

I have known a man to do a 55 day fast with no food, only drinking mainly water, and some non-acidic juices. The longest I have ever done is 21 days straight without any food.

Also, many of the Pastors, Deacons, and church members of the church spend upwards of 3 hours every morning praying to God and studying his word. And yes, these are people who many have full time jobs and family. Also, most who are church members are usually at the church 2 to 5 days a week for many reasons as well.

My Pastor has a fasting schedule that many in the church follow along with as a guide. The schedule has us not eating any foods on Wed and Fridays every week the entire year and on the third week of each month, fasting 3 days straight without any food, Mon-Wed.

I hope you guys will see that Protestants are not just a bunch of un-disciplined Christians who are trying to escape the hard life that the Catholic church follows!

BTW, there are over 20 Million Assemblies of God church members across the world and we are just 1 of the many pentecostal denominations. I just wanted to make sure you understood the scale of many of the practices listed above.

Firstmode,

Welcome to the forum! Thank you for sharing your information with us! Very interesting!

We had many youth in our Church this past week participating in the “30 Hour Famine”. It surely reminded all of us our duty as Christians to feed those that are hungry.

30hourfamine.org/
http://media.charlotteobserver.com/...3-famine_01.standalone.prod_affiliate.138.jpg

God Bless!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

There’s still some hope for you, you could be so immersed in the modern relativist way of thinking that you’re simply incapable of seeing what is true and what is not.

Similar things could be said about anyone on any side, not just you.

Neil, I don’t in any way wish to be unkind, but really, “still hope for me?” I haven’t become a card-carrying atheist or anything. Lighten up friend.

 

[sambos671]

Neil, I don’t in any way wish to be unkind, but really, “still hope for me?” I haven’t become a card-carrying atheist or anything. Lighten up friend.

Card carrying atheist I like that. BTW Polycarp was called a card carrying atheist.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

What it comes down to is this, Roman Catholic’s do not have to worry about the teachings of The Church because of the promise of Jesus Christ, all we have to do is be obedient. If you don’t agree then you don’t agree.

I totally get it that this is what you believe. Key word is BELIEVE. I would say that it makes life easier, but I just as firmly believe that God means for us to use our mind. Obedience is okay in some instances. As a child, obedience is necessary for obvious reasons. If you believe yourself in that relationship to your Church, then, well, I would think that a dangerous thing. After all, it is but a structure inhabited and run by men who are all to human. To then add that the HS protects it, is to but beg the question. Since the HS abides in all (at least baptized) everyone else makes the same claim of being properly guided. That doesn’t get us very far I don’t think.

However when you misrepresent The Church and it’s members, Roman Catholic’s have a duty to correct and evangelize. For instance, in this post you stated The Church is conservative. The Holy Roman Catholic Church is not conservative. She is not liberal. She is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. She is The Truth. In another post you claimed that Catholics on this board damned “all protestants including all Anglicans to Hell.” Where? Point me to that post. You also said, Roman Catholics on this board claim “non-RCC are just not smart enough or educated enough…” Where? Give me the quotes and I will try to correct them.

You may reject appelations such as conservative and liberal, but of course history and its authors define all institutions and points in time in this manner and it is not in any way misrepresentative. Both JPII and Benedict have been discribed as theologically conservative. I didn’t invent that.

I think the poster who called us all damned was from one on Why did you leave the Catholic church, but I can’t be certain. He was thoroughly chastised by other RC’s by the way. I was pleased to see that. As to the other, I’m not going back through the posts on various threads, but I suspect you could find them on the same closed thread. And again, some did correct them, though they feel perfectly okay in their judgements
.

Many times you have stated that you feel disrespected. When one reads your claims without the evidence to substantiate them, I would say that is disrespectful. At least we agree on one thing we are off topic.

LOL, well that’s a fascinating turn of logic. It is disrespectful to say you’ve been disrespected! I would argue that your statement of apparent disbelief is met with a degree of scepticism given that any perusal of the threads like “Why did God allow Protestants” “Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic” and the like would provide you with plenty of examples of uncharitible and rather means spirited claims about the lack of value of anything not RC.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Just to let you know spiritmeadow, I left the Catholic church when I was 15 and remained a protestant for 26 years. Just within the Last year I returned. So, I understand you feelings with the first 3 points. There is a sin in Catholicism that is called presumption. Where you state that no matter what you’ll be saved. Primarily due to the fact that catholics also believe in Apostacy. The thing is I believe that the opposit for much the same reason is true to say that Non-Catholics or protestants will burn in hell is like presumption. Several Popes have dealt with this issue and have clarified Trent indicating that Non Catholics may be saved and that even though they are not members of the church that they are still saved through the church by the Power of God. Siting things like ignorance etc… So Catholics who spout of about protestants going to hell unconditionally are not following their own faith. The truth of the matter with regard to most catholics I’ve encountered is that they don’t know their own faith. Many ignore the second part of the Magesterium all together which is sacred scripture. (this is not true for all catholics but enough). I don’t really know why you left Catholicism other than for Moral disagreements which I wonder at but you are free to have them though from one catholic to a former catholic I will say that I believe you’re treading on dangerous ground but I will not treat you badly, I will hear what you have to say and disagree politely. Though I may argue points at times I will not presume about your salvation. I will trust in God to do his will with regard to your life. And I will pray for you.

I agree in much of what you said. I believe most firmly that some RC’s here go far far beyond the teachings of the Church. Frankly, I think the Church might be appalled at some statements made here from time to time. But nobody, Roman Catholic or otherwise has a corner on not understanding their faith completely well.

I hear it a lot that most Catholics don’t understand their faith well. But I almost always here that from the ultra right who are indisagreement with the more moderate and liberal elements within the RCC and I wonder at that. If I state for example that a Priest taught me X and a Catholic theologian taught me Y, they tell me that both are bad in their profession, not teaching the true faith. Since it is in line with other things I have read from catholic sources, I have to wonder as well.

I believe in honest disagreement and discussion, but civility is required it seems to be. Otherwise we are just yelling. The sad thing, is when I hear members of groups who are working in ecumenical circles, they don’t report this kind of behavior. Catholics and non-Catholics can be polite and actually agree on things, all is not rancor and namecalling. It is sad to see it so much here.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I am surprised at many of these postings saying that Protestants have it easier than Catholics and do not practice spiritual discipline.

My wife and I scoff at the terms of the Lenten fasts many times. Respectfully, we both see and understand that the Lenten fasts are done out of sacrifice and love to God and respected and holy. We do not go around trying to ever criticize the types of fasts that Catholics and EO do, because we recognize and love that Christians around the world are fasting as the Bible tells us to do so. But, for explanation purposes in this thread, the terms of many Lenten fasts listed on this site compare to what many Pentecostal’s children may fast as they are not grown up and just are learning spiritual discipline.

When the word fast is used in Pentecostalism, you are ONLY drinking water that day, unless a very long fast in which you would include some juices for calories. Also, to be clear, the fasts last the whole day, 24 hours, not sunrise to sunset.

Also, long fasts, such as 7, 14, 21, 40 or 50 day fasts do not have any Sunday breaks, They are fasts of NO FOOD on ANY of those 24 hour days. The only thing observed is The Lords Supper on Sundays.

I have known a man to do a 55 day fast with no food, only drinking mainly water, and some non-acidic juices. The longest I have ever done is 21 days straight without any food.

Also, many of the Pastors, Deacons, and church members of the church spend upwards of 3 hours every morning praying to God and studying his word. And yes, these are people who many have full time jobs and family. Also, most who are church members are usually at the church 2 to 5 days a week for many reasons as well.

My Pastor has a fasting schedule that many in the church follow along with as a guide. The schedule has us not eating any foods on Wed and Fridays every week the entire year and on the third week of each month, fasting 3 days straight without any food, Mon-Wed.

I hope you guys will see that Protestants are not just a bunch of un-disciplined Christians who are trying to escape the hard life that the Catholic church follows!

BTW, there are over 20 Million Assemblies of God church members across the world and we are just 1 of the many pentecostal denominations. I just wanted to make sure you understood the scale of many of the practices listed above.

Your practices are quite severe. It must be a true test to get through such a rigorous practice. I dare say I would not be up to the challenge. Thanks for the contribution. Our OP must be learning a lot!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Protestants do not do Lent. At least not the 8 ones that I know. They simply feel that it is a “Catholic” thing…still baffled??

They do practice Lent. My son is evangelical and he gave up the Internet for Lent. My brother in law is Lutheran and they do Lent.

I am practising abstinence for the entire Lent, no meat, just fish and dairy. That way I don’t have to remember to not eat meat on Fridays!

 

[OneTrueCathApos]

I don’t mean to belabor the point. I understand what you men. But I can but inform you that other people read the same scripture, and study the times and come to very different conclusions than you do. For instance:

1. Some don’t think Jesus intended to start a church. Some think that was added later to the writings to make it seem that way, since that is what occured. Jesus was a Jew and some believe he meant to reform Judaism, not start a new church.
2. There has been a RCC indentified as such since at least the 300’s CE by some estimations. However, there have always been groups who didn’t agree with what became Rome, either in its claim of primacy or in its theology. Those persons would argue that the Church is universal, and that those who broke from Rome were in reality continuing the “true church” and leaving one that had strayed from truth. You of course may disagree, but they are relying on the same scriptures and readings you are and coming to very different conclusions. The EOC is an example of this, as is the Protestant reformation. But there are many others.
3. Most importantly, claims to being first don’t get you very far. If in deed, as some claim the RCC has fallen into error, then being first means nothing I would argue. I understand you continue this heirarchy into the idea that Christ sent the HS to your specific church as opposed to the church universal to protect it. Others of course claim that the HS protects them as well. Certainly, every single Christian has claim to being infused with the HS which no doubt tries to keep us all in truth.

**Jesus absolutely intended to start a church. Why don’t you look at:
Matt. 16:18
1 Tim 3:15
Matt 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
Acts 2:47 KJV note the singular “the church”
1 Cor 14:12
2 Cor 1:1
Gal 1:13
Ephes 1:22 and many more verses
Phill 3:6 and 4:15
Collossians 1:18 and many more verses
1 Thess 1:1 Thessalonians is considered to be the first New Testament book written, in about 51 A.D.
Titus 3:15 KJV
Philemon 1:2
Hebrews 2:12 and 12 :23
James 5:14
1 Peter 5:13
3 John 1:6 and 1:0-10
Revelation 2:1, plus six more in the same book.

Since all of these books mention the word “Church”, the Church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written.
If that is true, then how was the teaching accomplished without a New Testament of Jesus Christ?
Simply by the same way Christ taught, orally. Oral teaching is Tradition.
The Bible is Oral Tradition written down.
There was no such thing as Sola Scripture even then.
There was not any New Testament Scripture for the first twenty years of the existence of the church.

Remember, the Protestant Reformers were Catholic first.**

 

[sambos671]

**Jesus absolutely intended to start a church. Why don’t you look at:
Matt. 16:18
1 Tim 3:15
Matt 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
Acts 2:47 KJV note the singular “the church”
1 Cor 14:12
2 Cor 1:1
Gal 1:13
Ephes 1:22 and many more verses
Phill 3:6 and 4:15
Collossians 1:18 and many more verses
1 Thess 1:1 Thessalonians is considered to be the first New Testament book written, in about 51 A.D.
Titus 3:15 KJV
Philemon 1:2
Hebrews 2:12 and 12 :23
James 5:14
1 Peter 5:13
3 John 1:6 and 1:0-10
Revelation 2:1, plus six more in the same book.

Since all of these books mention the word “Church”, the Church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written.
If that is true, then how was the teaching accomplished without a New Testament of Jesus Christ?
Simply by the same way Christ taught, orally. Oral teaching is Tradition.
The Bible is Oral Tradition written down.
There was no such thing as Sola Scripture even then.
There was not any New Testament Scripture for the first twenty years of the existence of the church.

Remember, the Protestant Reformers were Catholic first.**

SpiritMeadow believes that these words could have been inserted after the time of Christ and aren’t accurate to his teaching. That the gospels are incomplete or inacurate. So using scriptures to make your point is moot to her. First you need to establish that the scripture accurately record the sayings and the teachings of Christ for her since there is no established authority with regard to this other than an appeal to reason.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

**Jesus absolutely intended to start a church. Why don’t you look at:
Matt. 16:18
1 Tim 3:15
Matt 18:15-18
Ephesians 3:10
Acts 2:47 KJV note the singular “the church”
1 Cor 14:12
2 Cor 1:1
Gal 1:13
Ephes 1:22 and many more verses
Phill 3:6 and 4:15
Collossians 1:18 and many more verses
1 Thess 1:1 Thessalonians is considered to be the first New Testament book written, in about 51 A.D.
Titus 3:15 KJV
Philemon 1:2
Hebrews 2:12 and 12 :23
James 5:14
1 Peter 5:13
3 John 1:6 and 1:0-10
Revelation 2:1, plus six more in the same book.

Since all of these books mention the word “Church”, the Church had to have been in existence already for years before they were written.
If that is true, then how was the teaching accomplished without a New Testament of Jesus Christ?
Simply by the same way Christ taught, orally. Oral teaching is Tradition.
The Bible is Oral Tradition written down.
There was no such thing as Sola Scripture even then.
There was not any New Testament Scripture for the first twenty years of the existence of the church.

Remember, the Protestant Reformers were Catholic first.**

I am so very sorry that I seem unable to get across the point I am attempting to make. Let me try one last time. You are reading the bible literally here. You are basically saying that it says what it means, and means what it says. This is as a fundamentalist would, and as an aside I would argue that the RCC does not read the bible in this fashion. No matter. The point is, that biblical experts go behind the actual text to some degree. The study other writings, they look at context, and writing patterns.

For instance it is commonly held by almost all scholars that Genesis was written by at least 4 different people, and the resulting document is piecing together of those writers by a “redactor.”

All of the NT books have gone through dozens of copying. We know they are not all the same, since we have literally thousands to compare and there are minor differences and sometimes major ones. Many scholars for instance don’t believe that Paul was the actual author of all the materials attributed to him.

As to the issue of Jesus starting a church, some scholars believe that through the various revisions and redactions, these verses were added or altered to make it clear that it refers to the resultant church. That these in fact were not the actual words of Jesus. Now, no one is suggesting that this was done for evil purposes, rather it is accepted that the redactor/scribe believed that this was the true intent of the words, and so changed them accordingly to make sure there was no mistake.

So citing passages to me proves nothing.

So the mere fact of seeing the world Church in the bible is not an indication that that was invisioned at the time.

the teaching was based on recall of the teachings of Jesus and whatever inspired information was given to the teacher. Paul claimed much through divine revelation. His were the earliest writings, and his earliest I believe was in the 50’s CE. When the apostles refer to scripture in the NT they are referring to most the OT, and perhaps at the later writings, some of Pauls.

I agree that oral tradition is tradition. Parts of the bible are oral tradition written down. Paul’s writings are more likely to be original since often he was simply answering questions and problems experienced in various communities throughout the middle east.

We aren’t discussing sola scripture here at all.

I agree, there was not any NT scripture for the first twenty years.

I don’t have to remember the obvious. Of course the Reformers had been Catholic. They would argue that they carried forth the true traditions of the Universal Church, while the RCC fell into error. I am not here to argue that, just telling you that that is how they would see it. As I have said before, if being first is essential to your belief, then I would assume you must believe that.

 

[xyneshia]

I gave up snacking. I sit at a computer all day for work and one of my vices is to snack out of boredom. I probably shoulda gave up something that would not cause me to be so hungry every day though!

 

[DCD]

I am so very sorry that I seem unable to get across the point I am attempting to make. Let me try one last time. You are reading the bible literally here. You are basically saying that it says what it means, and means what it says. This is as a fundamentalist would, and as an aside I would argue that the RCC does not read the bible in this fashion. No matter. The point is, that biblical experts go behind the actual text to some degree. The study other writings, they look at context, and writing patterns.

For instance it is commonly held by almost all scholars that Genesis was written by at least 4 different people, and the resulting document is piecing together of those writers by a “redactor.”

All of the NT books have gone through dozens of copying. We know they are not all the same, since we have literally thousands to compare and there are minor differences and sometimes major ones. Many scholars for instance don’t believe that Paul was the actual author of all the materials attributed to him.

As to the issue of Jesus starting a church, some scholars believe that through the various revisions and redactions, these verses were added or altered to make it clear that it refers to the resultant church. That these in fact were not the actual words of Jesus. Now, no one is suggesting that this was done for evil purposes, rather it is accepted that the redactor/scribe believed that this was the true intent of the words, and so changed them accordingly to make sure there was no mistake.

So citing passages to me proves nothing.

So the mere fact of seeing the world Church in the bible is not an indication that that was invisioned at the time.

the teaching was based on recall of the teachings of Jesus and whatever inspired information was given to the teacher. Paul claimed much through divine revelation. His were the earliest writings, and his earliest I believe was in the 50’s CE. When the apostles refer to scripture in the NT they are referring to most the OT, and perhaps at the later writings, some of Pauls.

I agree that oral tradition is tradition. Parts of the bible are oral tradition written down. Paul’s writings are more likely to be original since often he was simply answering questions and problems experienced in various communities throughout the middle east.

We aren’t discussing sola scripture here at all.

I agree, there was not any NT scripture for the first twenty years.

I don’t have to remember the obvious. Of course the Reformers had been Catholic. They would argue that they carried forth the true traditions of the Universal Church, while the RCC fell into error. I am not here to argue that, just telling you that that is how they would see it. As I have said before, if being first is essential to your belief, then I would assume you must believe that.

The Roman Catholic Church does interpet scripture in a literal sense. Always has always will. LOL She also interpets the scripture in a spiritual, allergorical, and moral sense. Paragraph 115-117 CCC. First and foremost She uses the literal sense. Where do you come up with these conclusions?

Peace,
David

 

[DCD]

I totally get it that this is what you believe. Key word is BELIEVE. I would say that it makes life easier, but I just as firmly believe that God means for us to use our mind. Obedience is okay in some instances. As a child, obedience is necessary for obvious reasons. If you believe yourself in that relationship to your Church, then, well, I would think that a dangerous thing. After all, it is but a structure inhabited and run by men who are all to human. To then add that the HS protects it, is to but beg the question. Since the HS abides in all (at least baptized) everyone else makes the same claim of being properly guided. That doesn’t get us very far I don’t think.

You may reject appelations such as conservative and liberal, but of course history and its authors define all institutions and points in time in this manner and it is not in any way misrepresentative. Both JPII and Benedict have been discribed as theologically conservative. I didn’t invent that.

I think the poster who called us all damned was from one on Why did you leave the Catholic church, but I can’t be certain. He was thoroughly chastised by other RC’s by the way. I was pleased to see that. As to the other, I’m not going back through the posts on various threads, but I suspect you could find them on the same closed thread. And again, some did correct them, though they feel perfectly okay in their judgements
.

LOL, well that’s a fascinating turn of logic. It is disrespectful to say you’ve been disrespected! I would argue that your statement of apparent disbelief is met with a degree of scepticism given that any perusal of the threads like “Why did God allow Protestants” “Why do Anglicans think they are Catholic” and the like would provide you with plenty of examples of uncharitible and rather means spirited claims about the lack of value of anything not RC.

I am not sure this thread is suited for me to unpack what I meant about obedience for you since we are off topic. If you want take a look at St. Paul in Romans. The first and last time we see the word faith used in the book of Romans, it is used in the context of obedience. Also you might want to look at the CCC 142-150.

I am Roman Catholic not only because I “believe” but also because 2000 years of history bear witness to The Truth. I don’t have to “add” The Holy Spirit protects The Church,… Jesus did that 2000 years ago. You are correct, some want to make the claim that The Holy Spirit is leading them into all Truth, but this is not biblical.

Yes some like to label The Church. The fact of the matter is, the correct definition of The Church Christ founded is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It’s been defined like this for 2000 years. You can call an apple a grape but guess what it’s still an apple. We should not be tossed to and fro so easily.

Peace,
David