Will do. Thanks for your kind advice. I would never totally dismiss the CC. It was through the CC and its saints that I even know what holiness is or who God is. It will always be special to me. Not giving up yet…
), Tibetan monks, etc. all live similar lifestyles (at least that’s my uneducated, inexperienced perception). Assuming that’s true, you certainly wouldn’t leave a Christian religion to join a non-Christian religion, even though the people led better lives, would you? If not, and if you agree that the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus (sorry, I’m not clear if you believe this or not, but I’m assuming you do), then why would you leave His established Church for one that shares only parts of the fullness of Truth, even though you believe the other people are leading more Christ-like lives?It isn’t my deciding factor at all (although it certain is a tempting one!) As I said, I already had biblical convictions. Throughout my Catholicity I held certain biblical convictions that were different from Catholic teaching. I repressed them in submission to the CC. Often I would read the Bible (definately not as often as I should have though) and immediately I would question the CC. I saw a different church in Scripture (yes I know the church has changed or “evolved” over time [although I question if it should have]). I was tempted many times to leave the CC until years later I discovered that there was a church out there that believed as I do. Many, in fact (not just Mennonite). I looked for over a year for one (Conservative Mennonites don’t advertise over the internet
. In fact, at this point in time they are gradually moving away from use of internet at all) Anyway, eventually I found an archived newspaper article about a country store and its owners belonged to a conservative mennonite church in the area. The rest is history. I got the contact info, called them and went to my first service the following Sunday. I can’t tell you how amazing it was to be there after having looked for so long!:yup: I love Buddhism. I’ve studied it quite a bit also.I was thinking that Buddhist monks, Native Americans (not the ones who run casinos
:nope:No. But, oddly enough, the CC and I agree about one thing: salvation is possible outside the CC. There are many people living the Christian life without knowing Christ or a Christian church.
I definately question that the CC today is without error. I question Apostolic succession and the belief that God’s people/the church is limited to the CC.
Indeed there are also greedy Mennonites. None of us is perfect:shrug:
.
), but I will be doing something during the month of April. For the past several months, I have devoted my daily Rosary to some person needing to discover Christ or His Church. I’ve been inserting that name in place of the word “sinners” as in “pray for John Doe, now and at the hour of our death.” One month it was a friend of mine who used to be a Christian, but lost his faith. In March (ending today) it was Richard Dawkins, the author of “The God Delusion”. It doesn’t sound like you believe that someone else praying for you is necessary, since you can go directly to God, but with your permission, I’d like to say my daily Rosary for you. If you could give me a name, or just a first name or nickname, I’d appreciate it, because “JoyToBeCatholic” is a mouthful!My problem with those claims is the same as the problem I have with people who claim that the moon landings were faked, or those who claim that Jesus was married: these claims (including the ones made by Mennonites or Landmark/Successionist Baptists) amount to little more than conspiracy theories with no historical evidence.
The apostolic succession isn’t a genealogy. Somewhat by definition, genealogies refer to a history of actual births (the only means by which genes can be conveyed
). Judaizers had a particularly unhealthy interest in genealogies. No one can really claim that Catholics do.Again, you’re arbitrarily applying a passage concerned with actual genealogies to the apostolic succession. There’s really no comparing the two: this passage (and the one you quoted previously) are simply passages taken out of context and misapplied to the genuinely biblical belief in the apostolic succession.
Paul commanded Timothy, one of his successors, “You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” To claim that the successors of the Apostles were not faithful is to make the claim that Timothy failed to fulfill Paul’s command, despite having received a gift from God when the elders laid their hands on him (1 Timothy 4), and another gift from God when Paul laid his own hands on him (2 Timothy 1).
But what indicates that that ministry should cease? If it was necessary in the first century for the Apostles to have the power to forgive sins, why did it suddenly become unnecessary around A.D. 110, when John, the last Apostle, died?
They can’t be given the title “Apostle,” to be sure, but that doesn’t mean that they can’t possess the same authority as the Apostles. If the authority the Apostles possessed was important, why should it cease when the last one died? Why should it not continue throughout history? Take another look at the “Great Commission” in Matthew 28: “And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority 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, to the end of the age.’” Note first that Christ emphasizes his own authority, and because of that authority (“therefore…”) the Apostles were to make disciples. He’s transmitting His authority to then. But then note that He also emphasizes that He is with them to the end of the age, implying that His authority, likewise, would exist to the end of the age.
My name’s Donna, and certainly, I’ve no problem with that. I’ve enough doubt about my non-Catholic points of view that I’m open to granting you permission to ask Mary to pray for meIf you’re not already doing so, I urge you to write down your issues. Then, use the Catechism of the Catholic Church (the big green one, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, to explain the Church’s teachings. It has scripture references. Also use one of the tools on the web which provide scriptural bases for the various tenets of the Church.
I probably won’t be posting anymore, because I think I’ve said all I can say (famous last words
. They know God. They know right from wrong. They have seen evil without embracing it.I have to ask: Does the laying on of hands signify infallibility?
Mine is tan and about 10 years old
can you recommend one? I’ve seen scripture catholic and found errors. Thanks
you may be right. Conversely, I’ve seen history twisted and ECF writings taken out of context to support a particular belief (not just here and not just Catholics)… My point is, why not go to the MOST historical, original source, the Bible? Why was it made canon to begin with if *it *wasn’t going to be the most reliable, original source? That’s why I started the other thread. It just doesn’t make sense to me and I feel like we’re going around in circles…
I don’t necessarily believe it, I just see it as a possibility. For me it begins with seeing what I perceive to be inconsistencies between the Bible and the church. From there I wonder if something didn’t go wrong along the lines somewhere. From there I try to reason what the possible explanation can be. We are 2000 years removed from the origins of Christianity. The best I can do is look to the most original, historical proof I have, and that is the Bible. Thankfully, the church seems to have foreseen this dilemma and choose to make certain writings “canon”.
I know succession isn’t a history of actual blood relatives. I still think these scriptures can be applied to succession though. One’s origins don’t guarantee faithfulness
He was faithful. I trust that God preserved His Word through the early church. Now, I don’t know that everything these succeeding men believed or wrote was what they had heard from Paul or the other Apostles.
Let’s look to the words of the Master Himself: “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of our own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them” Acts 20:29-30
Misworded, but I think I understand your point. Firstly, I’m not making a claim, I’m presenting a possibility that *anyone *who follows God’s Word, irrespective of time or affiliation with a church, is more closely following Christ.
They also rose the dead. As far as forgiving sins, we are all called to do that, and we are called to confess our sins to one another. The extraordinary gifts that were given to the Apostles was necessary for the spread of the gospel at that time.
Well, the Apostles had godly power and could give the gift of healing to others, but at some point these gifts (generally, I know there are exceptions) ceased. I still don’t see the correlation between the transferral of gifts or authority means there was a transferral of infallibility.
I’m sorry I’m frustrating you
. I’m frustrated too (not by you, just in general). I’m tired of never feeling peace about being in the CC. I can’t help that I don’t see the CC in the Bible anymore than you can help seeing it there.No, I haven’t. Thanks for giving a little overview though. It sounds inspiring.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I haven’t left again. And the first time I left I didn’t deny the Real Presence. It always layed on my conscience (yes, I had a troubled conscience as a Mennonite too)
I think the saints are saints because they imitated Christ. You don’t have to be Catholic to do that.
I don’t place my faith in anyone’s actions but Gods. My seeking began with the Word of God, not the saintliness of the Mennonites.
You have a misunderstanding of this Mennonite church. I think you are thinking of the Amish. They live very much amidst the chaos. They are not neighbors of one another, they do not work exclusively with and for one another, etc… They definately do not withdraw from society. This is a very big (and common) misunderstanding.
This is totally wrong. If I were to join the Mennonite church, I would still be living in the community I am and there are NO Mennonites around here at all. Furthermore, my ENTIRE family are not happy with the Mennonite faith (not that they were with the Catholic faith). My husband really, REALLY does not like the Mennonite church. I am not going to find peace in the worldly sense by converting!
They do.
They do too. They have never hesitated to get up close and personal with people more vile in their sinfulness than I’ve ever been able to. They are very active in prison ministry. They stand on the streets of Boston and sing hymns and invite the lowest of the lowest to their services. They’ll even drive many miles out of their way to GO GET THEM and bring them to the church!!It would be easy to raise my children in a sheltered world where sin and vice do not lead them astray. I did not have that luxury. They are surrounded by violence, vulgarity and vice. Yet my children are well behaved, well adjusted, respectful young men.
All those examples… you obviously agree with the Mennonites’ evaluation of those things, since you avoid many of the same things. I don’t see what your point is. Is it that you wouldn’t want to be part of a group of like-minded people? I don’t feel I need to - I am able to avoid these things myself also, but it’s a bonus that they agree with my evaluation of those things.
. My wheels are always spinning and just b/c I haven’t surrendered to anyone’s insights (yet) doesn’t mean I am not still evaluating them 
That is interesting…Which Bible by the way?I’m sorry I’m frustrating you
Don’t know what else to say.
I have been back and forth with Catholicism and I feel at best that Christianity is flawed and corrupt on the whole. Its like untangling a ball of yarn.This question may be confusing for those of you who don’t know a little history about me b/c my username is not so appropriate…
Last year, I decided that I could no longer, in good conscience remain Catholic. I realized that I had convictions far more in line with anabaptist beliefs than I ever realized. I sought a conservative Mennonite congregation and began visiting their services and becoming a part of their community (as far as was possible, since they are not so close to me).
Anyway, I never stopped studying the Catholic faith. I have a pretty good understanding of Catholic apologetics, and over time, I’ve looked more into history and started to see the idea of “sola scriptura” as problematic. I had to admit that, even though I believed the same things that Mennonites believed, it was still based on my own personal interpretation of scripture. Perhaps it was coincidence that we agreed? I never thought so, and that was what moved me to continue. But over the year, history troubled me more and more and the church’s claim of authority (deciding canon, etc.) got to me. By Lent I had decided to return to the CC.
It has only been a matter of weeks since my return, and I’m getting that uneasy feeling again. I simply can’t pick up a bible and not see my fundamentalist, anabaptist beliefs there! I know that the CC does seem to have a scriptural basis (in many instances) for its beliefs and practices, but I still maintain that many of them contradict other scriptures. I’ve seen many other denominations do the same. I’ve seen JWs and other like groups use scripture (convincingly, until further research…) to “disprove” the deity of Christ for instance.
I’m going on a tangent here…
My main question is: I’m not the smartest, and I am easily fooled. I admit that my interpretation of anything is not infallible. My evaluation of a church’s beliefs may be just as fallible as my understanding of scripture. Do you see my problem here???
I am curious what the Catholic church teaches about conscience. I believe the Word of God (that we have in scripture) was not meant for learned men alone. I believe salvation should be obtainable, for simple ordinary man, through the Bible. I don’t believe that God has made salvation so complicated that we need to understand complex doctrines or go through rituals or sacraments…
If it goes against my conscience to continue to be Catholic because I simply can’t grasp and accept its practices and beliefs (albeit, possibly b/c of my own flawed capacity to understand it), should I remain Catholic anyway? What does the Catholic church teach about following one’s conscience? It’s not that I am uninformed either. I’ve studied and studied and continue to study, but regardless, I simply don’t see it in the Bible and I understand that I shouldn’t necessarily see it there, or at least, not explicitly so.
IOW, I see in the Catholic church the possibility that its claims are true, but I feel as though I am going against my own convictions and against my own conscience when I follow it
Isn’t there a scripture about this? Even though, in truth, meats that were sacrificed to idols were clean, if it was against someone’s conscience to eat it and they ate it anyway, they would be commiting sin. So, if, in truth, the Catholic church is all it claims to be, but its against my conscience to practice it, wouldn’t that too be a sin?
Thanks in advance for trying to break through my denseness
It is, of course, the most reliable, original source. There’s nothing else on earth that’s God-breathed in the same way that the Sacred Scriptures are. I rather strongly believe that if you approach the Bible from the context in which it was written, with a properly historical outlook, you’ll see the Catholic Church in it, just as you can see me in my baby pictures. I’m not saying it’s easy, or that it doesn’t require some effort, but simply that it’s there: the Church is there, in the Scriptures, properly interpreted.
First, determine whether those are genuinely inconsistencies, or whether they’re just differences, ways in which the Church developed. The analogy that Paul used, that the Church is the Body of Christ, is particularly apt: bodies grow, even Christ’s, and develop on their way from infant to child to adolescent to adult. Even Christ “grew in favor with God and men,” to use the term that St. Luke used to summarize eighteen years of Jesus’ time on earth. Just as Christ grew in favor with God and men, the Body of Christ has grown in its 2,000 years of existence. There will be differences between the Church that you see in Scripture and the Church that you look at today. There should be differences: only dead things do not grow, and the Church is most definitely alive! What you won’t find in Scripture properly interpreted, however, is inconsistencies with the Church of today. That’s another major point in defense of the Catholic Church: it has genuine doctrinal consistency with itself throughout history. While other churches have come and gone and contradicted their previous beliefs (artificial contraception is one particularly evident example) the Catholic Church over its life has never contradicts the faith that it has preached nor repudiated its previous generations as believers of falsehood.
Many things have almost gone wrong over the last 2,000 years. Chesterton’s Orthodoxy is one of my favorite apologetics books particularly because it describes so graphically how the Church has dodged heresies throughout the centuries. One important historical fact, however, is this: when heresies have arisen in the Church, even heresies that Protestants condemn (like Arianism, or Donatism, or Marcionism, etc.) the Church has recorded its fight with those heresies. But most of the heresies that Baptists would accuse Catholics of subscribing to (for instance, infant baptism or baptism by methods other than immersion) the Church does not even have record of an argument that infant baptisms were invalid prior to the Reformation. These are things so historical, so deeply ingrained within the Church that even those in the early Church who said that baptism should be delayed into adulthood (since it washed away all sins, and could only be performed once) never argued that infant baptism was invalid.
We are, genuinely, 2,000 years removed from the origin of Chrisitanity. But the Church isn’t. The Church was there at the origin. The Church has always been here since then. If I must choose between my interpretation, 2,000 years removed from the origin of Christianity, and the Church’s interpretation, consistent with its interpretation in the 2,000 years it’s existed since its origin, I’ll suck up my pride and choose the Church’s.
How can the Church be trusted in its canon if it can’t be trusted to preserve the apostolic teachings by which it determined the canon? If you can trust those present at the councils of Hippo, Carthage, and Rome to pronounce the canon, why can’t you trust them in their doctrines on infant baptism, or baptism by methods other than immersion?
No, but they’re a pretty good indication. How else could we be told in Scripture, “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith…Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” (Hebrews 13:7,17). Even in the face of unorthodox leaders, what are we to do? I suggest that we ought to follow Christ’s advice to the Jews of his day: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you–but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.” (Matthew 23:2-3)
I think that quote’s particular apt, especially the end, where it says that they “draw away disciples after them.” We are Catholics: we follow Christ through the Church. Who are Mennonites, but disciples whom Menno Simons drew after him? Who are Lutherans, but disciples whom Martin Luther drew after him? Even the name betrays what actually happened: grievous wolves entered in among the flock, taught perverse things, and drew away disciples after them.
Why do you believe that? What about the world changed such that those gifts were necessary in the early Church, but not in this later Church that had no need for gifts? Historically, can you point to what global event caused the Church’s situation to change?
Infallibility is a result of the promise Christ made regarding the Church in Matthew 16, and the requirement laid upon believers to obey their leaders. God will not have His Church, whom He has commanded His followers to obey, teach falsehood in matters of faith and morals. Even individual bishops are not protected, but the Church as a whole is, for otherwise the gates of hell would have prevailed against it.