C
CMatt25
Guest
Luvtosew, thank you so much for the link, providing to us the true Catholic answer. God bless you on your faith walk and peace to you always.
Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?
- Status
C
CMatt25
Guest
The post you linked to says when those of you say a Catholic is not a Catholic, it is not meant to be taken literally as theology but as a “bumper sticker slogan”. Hence the problem. When those of you give a slogan as an answer to this, it may also confuse lurkers because they may take your slogans as theology when in fact the slogan isn’t. I see no difference in that compared to the confusion you accuse others of. Besides that you risk alientating and driving further away, the Catholic who with a slogan or with QMs you suggest isn’t. But I’m glad we finally have resolved the answer. Hopefully.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This range, Publisher, is TRIVIAL, compared to the chaos and confusion that exists within the Protestant world.
Take this (non exhaustive) list of different beliefs that exist in the Protestant world. And tell me if you can offer one of similar gravity within the Catholic world.
• Abortion
• Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
• Baptism (sprinkling? Immersion? Infant? Adult? Sacrament? Ordinance? In Jesus’ name only? Using Trinitarian formula?)
• Church leadership, or no leadership
• Death/Soul Sleep
• Divorce
• Health and wealth gospel
• Hell, or no hell
• Homosexuality
• Is God‘s Holy Name Jehovah
• Judge others, don’t judge others
• Lord’s day on Saturday or Sunday
• Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
• Once saved, always saved
• Ordination
• Predestination
• Rapture
• Sola scriptura/private interpretation
• The Eucharist (Communion)
• Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
• Trinity vs. Unitarianism
• What’s a sin, what is not a sin
• Women pastors, no women pastors
P
PRmerger
Guest
As has already been stated, Luv, the Eucharist is symbolic.
However, it’s just not ONLY symbolic.
It is spiritual.
It’s just not ONLY spiritual.
It is physical.
It’s just not ONLY physical.
It is literal.
It’s just not ONLY literal.
That’s why no one can ever beat a Catholic in arguing. We see all the right answers and say it’s both/and.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Now here, Publisher, is where you’re deadly wrong. (You were only partially wrong in your earlier posts.
)There is indeed a SINGLE understanding concerning the Bible among Catholics. And that SINGLE understanding is found in the Word of God, Jesus Christ. And Catholics understand that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been given the authority to proclaim, defend and define this Word of God as a single understanding: the Deposit of Faith given, once for all, to the saints.
Now, while it’s true that the Church has not defined infallibly more than a handful of Scripture verses, the above statement about there not being a single understanding regarding the Bible is simply and categorically wrong.
N
Nicea325
Guest
That is what I have been telling our friend Publisher over and over,yet Pub still does not accept it?Now here, Publisher, is where you’re deadly wrong. (You were only partially wrong in your earlier posts.
There is indeed a SINGLE understanding concerning the Bible among Catholics. And that SINGLE understanding is found in the Word of God, Jesus Christ. **And Catholics understand that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church has been given the authority to proclaim, defend and define this Word of God as a single understanding: the Deposit of Faith given, once for all, to the saints.**Now, while it’s true that the Church has not defined infallibly more than a handful of Scripture verses, the above statement about there not being a single understanding regarding the Bible is simply and categorically wrong.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Makes my brain go…:whacky:
P
PRmerger
Guest
This sounds eerily similar to an argument a couple who is fornicating might make to their parents: “The couple decides whether we’re married or not. We don’t need a piece of paper to tell us that we’re married. We decide!!”The person.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Ah, a perfect example of why it’s good for you to not have “Catholic” in your ID.
Each and every time you have stated “the RCC teaches” it’s always followed by something that’s veiled in misunderstanding, obfuscation and ignorance.
No, Luv, the CC does not state that you go to hell if you leave the Church.
In fact, the CC has NEVER declared anyone to be in hell.
IF someone knows that the CC is the Church that Christ founded, and then decides to turn his back on Christ and His Body, ONLY then will his soul be in grave danger. “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.” CCC 846
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
I have no problem telling a poster here on the forum, for the benefit of the lurkers, “As you were baptized into the OHCAC and are canonically a Catholic, theologically, idiomatically, and in your professions of faith you are NOT a Catholic.”
I have seen too many folksBesides that you risk alientating and driving further away, the Catholic who with a slogan or with QMs you suggest isn’t. But I’m glad we finally have resolved the answer. Hopefully.
who have come to the CAFs and say they were offended by something the Church, or an orthodox Catholic poster has said end up re-verting or converting
to be convinced by the above comment, Matt.
Indeed, just a few pages back Newsy made the exact argument I’m offering here.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Right PR. The Church states they could not be saved in that case. According to my Websters, “could” is a tense of “can”. When you substitute "can " for its tense “could”, you have “can not be saved”.
If the Church meant “might not”, why not just make it crystal clear and say it that way? With the way CCC is worded, it makes it sound as if Protestants, the topic of the thread, have a better chance at eternal life than a Catholic whom does not “remain”. Here “remain” needs to be in QMs of course due to the theology of OCAC.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Publisher,
Heads up: no one is talking about EVERY PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE but you. What the rest of us are addressing are those few items that the Catholic Church has addressed. Here is a link that gives a very comprehensive answer:agapebiblestudy.com/How%20To%20Study%20Scripture.htm
For starters, let’s look at two:
1,) John 6:32-71, known as “The Bread of Life Discourse” Jesus literally tells the crowd [and us] that in order to have eternal life one must literally eat His Body and drink His Blood. In accepting Jesus’ words as literal, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist!
2.) Matthew 5:30 Jesus’ tells the crowd, And if your right hand should be your downfall, cut it off and throw it away… The literalist interpretation of these words would suggest if one did not like one’s right hand it should be surgically removed, but this is not the meaning Jesus intended to convey. He is using hyperbole in Matthew 5:27-30 to drive home the concept that nothing worldly is worth compromising our eternal salvation and that one must fight to remain focused on staying on course toward our final goal of heaven without making any concessions and by being ready to sacrifice anything which could put one in the path of offending God and risking the gift of salvation.
Which would like to address?
God bless
Heads up: no one is talking about EVERY PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE but you. What the rest of us are addressing are those few items that the Catholic Church has addressed. Here is a link that gives a very comprehensive answer:agapebiblestudy.com/How%20To%20Study%20Scripture.htm
For starters, let’s look at two:
1,) John 6:32-71, known as “The Bread of Life Discourse” Jesus literally tells the crowd [and us] that in order to have eternal life one must literally eat His Body and drink His Blood. In accepting Jesus’ words as literal, the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus is present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist!
2.) Matthew 5:30 Jesus’ tells the crowd, And if your right hand should be your downfall, cut it off and throw it away… The literalist interpretation of these words would suggest if one did not like one’s right hand it should be surgically removed, but this is not the meaning Jesus intended to convey. He is using hyperbole in Matthew 5:27-30 to drive home the concept that nothing worldly is worth compromising our eternal salvation and that one must fight to remain focused on staying on course toward our final goal of heaven without making any concessions and by being ready to sacrifice anything which could put one in the path of offending God and risking the gift of salvation.
Which would like to address?
God bless
Again, there is NO SINGLE CATHOLIC understanding of every passage of scripture…there is allowed in Catholicism a range of interpretation that can conflict with other Catholics interpretation…as has been stated on this forum more than once, the Catholic church has except for a few passages NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scripture…my question is why are Protestants expected to interpret every passage the same, when Catholics are not required to do so?
The title of this thread seems to suggest…at least to me, or why would it be asked in the first place… there is something “wrong” with Protestant understanding because we don’t understand scripture in the exact same way…Catholics don’t…so why are we expected to?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Matt, you are emphasizing the wrong phrase. The critical part is the “knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ”, not the “could not” part.Right PR. The Church states they could not be saved in that case. According to my Websters, “could” is a tense of “can”. When you substitute "can " for its tense “could”, you have “can not be saved”.
Even the Catholic Church, with all the authority given to her by Our Lord, cannot read a man’s heart and see what a man “knows”.
Thus, the CC has never declared that anyone who has left the CC was not saved.
Unless you’re aware of something that I’m not? If so, could you please share what person the Church declared to be in hell, since this person was** knowingly** rejecting Christ and His Body.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t think it sounds that way at all, Matt.
Protestants do not have the 7 sacraments, which are the greatest vehicle of God’s grace.
Thus, it’s a lot harder to have “a chance at eternal life” than any Catholic who remains joined to Christ and His Body.
A
Anthony_V
Guest
To simply hit the nail on the head (and build upon what you just said… hehe rhymes):
The main problem of misunderstanding is this (from a general protestant perspective):
If you, in full consent and knowledge, leave the Church then you have committed a grave sin. Grave sins deprive the soul the sanctifying grace of salvation. Protestant churches don’t have valid sacraments, according to the O.H.C.A.C. A Catholic who leaves the Church to become protestant and does not revert is, indirectly, but by necessity, damned. However, because most protestants (save Anglican/Episcopal) don’t believe the sacraments are the main economy of grace (if they believe in the sacraments at all), they would have no problem with leaving the Church, because they can mentally satisfy their convictions about the Church being wrong and their fears about the Church being right all in one sitting. Voila, you have a conversion.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Luvtosew,
I think PRmrger gave you an excellent response in #523.
Let me add something to that: you have a demonstrated track record of usually not providing accurate information on what the Catholic Church teaches. I would suggest that when you being with, “…the RCC teaches…” you actually supply an authorative reference to back up what you are saying. Now, you need to exercise judgment here - there are an abundance of anti-catholic web sites you can Google, that are more then happy to tell you what THEY THINK the Catholic Church teaches. These are not authorative sources… and will only compound confusion.
Providing authorative citations has the two fold advantage of actually presenting what the Catholic Church teaches (anyone can make a mistake) and providing your readers with the source (as you just did in an earlier post ) so others can follow-up.
Thanks! : Thumbsup:
I think PRmrger gave you an excellent response in #523.
Let me add something to that: you have a demonstrated track record of usually not providing accurate information on what the Catholic Church teaches. I would suggest that when you being with, “…the RCC teaches…” you actually supply an authorative reference to back up what you are saying. Now, you need to exercise judgment here - there are an abundance of anti-catholic web sites you can Google, that are more then happy to tell you what THEY THINK the Catholic Church teaches. These are not authorative sources… and will only compound confusion.
Providing authorative citations has the two fold advantage of actually presenting what the Catholic Church teaches (anyone can make a mistake) and providing your readers with the source (as you just did in an earlier post
) so others can follow-up.Thanks! : Thumbsup:
P
perro_sarnoso
Guest
Because they are headless,
They are the little ships that sail along side the Flagship Catholic Church in St. John Bosco’s vision.
A lot of protestants are abandoning their small vessels and climbing into St. Peter’s net - onto the great Catholic ship.
Soon, the events of the Warning and the Permanent Miracle will fill the nets to almost breaking…just like in the scriptures of the miraculous catch.
That wasn’t just a “sample miracle” for Peter to come follow Christ. It was a prophetic indicator of this future we live in. Those fish that almost broke Peter’s net are the hundreds of thousands that will return to the One, True, Catholic Church.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Heavenly Father give me humility, patience and understanding, and the abiltiy to take every thought captive in Jesus’s precious name. Amen.
:blessyou: 'S
P
PRmerger
Guest
Amen!
- Status