What is the Catholic gospel message?

[Disciple96]

Hi Disciple96,

I’m glad that you believe what the bible says, but the crux of the issue here is HOW you came to know that the CC is the one founded by Christ. I’m very familiar with the verse (Matt. 16:18) which you interpret to mean that Jesus was making Peter our first pope. Would it be fair of me to point out that you are basing your trust in the CC on YOUR OWN PERSONAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE?

I know you see it that way. And I repeat what I said in my post above. We are going in circles. Are you looking at the sources that have been pointed out? Really, until you do, we will continue to go in circles and life is much too short for that.

 

[deanarrca]

*>>I’m wondering if you have read the Fathers. (I’m old and I don’t remember if you’ve said this before or not, pardon me if I’m asking you something you’ve already answered). Read the history of the Church, the Fathers of the Church, and you’ll see that the version of things that so many people have in their heads now is a very recent, very modern construction and in very large part a fiction.

I believe it was Cardinal Newman who said:

Quote:
“To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
<<
*

Absolutely

The Protestant premise is that the Church was in the beginning the one true Church- Most won’t deny that the Catholic church has roots that go all the way to the Apostles and Christ himself, but they insist at some point the Church became corrupt- went astray and then needed to be reformed to be brought back to what it was in the beginning. But the problem is nobody can agree when it went astray. Certainly it couldn’t have gone astray before 397ad (there abouts I didn’t fact check the to make sure i have the exact date ) because that is when the Bible was canonized. It was the Church that had the books of the Bible, preserved and copied them, and decided which were books were inspired and to be included.

If you study the early church you will discover that those things that you think the Catholic church is wrong on, were all there almost from the very beginning. Church structure and government, infant Baptism, the real presence in the communion-on and on. The early church looked nothing like modern day fundamentalism. If these tenants of the Church are wrong then you would have to conclude that the early church fell away within less than a generation of the Apostles- before the Bible was even canonized.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

I thought he was saved by Jesus. Does Jesus actually say, “You are saved by your faith in me” to the man? I thought He just said, “Verily, I say unto you, this day you will be with Me in paradise.”

Hi Disciple96,

I think you and I might be saying essentially the same thing though our words are very different. At least I hope we’re saying the same thing here.

 

[MDK]

So what you’re saying is that YOU are capable of correctly interpreting the bible on your own, but not people like me?

Given what I have already posted to you on this thread, I have to regard that kind of response from you as as willfully ignorant. For instance, here is one example of a post directly to you, in which it’s very clear why I know and you don’t. You can know too, if you just follow what Christ established for us, but sadly you don’t and remain ignorant of the authentic God and His beautiful love for us.

You, like anyone who has a mouse and internet service, can copy and paste from an online Bible. And, like thousands just like you, you have no idea what it means. **The difference between you and me in this regard is that I do know what it means, without error…, but not because I determined what I wanted it to mean. I listen to God, by listening to those God sent. I have the truth of God’s word without error through His one Church. **

As long as you continue to reject those sent by Christ to continue His mission (acting with His protection, so they are not on the wrong track), then you will continue to reject God and be in grave error as you have demonstrated.

…Christ taugh His Apostles, and the Apostles who had the Holy Spirit taught differently than you. From there forward, almost 2,000 years of authentic Christianity has taught differently than you. When you oppose 2,000 years of teaching without error…, who in their right mind would believe you?

How is what you’re doing any different than what you say I’m doing (seeing things as I will)?

If you can’t answer that, given what I’ve posted already, then you have no desire to find the truth. It’s very clear that I follow those God sent to the world, and you reject them. Therefore, I accept Christ, and you sadly reject Christ.

Do you have good reasons when you accuse me of “rejecting those Christ sent”? Where in the bible does it refer to a “chair of Peter” or a “pope”?

I’ve already told you, and not just immediately above. When you reject those Christ sent to continue His mission, then you also reject Christ. So, since you do reject those Christ sent into the world to continue His mission then so you also reject _______ (fill in the blank with the Divine Person who sent them.)

The Bible doesn’t say the word Trinity either, does it? Not all truth is in the Bible. God established His Church for this. If you don’t know at least this much, then you will always have difficulties seeing the truth. Not everything Christ did and said was written down. Even the Scriptures plainly tell you that. Did you not read that in the Scriptures, or did you not understand it when you read it?

Pope is simply from the Greek for “father.” If you read in the OT where God talks about a Prime Minister that He is installing, you will see that God says the PM will be like a father to the people, what he shuts no one will open and what he opens no one will shut. This is an OT foreshadowing of the office of Peter, the office of Prime Minister to the New Covenant King who is Christ. It is clear that the office is established by Christ, so if you don’t like it, take it up with Him!

How did you come to know that in the Eucharist, Christ comes down from heaven PHYSICALLY to be with us?

I learned it because it’s in the Scriptures, and in Godly Tradition. God said it, and so I believe it. Do you not recall that on the night before He died, “Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body.” This is the Body He gave for us on the cross. Note that He did not say this is like my body, or this is a figure of my body, or this is with my body…, but Christ says absolutely “This is My Body.” Do you recall that He said if we don’t eat His Body and drink His Blood, we have no life in us? Starting to make sense yet? The Jews found this a hard saying, and some walked away from Christ because of it. Many Protestants have walked away from Christ as well, because this is a hard saying. To the ones who love Christ, this is a beautiful saying.

 

[MDK]

Hi Disciple96,

I think you and I might be saying essentially the same thing though our words are very different. At least I hope we’re saying the same thing here.

No, you two are not saying the same thing.

 

[MDK]

OHOH OH Pick Me Mr Kotter Pick Me (maybe before your time)

Because he is not relying on his own personal Interpretation-

Good answer Horshack!

I hope you have a good Horshack laugh at this.

 

[MDK]

Can you elaborate?

I believe it’s been stated all over this thread in one way or another. In short, Christ built His Church for all of His New Covenant family. I am in His New Covenant family.

Christ only built one Church, and not many. Christ did not drop a Bible on the Apostles on Pentecost and tell them just read and don’t worry about it, you’ll understand… and oh by the way, don’t worry if you all come up with something different… I like creativity and the truth is what you want it to be anyway.

Christ’s Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. The Bible is not, and neither is any other ecclesial community whose founder built on their interpretations of the Bible. The Church came first, and this is the one I belong to.

If it were not for Christ’s protection of the Church, it would not have been able to author the Scriptures, to maintain the truth, and to minister His Seven Sacraments.

Christ is Head of His One Church, and not of any other man made ecclesial community created after the Bible.

Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in His Church and is not present like this in any ecclesial community built by men even if they claim it is Bible based (which it is really not… just based on their faulty interpretations of the Bible).

Christ is the High Priest of this Church, and not of any ecclesial community built by men to compete with His Church.

The gates of Hell will not prevail against God’s one Church, because of Him.

The Sacraments are valid, because of Him. (For comparison, five of seven sacraments are missing in Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, and thousands of other ecclesial communities built by men).

So actually, what we have is one Church built by Christ, and thousands of Churches built by men who try to compete with the Church built by Christ. Which one do you think will do better in teaching truth, in fending off the evil one, in having Christ really and truly there, in keeping the gates of Hell from prevailing? God designed Noah’s Ark and it was the only boat that survived the great flood. God built and protects the Catholic Church, and so it survives the harsh world in which it resides, having never taught error.

So, which one do you choose? The one Church built by Christ for all of His New Covenant family, or a man made ecclesial community which tries unsuccessfully to compete with Christ? It’s not a difficult desicion for me! What about you?

 

[fhansen]

What is it specifically that convinced you that “due to the Churchs’ history it became Catholicism or nothing”?

The Catholic Church, as well as the Orthodox, can trace it’s history uninterrupted back to JC. And no matter where you look in Church history, whether Early Church Fathers or early councils and various writings, they all have a distinctly Catholic “flavor” in thought, and outright agreement in areas such as their reverence for the Eucharist, their belief in the Real Presence, many liturgical practices, catechisms, attitudes toward believers who’ve passed on, etc. When I decided to begin researching Catholic documents themselves, rather than mainly anti-Catholic stuff, I at first was suspicious that the Church had revised things to suit their doctrines and it took me a long time to lose that suspicion and begin to trust-there was too much consistency in all of it and I found that I had been mistrusting something that actually was much more honest than most institutions are that have humans running the show. In fact, I began to hear the same voice of truth in her that I’d recognized in the bible earlier on. Again, if you come to see through the fallacy of Sola Scriptura, you’re left with few options for where the Church can be located-and who’s feeding you the true gospel.

 

[Disciple96]

*>>I’m wondering if you have read the Fathers. (I’m old and I don’t remember if you’ve said this before or not, pardon me if I’m asking you something you’ve already answered). Read the history of the Church, the Fathers of the Church, and you’ll see that the version of things that so many people have in their heads now is a very recent, very modern construction and in very large part a fiction.

I believe it was Cardinal Newman who said:

Quote:
“To be steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
<<
*
Absolutely

The Protestant premise is that the Church was in the beginning the one true Church- Most won’t deny that the Catholic church has roots that go all the way to the Apostles and Christ himself, but they insist at some point the Church became corrupt- went astray and then needed to be reformed to be brought back to what it was in the beginning. But the problem is nobody can agree when it went astray. Certainly it couldn’t have gone astray before 397ad (there abouts I didn’t fact check the to make sure i have the exact date ) because that is when the Bible was canonized. It was the Church that had the books of the Bible, preserved and copied them, and decided which were books were inspired and to be included.

If you study the early church you will discover that those things that you think the Catholic church is wrong on, were all there almost from the very beginning. Church structure and government, infant Baptism, the real presence in the communion-on and on. The early church looked nothing like modern day fundamentalism. If these tenants of the Church are wrong then you would have to conclude that the early church fell away within less than a generation of the Apostles- before the Bible was even canonized.

Hey there, fellow Southerner.and welcome home! I’m always glad to see someone else crossing the Tiber.

Now, two points about the Church, just to be sure we are on the same page when speaking about the Church and so no one gets the wrong idea if they stumble across this thread unawares.

1. Um…Almost from the beginning? It was there before the New Testament was even written. The texts of the New Testament were largely written to be read in the Church, which already existed many years before any of its texts were committed to writing (other than the Greek Old Testament, of course, The Septuagint). The Church was established by Christ Himself. “…upon this rock, I will build My church…” And He did just that. Ministerial Priesthood, instituted on Holy Thursday, along with the Eucharist; and the power and authority to forgive and retain sins after He was risen.
2. And as for this Church “falling away” notion, well, this would mean that when Christ said that He would be with her until the end of the ages and that the gates of hell would not prevail against her…well, for the Church to have fallen away at any time would mean that Christ mis-spoke. And since He is the Word, the Logos, the Second Person of the Most Holy and Blessed Trinity, it is not possible that He could make a mistake like that. The Church has never fallen away, though many of her members have. The Church is still here and will be until her Lord returns, per His words and His promise.

Just thought I’d clarify that.

 

[MDK]

What is it specifically that convinced you that “due to the Churchs’ history it became Catholicism or nothing”?

It was always God’s one Church and nothing else compared favorably, nor was it meant to. God created it, so what man made faith system could, even if it borrowed a lot from God’s one Church, but distorted some of the teachings? God’s one Church was Catholic in heirarchy, in doctrine, in sacraments right from the start… there was the deposit of faith that is still there. The DNA of God’s Church was there, and it grew to be worldwide, and so the same folks at Antioch that came up with the word Christian, then came up with the word Catholic (for worldwide) and the terms Christian and Catholic were used interchangeably as the same thing. There was never a point where it became only the Catholic Church… as it was always from the start, only the Catholic Church.

 

[Disciple96]

Mick, I’m not sure we are saying the same thing. What I mean by faith and what you mean are very likely very different things. I don’t believe in faith alone, for example, and you probably do. (You can correct me if I’m wrong.) But the only place that phrase appears in the Bible is in James, where he says, “We are not saved by faith alone.” Which is one reason why Martin Luther wanted to remove it from the Bible. (By the way, he wanted to remove seven books from the New Testament to match the seven he didn’t like in the Old Testament. That’s the kind of thing that can happen when folks start having religion their own way. This ain’t Burger King.)

(I just typed a really long post, even for me , and then the whole thing up and disappeared. I’m telling ya, I’m having some technical difficulties today. Argh. )

I think I’ll take this as a blog idea and write something about it there. Later. After I eat. And watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed again. And work on my review for the blog. And work on the review of Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. After my eyes aren’t so blurry, been staring at this monitor all day, oy! After I eat something. Did I mention how hungry I am? Oy.

 

[deanarrca]

MDK we are on the same page

I hated to say “almost from the beginning”- I realize they were there from the very beginning- But I was thinking more about other corroborating historical documents that back up and show that the early church did in fact teach what it today still teaches- For instance the historical document the Didache (Was it 70 or 90ad I would have to look) that gives instructions to early Christians. Being and Instruction manuel for new Christians it shows what the early Christians were like and what they did such as pouring when living water wasn’t available. And writings of the Church fathers starting in the first century.

I realize the Church did not not go off track because - because
Matthew 16:18 (King James Version)
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I was hoping that would be apparent in what I wrote-

But that is the Protestant reformation notion- That the true Church went astray and became the corrupt Roman Catholic Church which then ceased to be the true Church and thus needed to be reformed. (My other point is they can’t agree, if that were the case which it is not, when it went astray- I was also trying to point out that all the doctrines in contention were well established (referring to the Bible yes-- but also to the writings of the Early Church fathers such as Ignatius, Justin, Origin, St. Augustine etc.) prior to the time the Bible was canonized

But they didn’t reform it - It was not the Protestant reformation but the Great Divorce–

And for protestants who believe this then who re-established the “true Church” Which reformer got it right? Luther, Calvin Wesley – They all disagree,

But yes sorry if I wasn’t clear- I truly believe that God protected his Church as he promised in Matt 16:18 and that the Catholic Church (all rites not just Latin) is the Church founded by Christ on Peter. That it is a continuous unbroken line. That all doctrines/teachings of the Church were in place from the very beginning.

 

[Mick_Taylor]

I know you see it that way. And I repeat what I said in my post above. We are going in circles. Are you looking at the sources that have been pointed out? Really, until you do, we will continue to go in circles and life is much too short for that.

Hi Disciple96,

I have indeed taken a good look at the sources that have been offered as ‘proof’ that the CC is the same church that was founded by Jesus. Once again, I need to point out that if the Scriptures themselves can be wrongly interpreted then so can all historical documents be wrongly interpreted. So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! Such irony!

 

[Mick_Taylor]

Mick, I’m not sure we are saying the same thing. What I mean by faith and what you mean are very likely very different things. I don’t believe in faith alone, for example, and you probably do. (You can correct me if I’m wrong.) But the only place that phrase appears in the Bible is in James, where he says, “We are not saved by faith alone.” Which is one reason why Martin Luther wanted to remove it from the Bible. (By the way, he wanted to remove seven books from the New Testament to match the seven he didn’t like in the Old Testament. That’s the kind of thing that can happen when folks start having religion their own way. This ain’t Burger King.)

(I just typed a really long post, even for me , and then the whole thing up and disappeared. I’m telling ya, I’m having some technical difficulties today. Argh. )

I think I’ll take this as a blog idea and write something about it there. Later. After I eat. And watch Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed again. And work on my review for the blog. And work on the review of Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation. After my eyes aren’t so blurry, been staring at this monitor all day, oy! After I eat something. Did I mention how hungry I am? Oy.

Hi Disciple96,

Fancy that! I just rented and watched “No Intelligence Allowed” last night! And it was excellent! I predict that you’ll really like it too.

 

[MDK]

Hi Disciple96,

I have indeed taken a good look at the sources that have been offered as ‘proof’ that the CC is the same church that was founded by Jesus. Once again, I need to point out that if the Scriptures themselves can be wrongly interpreted then so can all historical documents be wrongly interpreted. So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! Such irony!

What if you’re wrong? … and you are very wrong indeed!

Perhaps you focus on wrong interpretations, because that’s what you’re familiar with. You’re looking at Catholicism as though it were Protestantism.

The Catholic faith has been handed down from Christ, from one generation to the next. We know for sure that nothing else has. The Scriptures can be interpreted without error, and history can be rightly read as well… just apparently not by you and those who do what you do.

 

[Disciple96]

Hi Disciple96,

Fancy that! I just rented and watched “No Intelligence Allowed” last night! And it was excellent! I predict that you’ll really like it too.

I actually watched it last night. I’m watching it again tonight. And working on the reveiw for the blog. And the other review.

I think we would probably like a lot of the same things, Mick. Especially when it comes to admiring the wonderful works of our Lord. I don’t remember what you’ve posted about morality and life issues and such, but we probably have things in common there too. I am, after all, a disciple of Christ, as you are. We have Him in common. And that is quite a lot.

I’m really not trying to argue with you about all this stuff, it just seems that way. It’s been such a long journey for me, it’s hard to sum it up in a few words that will be meaningful. You really will have to listen and read these things. If you listened to that series I mentioned, Our Father’s Plan, and listen all the way through, but especially to the last talk in the New Testament part, I think that would mean more to you than my own clumsy attempts.

I do have a deep and abiding love for the Church and I do love sharing that with folks. You can’t hear me or see me so perhaps that love and desire to share this marvel, this beautiful Mother, with you doesn’t come through as well as it would if we could sit down and talk over a cup of coffee.

 

[deanarrca]

Mick said >>So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! <<

Umm no-- Christ taught the Apostles who passed down the proper interpretation and it has been preserved down through the ages. The proper Interpretation of scriptures can be seen through the early councils and writings of the Church Fathers. They show what the Church believed and how the Early church interpreted and understood the Scriptures.

It is this Church again that wrote, preserved copied and decided which books were to be considered Scripture- The Church came first and infallibly chose the correct books.
The church that canonized the Bible was the Catholic Church with a Church hierarchy/ government in place with an unbroken line of succession. You place absolute trust in this infallible Church which infallibly chose the books of your Bible. So if it did fall away it would have to be after this point but all the major doctrines were already in place- So are you going to tell me that this Church infallibly was able to choose the books of the Bible but were at the same time fallible on the real presence, infant baptism, purgatory, Mary’s perpetual virginity etc. All those things were firmly believed by this same Church before the Bible was canonized.

If that is not so- The the Gates of Hell did prevail against it–

Now you and I know that can not be the case because Jesus said the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church Christ founded on Peter.

Help me out here guys- i know what I’m trying to say but feel I am not expressing it very clearly.

For the First 1000 years their was only One unified Church and all of Catholic doctrine was already established. Then around 1000 or so the Eastern Church separated but they too have an unbroken line and are much closer to the Catholic church in doctrine than they are Protestantism- I think of the catholic (all rites not just Latin and the orthodox Church as two branches of the same lungs. The reformation occurred nearly 500 years after that and then splintered into a 1000 plus denominations that all teach something different yet all appeal to Scripture to support their interpretation. You are then left to your own interpretation or whatever reformer your personal interpretation lines up best with. Do you trust your own understanding ar do you think those closest to Christ such as the Apostles and those closest to the time of Christ might have a better understanding?

Here is the Protestant Problem/ dilemma- When did the Church become corrupt? Before or after the Bible was canonized? If you say before, then a corrupt Church canonized the Bible but then can’t be trusted- so therefore the canon of Scripture would be suspect. if you say after the Bible was canonized then because they were infallible and were the true Church in determining the canon of Scripture then they were also infallible in the other things of faith and morals they taught.

 

[Disciple96]

Mick said >>So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! <<

Umm no-- Christ taught the Apostles who passed down the proper interpretation and it has been preserved down through the ages. The proper Interpretation of scriptures can be seen through the early councils and writings of the Church Fathers. They show what the Church believed and how the Early church interpreted and understood the Scriptures.

…Snipped for space…

Here is the Protestant Problem/ dilemma- When did the Church become corrupt? Before or after the Bible was canonized? If you say before, then a corrupt Church canonized the Bible but then can’t be trusted- so therefore the canon of Scripture would be suspect. if you say after the Bible was canonized then because they were infallible and were the true Church in determining the canon of Scripture then they were also infallible in the other things of faith and morals they taught.

Yep, I think you got it, deanarrca. Believe only in the Bible, which is a non-Biblical idea (should I say post-Biblical by 1500 or more years?), then you have to believe in a Bible that has no guarantee of errancy because that notion is from the Church, not the Bible. St Paul says the Bible is sufficient or good for teaching from, but he never says it’s all there is. And besides, he is speaking of the Old Testament, there wasn’t even a New Testament in existence when he said that. St John says that Jesus did all these things and many more that are not recorded and that the books would fill the world if all of it was written down. St Paul speaks to his followers about holding onto his teaching which was handed on to them by word spoken and by word in his letters.

 

[Disciple96]

Hi Disciple96,

I have indeed taken a good look at the sources that have been offered as ‘proof’ that the CC is the same church that was founded by Jesus. Once again, I need to point out that if the Scriptures themselves can be wrongly interpreted then so can all historical documents be wrongly interpreted. So it seems to me that Catholics have completely relied on their OWN PRIVATE INTERPRETATION of various documents in order to reach their conclusions…exactly what they say is so horribly wrong with sola Scriptura! Such irony!

I’m not giving you my interpretation of the Scriptures. I’m giving you what Christ gave the Apostles and has been handed on by their successors. My own personal interpretation of the Scriptures means nothing. It’s useful for me to read the Bible and to let it speak to me. I pray the Scriptures. We pray them at Mass every day. I read them, I study them, I believe them, I pray them. But I am not interpreting them when I tell you what the Church has always taught about them.

The Apostles taught their successors who taught their successors who taught their successors who taught their successors who taught their successors who taught their successors who taught their successors and it has continued and does continue right on to our day. These men have been taught by men who were taught by men who were taught (and so on) until we get back to men who were taught by Christ Himself.

It is not easy for me to sniff at this or wave it away. The Fathers of the Church were not merely men who picked up a Bible and interpreted it willy nilly any way they saw fit. They were taught by the Apostles and by men who were taught by the Apostles. That is an important point not to be dismissed or pooh-poohed away. The Church has been careful to preserve what she has been given, careful to preserve the Deposit of Faith. It’s an entirely different way of thinking from, “I think this means this and I like that but I don’t like this over here so I’ll just go with this.”

Now about this Gospel message that this thread is supposed to be about… I’m awfully glad that the Church did preserve Christ’s message. Because if she had not, we wouldn’t know much about Christ today. And that has been a life-changing experience for me.

 

[Disciple96]

Forgot to say this, Mick. (Then I really do have to go get some lunch, er, dinner, and stop staring at this screen for a while. ) I wonder if by “sources” you might mean that you are looking at verses. I really mean that simply looking up a few verses isn’t nearly enough. What is needed is immersion in Scripture. It isn’t something that necessarily happens quickly. It certainly didn’t for me. But that immersion in Scripture, and doing Catholic Bible study, and going to Mass and hearing the Word where it was written to be heard and read, in the liturgy in the worship of the Church----

That is what I mean by immersion. This will all take time. And perhaps we can let the Holy Spirit take His time and lead you as He will lead you. Right now He is leading me to shut down this laptop and close my Bible and go find some food before I pass out.

Have a great evening, Mick. You have inspired me with more blog topics. I’ll write something on there about all this soon. And I hope you’ll drop by and participate in a discussion there sometime. I learn so much from having to find a way to put things into words. I welcome honest and open, intelligent discussion, questions, corrections, or general sharing of points of view. And a good rousing argument is often fun too!

Later. Peace be with you, Mick, from one disciple to another.