Who says one organization today is "The True Church"

[schaick]

The Gospel as we have it was recognized as Gospel shortly after written. Men canonized what GOD had already put forth.

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.**

tweety- We have to admit that the Catholic Church did protect and preserve GOD’s Word during the darkest time in man’s history- so that when the time was right Luther could nudge the Church back to the Truth.

jmcrae- so now the Church is claiming that the Bible writers were Catholic?!?! Too funny, I thought they were all Jewish and then called Christians first in Antioch!

Acts 11
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

 

[tweetymom]

OK, then who WERE they? If they weren’t Catholic, my dear Tweety, then you must be able to provide proof that they weren’t. . .and proof that “Catholic” came about ‘later.’ Where’s your proof? Statements that ‘you don’t see X’ are not considered authentic and authoritative proof.

Actually, the Greek “catholikos” for ‘universal’ is indeed in Scripture.

And for sure, those first followers weren’t Lutheran, or Methodist.

Either Jesus set up a Church and the Christians there came (at some point, very early on) to be known as Catholic. . .or you can show that "Catholics’ are a whole different ‘kettle of fish’.

Suppose you have a group of people meeting in a town. The first 20 years, they don’t have a name, then they decide to call themselves the Park City Rangers.

So, in the first 20 years, the ONLY thing that was different was that the Rangers weren’t CALLED the Rangers. But everything about the Rangers now is the same as it was before they got a name. And since they are in Park City (and were 20 years ago), and since they ‘range’ about the town, they were informally known as ‘Park City Rangers’ before they filled out a formal charter!

Look if you are happy and pleased with what you believe then I am happy. And what you state isn’t believable to me then it just isn’t. Jesus did set up a church of believers in Him.and they are all called Christians just like you and me.

 

[qui_est_ce]

God is still “true for them,” even though they don’t believe. That they don’t believe it, doesn’t cause God to stop existing, or to stop sustaining them in their lives. The fact that they can choose not to believe in Him is actually proof of His love for them (which would not exist, if He did not exist) in that He gives them free will.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does that mean the fall didn’t make a sound?

Philosophy 101

 

[tweetymom]

The Gospel as we have it was recognized as Gospel shortly after written. Men canonized what GOD had already put forth.

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.**

tweety- We have to admit that the Catholic Church did protect and preserve GOD’s Word during the darkest time in man’s history- so that when the time was right Luther could nudge the Church back to the Truth.

jmcrae- so now the Church is claiming that the Bible writers were Catholic?!?! Too funny, I thought they were all Jewish and then called Christians first in Antioch!

Acts 11
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Agreed with all.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Wisdom, you have heard of atheists haven’t you who don’t believe? God is not true for them because they don’t believe. Of course I am not saying that. I believe in God so for me he is true but my belief is based on a belief in a Creator and faith.

God is not true for them? what in the world are you saying?

do you know the word REASON?

 

[qui_est_ce]

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.**

Bibles were to expensive and precious to be hoarded by the rich. They were painstakingly hand copied by monks. The Church kept Bibles on chains, much like phone books, to keep people from stealing them.

We actually are allowed to interpret as we wish, as long as it doesn’t disagree with CC Teaching. For example, we are not allowed to interpret John 6 as metaphorical, or deny we must be Baptized.

 

[CMatt25]

I am not sure what your point is? Do you agree the Vulgate was the common language at the time this edition was put out?

Latin is still the common language of the Roman Rite Catholic Church. Latin started dying out in the 60’s. My Lutheran grandfather was fluent in it. It was mandatory in Catholic high schools through the '70’s.

We still have Latin mass parts (Kyrie eleison, Agnus Dei) and beautiful chants and songs, Adoramus te, Pannis Angelicus, etc.

We also have several heavily attended Latin mass only parishes here in St. Louis. (yay Burke)

It’s a shame we lost such a beautiful language, but yes, it looks like it’s coming back!

BTW, the Bible readings are always in the native language. We therefore have Spanish, Viet Namese, German, etc. “personal” parishes established here in St. Louis

Fortunately for me a parish near me still has Masses in 3 languages and not Latin. But in 3 common languages actually spoken by its parishoners. Another parish near me which I attended due to scheduling, sang Oh Come All Ye Faithful in Latin at Christmas. I didn’t like it much but if it’s your cup of tea go for it. I lived it as a child. Have absolutely no desire to go back to those days.

 

[CMatt25]

God is still “true for them,” even though they don’t believe. That they don’t believe it, doesn’t cause God to stop existing, or to stop sustaining them in their lives. The fact that they can choose not to believe in Him is actually proof of His love for them (which would not exist, if He did not exist) in that He gives them free will.

That’s what we believe but they don’t.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.

Your ‘understanding is not correct.’

**Never was a Catholic lay person ‘forbidden’ to own a Bible. Books were rare and precious and before the printing press were extremely expensive. . .but some rich lay people, kings, nobles, etc. did indeed own Bibles. Poof–that ‘understanding’ just got shot away.

As for ‘interpretation’. . .Catholics are as free as any other Christian to ‘understand’ Scripture. But you don’t go around and ‘interpret’ passages of Scripture out of the blue, do you? You look at the context of the Scripture, how it relates to other Scripture.

The Catholic Church has given an ‘authoritative interpretation’ to certain passages of Scripture, but many other passages can be understood in many ways (Revelation especially is very ‘faceted’) and Catholics can ‘interpret’ such passages in ways which do not contradict authentic Christian (which is Catholic) teaching, on their own.

I don’t imagine that you as a Protestant would take a Scriptural passage and say, "See, this proves that Jesus was not God but just an ordinary man’. I mean, you “could” do so (many nonChristians have). . .but YOU wouldn’t do that because it contradicts with your **Christian belief. **So you are in a sense’ bound’ by your beliefs not to take Scripture and interpret it in a way that **contradicts your belief.

**Catholics are the same. If you don’t interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts YOUR belief, why grump that Catholics do the same? We don’t interpret it in a way that contradicts OUR belief.

 

[CMatt25]

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.

Your ‘understanding is not correct.’

**Never was a Catholic lay person ‘forbidden’ to own a Bible. Books were rare and precious and before the printing press were extremely expensive. . .but some rich lay people, kings, nobles, etc. did indeed own Bibles. Poof–that ‘understanding’ just got shot away.

As for ‘interpretation’. . .Catholics are as free as any other Christian to ‘understand’ Scripture. But you don’t go around and ‘interpret’ passages of Scripture out of the blue, do you? You look at the context of the Scripture, how it relates to other Scripture.

The Catholic Church has given an ‘authoritative interpretation’ to certain passages of Scripture, but many other passages can be understood in many ways (Revelation especially is very ‘faceted’) and Catholics can ‘interpret’ such passages in ways which do not contradict authentic Christian (which is Catholic) teaching, on their own.

I don’t imagine that you as a Protestant would take a Scriptural passage and say, "See, this proves that Jesus was not God but just an ordinary man’. I mean, you “could” do so (many nonChristians have). . .but YOU wouldn’t do that because it contradicts with your **Christian belief. **So you are in a sense’ bound’ by your beliefs not to take Scripture and interpret it in a way that **contradicts your belief.

**Catholics are the same. If you don’t interpret Scripture in a way that contradicts YOUR belief, why grump that Catholics do the same? We don’t interpret it in a way that contradicts OUR belief.

I don’t think this was addressed to me but for my part I don’t claim infallibility. But in reading tweety’s posts I continually see her say, if you believe something, fine by her.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

That’s what we believe but they don’t.

But the point is, that what we believe is truth–and not just because we believe it.

If it’s snowing outside, it’s gonna snow even if you go outside and say, “I believe it is 80 degrees and dry”. Your belief–despite your sincerity–just isn’t true.

So no matter how sincerely a person might ‘believe’ something that isn’t true–or might FAIL to believe something that IS true–that doesn’t change the innate truth.

As another poster mentioned, you’re not going to be able to jump off your barn and ‘fly like Superman’. You can be full of ‘assurance’ that by golly, you’re gonna fly–that won’t make your belief ‘true.’

Feeling something won’t make it ‘true’. Neither will ‘reasoning’ something (if it’s false) make it true just because it was ‘reasoned.’

So what we believe and teach matters.

The atheist–sincere as he might be, ‘reasonable’ as he might be–is wrong. And there’s going to be a consequence for him that he ‘choose’ to be wrong.

Very few people do not have a ‘choice’ in their belief. Even the youngest infant can turn his head away from mother’s breast and ‘refuse’ to nurse, as well as turn his head and accept the nourishment.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t think this was addressed to me but for my part I don’t claim infallibility. But in reading tweety’s posts I continually see her say, if you believe something, fine by her.

Indifferentism.
So, it’s fine by this type of reasoning if I believe 'lies?" That isn’t a very helpful point of view.

 

[hillsteven]

The Gospel as we have it was recognized as Gospel shortly after written. Men canonized what GOD had already put forth.

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.**

I’ll have to correct your mis-understanding here:
You’re assuming here that Bibles were affordable… When you remember that every Bible was painstakingly copied by hand by monks, and that it took literally a flock of sheep (that’s what velum is) to produce a single Bible, you will realize that it was worth approximately the value of the average American home today… Would you consider taking out a mortgage on a book???

This of course is the answer to the other popular myth centering around the fact that Catholic Churches chained Bibles so that the laity could not have access to them. They were chained to the ambos (think podium here), but that was a security measure due to the inordinate value of the Bibles.

This is a short-sighted argument made by those who wrongly assume that if it were not for the Catholic Church, the entire world would have been carrying around a nice leather-bound copy of the Holy Word of God when they went to Mass every day/week.

Too, I will point out that to have a person of authority interpret scripture is by no means a new invention. There are multiple places in the Bible itself where we see that both the Jews and the early Christians relied on an authoritative interpreter of scriptures. This was for the very practical reason that they were afraid to interpret it incorrectly.

Acts 8:30-31
Philip ran ahead and heard the man reading the prophet Isaiah. He said to him, “Do you really grasp what you are reading?”
“How can I,” the man replied, “unless someone explains it to me?” With that, he invited Philip to get in and sit down beside him.

This is one explicit reference even in the New Testament. What is the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth, according to scripture? It is not the Bible, but the Church!

Show me where we see in the Bible where Jesus wrote anything down?
Show me where we see in the Bible where Jesus commanded the apostles to write anything down?
Show me where the Bible defines which books are infallible?

Obviously these are impossible tasks. The reason for this is that oral tradition through the Church came first… the writings came second… and the collection of writings we know today as the Bible came much, much, later.

jmcrae- so now the Church is claiming that the Bible writers were Catholic?!?! Too funny, I thought they were all Jewish and then called Christians first in Antioch!

Acts 11
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

What would you propose the writers were? The word Catholic in reference to the Christian Church was in verifiable use as early as the 2nd century… long before even the Great Schism that separated theEastern Rite Churches from us. There simply was no other “kind” of Christian when the Apostles walked the earth other than Catholics! So I, at least, would indeed claim that the Bible writers were Catholic!

 

[tweetymom]

Indifferentism.
So, it’s fine by this type of reasoning if I believe 'lies?" That isn’t a very helpful point of view.

You are free to believe anything you want. Jesus will be our judge when we meet Him.

 

[CMatt25]

But the point is, that what we believe is truth–and not just because we believe it.

If it’s snowing outside, it’s gonna snow even if you go outside and say, “I believe it is 80 degrees and dry”. Your belief–despite your sincerity–just isn’t true.

So no matter how sincerely a person might ‘believe’ something that isn’t true–or might FAIL to believe something that IS true–that doesn’t change the innate truth.

As another poster mentioned, you’re not going to be able to jump off your barn and ‘fly like Superman’. You can be full of ‘assurance’ that by golly, you’re gonna fly–that won’t make your belief ‘true.’

Feeling something won’t make it ‘true’. Neither will ‘reasoning’ something (if it’s false) make it true just because it was ‘reasoned.’

So what we believe and teach matters.

The atheist–sincere as he might be, ‘reasonable’ as he might be–is wrong. And there’s going to be a consequence for him that he ‘choose’ to be wrong.

Very few people do not have a ‘choice’ in their belief. Even the youngest infant can turn his head away from mother’s breast and ‘refuse’ to nurse, as well as turn his head and accept the nourishment.

You’re comparing seeing snow with believing in God? Oh ok.

 

[jmcrae]

The Gospel as we have it was recognized as Gospel shortly after written. Men canonized what GOD had already put forth.

My understanding was that Catholic laity was not allowed to** own a Bible and of course they were and are not allowed to interprete the Holy Bible.**

And from where are you getting this “understanding”?

tweety- We have to admit that the Catholic Church did protect and preserve GOD’s Word during the darkest time in man’s history- so that when the time was right Luther could nudge the Church back to the Truth.

This would be why there are so many thousands of fragmentations of Luther’s religion, each one disagreeing with the rest of them on one or more points of Doctrine, hey? Because they have been led into “truth.”

Sorry, but what Luther led them into looks a whole lot more like chaos than like truth, to me.

jmcrae- so now the Church is claiming that the Bible writers were Catholic?!?! Too funny, I thought they were all Jewish and then called Christians first in Antioch!

They were members of a Church founded by Christ with a world-wide (aka “Catholic”) mission, headed by a Pope - Peter, or else his immediate successor, who was Linus. So, yeah - they were Catholic converts from Judaism.

Acts 11
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Right. Of course, due to misuse of the word, a lot of people think that “Christian” is synonymous with “Protestant”, not realizing that Protestantism didn’t come into existence until the time of Martin Luther, almost exactly 1500 years after the ascension of Christ. Before that, all Christians were Catholic - either Roman Catholic, or Eastern Catholic (some members of the Eastern Church were in schism, as you know, but they were still Catholic - they had not repudiated the Sacraments, or nullified the ordinations of their Bishops).

 

[jmcrae]

You are free to believe anything you want. Jesus will be our judge when we meet Him.

Yes - and those who believed wrongly will go to Hell. We need to find out right now what we are supposed to believe in. When we see Jesus, it will be one day too late for finding these things out.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You’re comparing seeing snow with believing in God? Oh ok.

You’re not really so ‘shallow’ as to try to deflect a post with a ‘strawman’ argument, right Matt?

You haven’t really addressed the fact that Truth exists independent of your ‘personal’ belief (or disbelief).

 

[tweetymom]

Yes - and those who believed wrongly will go to Hell. We need to find out right now what we are supposed to believe in. When we see Jesus, it will be one day too late for finding these things out.

Well we all might be a bit surprised.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, funny that God (through Scripture) doesn’t say, “Believe in whatever ‘interpretation’ of me you choose, even if that interpretation is entirely contradictory of who I am”. . .

Suppose that Mr. X believes that Jesus is a really, really good man but not God. He says he believes all that Jesus ‘said’ because to him it makes ‘sense’, and if it’s pointed out to him that Jesus said that He was “one” with the Father he’ll say that, oh, that was ‘poetry’ and we’re all one cosmic oneness.

Mr. X is a firm believer in “Jesus”, defends Jesus, calls himself a Christian, lives all that he 'thinks" Christianity is. . .

But Mr. X does not believe in Jesus as Jesus **really is.

**It would be like you believing in George Washington–believing in Mount Vernon, and in the crossing of the Delaware. . .all the while firmly convinced that Washington was a Martian. You might have every single historical ‘fact’ about George under your belt, understand the battle strategy, accept George’s presidency–but your fundamental misconception that George was from Mars makes your ultimate understanding of him (the person) irrevocably ‘wrong’. Because by placing George in “Martian land” you make him not the father of his country but a alien overlord!