What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
historyfan81 said:
its basicly saying dont question it , which is not an answer
Click to expand...
Well, that isn’t the kind of answer the Magesterium gives. The Church gives very good explanations. The Doctors of the Church give very good explanations. You have to admit, though: there are no explanations of anything that no one can find a way to doubt.

So no, I don’t see the difference as being between blind faith and apostasy. Having come back, I see it as a difference between finding a teacher and then being teachable or not being able to find a teacher because I can never find a teacher that can teach it all in a few lessons and without leaving me with questions or doubts. I know myself well enough to know, looking over my past, that I will always have questions. If I can’t accept a teacher until I have run out of questions, I’ve pretty much condemned myself to being more or less unteachable, because I won’t accept anything until I understand it fully and I can’t understand it fully when I won’t accept it.

I do believe in the concept of invincible ignorance: that is, that God knows who is sincerely seeking the truth and knows what capacity we each have to accept the truth. We have to be worried about being honest with ourselves or too full of ourselves, we always have to hope for mercy on our foolishness or pride or what have you, but we do not have to fear that God does not understand both our frailty and our desire to do the right thing. On that, I think we agree, yes?
 
Last edited:
THANK YOU , i have not heard of the fist one , the other ones yes so thank you
 
i do agree iam not perfect i pray for god to send a sing or something that helps

but the same response is said over and over … dont question it

i want to learn but i want an actual answer not , beacuse the church said so … so there.

thats not answer that just a nice way of saying shut up.

and i myself have no limitless questions just few , and i said , I want evidence , i never said give the “facts” big diference

one is saying give me evidence of this ( in my case give me evidence that dosent contradict its self)
, other is saying prove to me this undoubtedly the absolute truth.

we are mortals we cant ask that ( in spiritual matters) , there are somethings we cant fully comprehend , but we can show that there is not evidence that the old chirstians did belive in this or not.

but i agree with you balancing skeptisicim with god is hard , but is possible so this is why i thanked @Peebo since he gave to me a scholar that i didnt hear of and he migh possibly give the evidence .

so yes we can agree in this matter
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
but the same response is said over and over … dont question it
Click to expand...
Not quite. We often believe first, even while we still have questions. I do respect honesty in seekers. Being teachable is not the same as putting on a pretense that offends your conscience. This is also what the doctrine of invincible ignorance recognizes: that is, that in the end only God knows what capacity to believe based on a given portion of the body of evidence that we each experience along the way. This is a whole-person acceptance we are talking about, not mere intellectual assent. To have faith is a whole-person matter, and only God knows the capacity and experience of the whole person.
 
You asked the question “What am I in your eyes.” You claim the Bible as the highest authority, then you say there is no apostolic succession. If you do not recognize the Church as an institution well then the only authority you are recognizing is the Bible, as you said. That is Sola Scriptura.

Sola Scriptura (Latin: by scripture alone) is a theological doctrine held by some Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

So my answer was not a rant, it was based on what you said. If I’m wrong please tell me what Church authority you accept. I’m sorry if you do not agree with what I said, but you publicly asked a question that we are free to answer on these forums.

I’m sure you love the Lord as much as I do and are a very fine Christian, but when what you say makes the Catholic Church I’m a faithful member of seem like it is in error or not from the authority of God, well yes I’m going to defend Her.
 
You are saying that you believe a Man is the Creator of all that exist incarnated, but you don’t believe Him when He says: “This is My Body” and “This is My Soul”?

Seems like a Faith dissonance.
 
i think you are confusing sola scriptura , with prima scriptura there not the same concept

one like i said is the sole source of authority , and i never claim this ,

i claim that the bible is the highest authority but the other writings of the chruch fathers Are very important .

i will give an anaolgy

is like gemstone pendant, of which the largest diamond goes in the center, representing the Scriptures. The other gems represent other parts of the writings of the church fathers and the traditions

and while not as big as the central piece they do add to it

now i dont think your a bad man , and its ok to defend them , but IT SEEMS (key word seems)

like you didnt read my comment and just went on the defensive .
 
Last edited:
i do belive that , but like i said the bible is complicated , is jesus being literal? metaphorical?

i dont know , the church fathers are silent about this , or they do mention things that are vague , until certian period where we clearly see this

is not like the trinity where we clearly see this in both the bible and second early second century writtings

while the sacrament is mentioned , explicit transustination is not .

iam not denying transbustination it migth be true , it migth not , did the first century , second century , third century chirstians belive in it?

no clue , this is the bad thing about lack of records
 
historyfan81 said:
??? i dont understand that … i mean i have some ideas on what you where trying to say … but assuming is wrong so can you clarify this?
Click to expand...
A bad paraphrase of a quote i cannot find. Maybe someone else can find the quote.

The point being you use the book to devalue the message from the entity which preserved and gave us this same book.

Peace!!!
 
if that is what you think , then I apologise , sadly there is for no nothing i can do about it
 
Last edited:
iam doing more investigation i can confirm you that , but a full change of my opinion that i cant tell, not yet .

i do have authority over these issues ,i said it i look at an eccelisiatical source no diferent than a secular one.

i dont claim to have any rigth to say anything of my own authority , rather hypotesis and evidence that makes me doudt some certian traditions.

this not a 1 day change , it will take many months or perphaps more even some years to draw a conclusion , but thanks to peebo i will investigate this more, see if finaly i get the questions i seek
 
Last edited:

Here…you keep denying doctrines about the Catholic church…that certain doctrines might be true…or they might not…that there is no evidence to support early teachings of the church…none of what you say is true…there is plenty of evidence from the Apostolic fathers…those who were taught by the Apostles…and the writings of the early church fathers…just because some teachings weren’t defined as doctrine doesn’t mean they weren’t taught or practiced by the early church…there was no Bible to begin with neither yet you claim the Bible as your source of truth…it was through the oral traditions taught by the Apostles that conveyed what would become the Gospels…Jesus said he would send the Holy Spirit to guide his church…from the beginning…are you implying the Holy Spirit was wrong…or that the Apostles and those whom the Apostles taught and appointed as Bishops decided to do their own thing and not follow what Jesus taught them and what the Holy Spirit was sent to guide them…if you think either of those is true then you may as well throw your Bible away because it was written by men who may…or may not…have been guided by the Holy Spirit…or the canon of the Bible may…or may not… have been compiled under the guidance of the Holy Spirit…you seem to be throwing up roadblocks by doubting or not accepting the things that most Catholics would believe…the things you seem to deny or doubt are the same things Protestants deny about the Catholic church…why is that??
 
i have read this one before , and in case of justin that is not case , clement neither , but cyril did belive in tansustiantion no doudt there , but still thank you,.

beacuse if use clements words i can use milk for the sacrament as well.

Thus in many ways the Word is figuratively described, as meat, and flesh, and food, and bread, and blood, and milk. The Lord is all these, to give enjoyment to us who have believed on Him. Let no one then think it strange, when we say that the Lord’s blood is figuratively represented as milk. For is it not figuratively represented as wine?” (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6).

so when clements speak aboutthe sacrament is literal ? is he being metaphorical? … dont know

he is not as clear as Cyril who is very explicit on the mater , while justian and clement are not.

no iam not implying that the holy spririt was wrong , just the men where wrong , the messege could have been distorted , not on purpose beacuse no want wants to go to hell, or maybe they had their own interptrations

chirstianity does have its history of new groups comming with their own belives from the second century onwards.

but like i said i cant confirm this or deny this , so like i said iam in doubt in most of these subjects not in complete rejection
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
iam doing more investigation i can confirm you that , but a full change of my opinion that i cant tell, not yet .

i do have authority over these issues ,i said it i look at an eccelisiatical source no diferent than a secular one.

i dont claim to have any rigth to say anything of my own authority , rather hypotesis and evidence that makes me doudt some certian traditions.

this not a 1 day change , it will take many months or perphaps more even some years to draw a conclusion , but thanks to peebo i will investigate this more, see if finaly i get the questions i seek
Click to expand...
I understand. My comment stands that it is very silly to question the authority that gave you the bible by claiming said authority has concluded their message from the bible is wrong.

Peace!!!
 
As my late Protestant friend said of those in “non denominational” churches who aren’t Catholic and aren’t comfortable calling themselves Protestants, “They’re still Protestants.”
 
PetraG said:
It is wrong to want evidence that someone who says they have teaching authority actually has it.
Click to expand...
Good grief–I meant to say it is NOT wrong to want evidence that someone who says they have teaching authority actually has it! Nobody is saying we all ought to sign up for FlyByNight U! I hope the rest of my answer shows that I mean that once you have selected a reliable teacher there is a need to be open to what you’re hearing and to reserve questioning that the authority knows what they are talking about based on the limited understanding that beginners necessarily have of the subject. Anybody who has been through a Catholic seminary can attest to the truth that they had no idea how much they didn’t know until they got into their studies in earnest.

For instance, it is one thing for real Greek scholars to have differences about how to translate a passage in Scripture into English. It was quite another for somebody to study Greek for two or three years and to conclude he needed to start the Jehovah’s Witnesses because even the Greek Christians who have been speaking in Greek since before the Gospel of John was written didn’t understand what John 1:1 really means in Greek. Obviously, I’m oversimplifying the genesis of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, but my point is that that was a preposterous conclusion for a beginner to reach.
 
Last edited:
lilypadrees said:
As my late Protestant friend said of those in “non denominational” churches who aren’t Catholic and aren’t comfortable calling themselves Protestants, “They’re still Protestants.”
Click to expand...
OK, so Protestants consider that “Protestant” means “mainline Protestant.” They’re free to use jargon their own way. That’s not what it means to most Catholics, though. (There are also Protestants who actually think that “Christian” means “non-Catholic” and that is obviously not how we Catholics use the word, either…or it shouldn’t be, lol!)
 
Last edited:
Yup.

I did not like that term when i was non Catholic, either. But then when someone asked me do you agree with the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, etc? And I said heck no, and he said then you are a protestant, I could not help but agree with him.

I think it’s the whole idea of being in any way affiliated with the Catholic Church, even in protest is what people find offensive…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top