Why Isn't Everyone Catholic?

[SemperReformada]

Catholics…do not presume that every verse of Scripture needs a definitive interpretation…

That’s a good thing because there are what…only a handful of verses that are definitively defined by your church.

Regardless, a common double standard employed by Catholics on the internet is to dismiss any and all appeals to scripture by a non-Catholic with “…well, that’s only your private interpretation” when the Catholic is not only in the same boat with regards to scripture but has to rely on his/her private interpretation of the catechisms, council documents, encyclicals, code of canon law, etc. How do you understand any and all of those documents? Largely w/ your private interpretation.

 

[Teflon93]

You need to go back and re-read my post.

I clearly said there is no such thing as a “Protestant catechism”.

Maybe you missed that post?

Well, missing it would have been forgivable given how deeply buried in doubletalk it was:

Teflon asked for a Protestant catechism all the while knowing that there is no such thing…not sure why he asked, but he did provide a link to the CCC for which I thank him.

Note that you didn’t admit to an inability to provide such. You claim to be unsure why I asked, but it was quite clear:

You claimed Catholics to be disunified. I provided evidence of that unity—the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You tried to wave that off as somehow irrelevant, yet Protestantism has produced no such thing.

At best, you could have offered Luther’s Catechism or somesuch. Perhaps the Anglican “Book of Common Prayer.”

Then of course you’d have been stuck with explaining a) why such things are binding on so few of the Protestant faithful and b) why so few Lutherans and Anglicans hew to such guides as they have managed to produce.

THAT’s apples-to-apples.

 

[Teflon93]

That’s a good thing because there are what…only a handful of verses that are definitively defined by your church.

Regardless, a common double standard employed by Catholics on the internet is to dismiss any and all appeals to scripture by a non-Catholic with “…well, that’s only your private interpretation” when the Catholic is not only in the same boat with regards to scripture but has to rely on his/her private interpretation of the catechisms, council documents, encyclicals, code of canon law, etc. How do you understand any and all of those documents? Largely w/ your private interpretation.

Have you removed the beam from your Protestant eye first?

The difference of course is that for Catholics and Orthodox it is not Scripture which is the rule of faith, but the Church.

Having rejected the Church, the heresiarchs instead were left with nothing but Scripture—check my signature—and swiftly proved that to be completely insufficient as a rule of faith as it requires extensive interpretation. Heretics being fallible, discord and disunity proliferated due to conflicting interpretations.

Thus Protestants today cannot agree on Christian doctrine or dogma. The closest they have managed is in what they took with them when they left the Church—the Nicene Creed.

The chaos continues to this day.

 

[SemperReformada]

Have you removed the beam from your Protestant eye first?

The difference of course is that for Catholics and Orthodox it is not Scripture which is the rule of faith, but the Church.

Having rejected the Church, the heresiarchs instead were left with nothing but Scripture—check my signature—and swiftly proved that to be completely insufficient as a rule of faith as it requires extensive interpretation. Heretics being fallible, discord and disunity proliferated due to conflicting interpretations.

Thus Protestants today cannot agree on Christian doctrine or dogma. The closest they have managed is in what they took with them when they left the Church—the Nicene Creed.

The chaos continues to this day.

Heresiarchs? What the heck is a heresiarch?

You mention the Orthodox church and I find that interesting. Granted that they are closer to RCC than protestantism but they aren’t exactly in line with your church either, are they? I mean you don’t have the same canon, they reject the notion of the papacy as understood by modern Catholics. I guess I could go on but you probably know the rest as well as I do.

So, where were we? Oh yeah…discussing the disunity in Catholicism. First, you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare your one denomination against all other non-Catholic denominations. So, it’s not a fair comparison…it kind of stacks the deck in your favor.

Maybe we should compare RCC vs LDS…they have similar beliefs with regards to authority. I wonder how I would tell which one was the true church?

Secondly, you are right about one thing. You are certainly not guided by scripture but by your Church. I think I ran across a term for that belief one time…sola ecclesia…I believe it was?

Thirdly, how do you want to define unity? Is it simply having a set of rules or statements about your faith? Is it having everyone obey and believe those rules and statements about your faith? Is it that all Catholics are in lock step on contraception, divorce, abortion…well that can’t be it because your church is rather notorius in that regards. So I am guessing “unity” to you is simply having a mission statement? If I am wrong, please tell me how you define unity.

 

[SemperReformada]

Note that you didn’t admit to an inability to provide such. You claim to be unsure why I asked, but it was quite clear:

Not really, why would you ask for something you know doesn’t exist? Do you often go around asking for things that don’t exist?

You claimed Catholics to be disunified. I provided evidence of that unity—the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Okay, if the CCC (a book) is what defines the unity supposedly enjoyed by the RCC despite all of her members that reject and misunderstand what’s in it, than I will accept your definition of unity. It’s essentially a collection of beliefs, some scriptural some not, bound together in one book.

You tried to wave that off as somehow irrelevant, yet Protestantism has produced no such thing.

Your argument may hold some weight if your members including bishops and cardinals were a little better aligned, one with the other.

Then of course you’d have been stuck with explaining a) why such things are binding on so few of the Protestant faithful and b) why so few Lutherans and Anglicans hew to such guides as they have managed to produce.

The reason so many Lutherans and Anglicans hew to such guides is probably the same reason so few Catholics hew to such guides as the CCC.

 

[MGLechner]

Everyone WAS Catholic for the first 1500 years.

Everyone WILL be Catholic in the end(Heaven)

I wouldn’t call over 1.1 billion Catholics losing ground.

Hhmmm…I must share this news with my Orthodox friends…

 

[wisdomseeker]

That’s a good thing because there are what…only a handful of verses that are definitively defined by your church.

Regardless, a common double standard employed by Catholics on the internet is to dismiss any and all appeals to scripture by a non-Catholic with “…well, that’s only your private interpretation” when the Catholic is not only in the same boat with regards to scripture but has to rely on his/her private interpretation of the catechisms, council documents, encyclicals, code of canon law, etc. How do you understand any and all of those documents? Largely w/ your private interpretation.

you are very funny. just find out who had the Bible first and you will come to the realization. you can have the Bible but you will not have the understanding.

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

So since the Catholic is the Church of our Lord and the Apostles and she has been here from the beginiing, we can only conclude that any religion that came later and is not obedient to the Church is preaching another Gospel.

 

[Arandur]

That’s a good thing because there are what…only a handful of verses that are definitively defined by your church.

Regardless, a common double standard employed by Catholics on the internet is to dismiss any and all appeals to scripture by a non-Catholic with “…well, that’s only your private interpretation” when the Catholic is not only in the same boat with regards to scripture but has to rely on his/her private interpretation of the catechisms, council documents, encyclicals, code of canon law, etc. How do you understand any and all of those documents? Largely w/ your private interpretation.

The Church recognizes that the Spirit guides each of the faithful through a well-formed conscience. This is an open statement that obviously there are things not yet fully defined and yes, open to personal understanding.

Where non-Catholics err is that, against the express wishes of Christ, they disunify themselves from his Body, the Church, and instead rely only upon themselves and their own interpretation of Scripture. Or that of some charismatic leader that they agree with; it’s still ultimately personal interpretation, entirely apart from obedience to Christ. Interpretation apart from the Tradition of the Church and the apostolic successors is divorced from the the influence of Christ through the Spirit and thus leads very quickly and easily to error.

That’s the big difference you’re asking about between Catholic interpretation and non-Catholic. Our interpretation has the benefit of being in the proper, Christ- (and Scripture-) prescribed context of Tradition and apostolic authority. We have the benefit of these guides and this additional context when we interpret.

Ultimately, if interpretation is difficult or contentious, we have the guarantee of Christ that the Spirit will lead us into all truth–which is done through the mechanism of the Magisterium and Sense of the Faithful, whereby the infallible Spirit (not man) acts. Note that I said “difficult or contentious,” which is the very conservative manner in which the Church exercises this gift, and which is why you don’t see much if anything formally defined until there is a major heresy challenging a Truth.

The Catholic Church also, unlike many other Christian groups, recognizes the multiple layers of meaning and Truth, not ruling out those observations of a meaning or truth that do not contradict other known truths. Thus again, there are few strictly defined excerpts from Scripture or elsewhere. We are a “both/and” not an “either/or” religion. God has made His Truth so rich its depths cannot be fully plumbed, so who are we to try to limit Him?

 

[Teflon93]

And since SemperReformada continues to ask questions of Catholics which rebound so much more upon Protestants, let me consult that marvelous accomplishment—The Catechism of the Catholic Church—and see how unity is defined by the Church Christ founded:

I. THE CHURCH IS ONE

“The sacred mystery of the Church’s unity” (UR 2)

813 The Church is one because of her source: "the highest exemplar and source of this mystery is the unity, in the Trinity of Persons, of one God, the Father and the Son in the Holy Spirit."259 The Church is one because of her founder: for "the Word made flesh, the prince of peace, reconciled all men to God by the cross, . . . restoring the unity of all in one people and one body."260 The Church is one because of her “soul”: "It is the Holy Spirit, dwelling in those who believe and pervading and ruling over the entire Church, who brings about that wonderful communion of the faithful and joins them together so intimately in Christ that he is the principle of the Church’s unity."261 Unity is of the essence of the Church:

What an astonishing mystery! There is one Father of the universe, one Logos of the universe, and also one Holy Spirit, everywhere one and the same; there is also one virgin become mother, and I should like to call her "Church."262

814 From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God’s gifts and the diversity of those who receive them. Within the unity of the People of God, a multiplicity of peoples and cultures is gathered together. Among the Church’s members, there are different gifts, offices, conditions, and ways of life. "Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions."263 The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church’s unity. Yet sin and the burden of its consequences constantly threaten the gift of unity. And so the Apostle has to exhort Christians to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace."264

815 What are these bonds of unity? Above all, charity "binds everything together in perfect harmony."265 But the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by visible bonds of communion:

• profession of one faith received from the Apostles;

-common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;

• apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family.266

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: "For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

BTW, for those who do not understand what a Catechism is or why it is important, you may find it interesting to know that the structure of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is based upon the Nicene Creed. The same Creed, btw, which is not found in the Bible, which was developed out of the apostolic tradition of the Church, and which most Protestants confess. Obviously, some vestige of “sola ecclesia” abides within our separated brethren still.

Thus, the Church defines unity by explaining what it means to be “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”.

 

[Teflon93]

More:

Wounds to unity

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

Toward unity

820 "Christ bestowed unity on his Church from the beginning. This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time."277 Christ always gives his Church the gift of unity, but the Church must always pray and work to maintain, reinforce, and perfect the unity that Christ wills for her. This is why Jesus himself prayed at the hour of his Passion, and does not cease praying to his Father, for the unity of his disciples: "That they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, . . . so that the world may know that you have sent me."278 The desire to recover the unity of all Christians is a gift of Christ and a call of the Holy Spirit.279

821 Certain things are required in order to respond adequately to this call:

• a permanent renewal of the Church in greater fidelity to her vocation; such renewal is the driving-force of the movement toward unity;280

• conversion of heart as the faithful “try to live holier lives according to the Gospel”;281 for it is the unfaithfulness of the members to Christ’s gift which causes divisions;

• prayer in common, because “change of heart and holiness of life, along with public and private prayer for the unity of Christians, should be regarded as the soul of the whole ecumenical movement, and merits the name 'spiritual ecumenism;”'282

• fraternal knowledge of each other;283

• ecumenical formation of the faithful and especially of priests;284

• dialogue among theologians and meetings among Christians of the different churches and communities;285

• collaboration among Christians in various areas of service to mankind.286 “Human service” is the idiomatic phrase.

822 Concern for achieving unity "involves the whole Church, faithful and clergy alike."287 But we must realize “that this holy objective - the reconciliation of all Christians in the unity of the one and only Church of Christ - transcends human powers and gifts.” That is why we place all our hope "in the prayer of Christ for the Church, in the love of the Father for us, and in the power of the Holy Spirit."288

 

[Teflon93]

Moreover, look what we Catholics have been able to do throughout this thread.

We can definitively articulate the teaching of the Catholic Church authoritatively simply by pointing to the appropriate place in the Catechism.

Anyone who wishes to know what the Church teaches can simply look it up.

Meanwhile, we have SemperReformada and others who can only offer their own opinions—they are their own Magisterium, Popes of The Atomic Church of Me.

The benefits of unity are obvious. As is the possession or lack thereof.

Why isn’t everyone Catholic?

Because some would rather be their own Pope.

 

[Arandur]

Heresiarchs? What the heck is a heresiarch?

The non-dictionary definition (but probably close to): an instigator or leader of a heresy or heretical movement.

Maybe we should compare RCC vs LDS…they have similar beliefs with regards to authority. I wonder how I would tell which one was the true church?

The unbroken line from Christ. Pretty simple really. Unless you believe that Christ breaks promises, is a foolish man who builds on shifting sand and doesn’t count the cost to complete his work, let his Body die, abandoned his sheep and children, and contradicted his revealed Scripture. Smithian religions insult God more than most because they call him an oathbreaker; a fool; an uncaring master and not a true Father, Brother, or Husband; and a liar.

Secondly, you are right about one thing. You are certainly not guided by scripture but by your Church. I think I ran across a term for that belief one time…sola ecclesia…I believe it was?

Nope. We honor Scripture for its place as a reliable Divinely-Inspired record of Salvation History and some of the teachings of Christ and the early Church. Again, “both/and.” Both the Church (Tradition AND Apostolic office) AND Scripture. We do not offend God’s revelation and communion at His table by rejecting some of what He has given us as gift and guide.

Thirdly, how do you want to define unity?

This is a good question. You seem to be trying to define it FOR us by saying that for Catholics to be unified, they must agree in all things and have no disagreements among us, no differences in how well or thoroughly we are taught, and probably by extension no errors or sins individually, either. Just as you called Teflon on asking for something that doesn’t exist, I call foul on you for throwing up a ridiculous standard by which to try to tear down the Church. The Church is made for sinners, not for the perfected, and it in practice must struggle through the deficiencies of the human condition. But just as Christ and the Spirit can live IN an individual person, so can they live IN the Church despite the deficiencies of the Church’s members. What differs is that the Church is a special manifestation of Christ and the Spirit that is a sign to all, and it bears God’s own unfailing protection of the complete Deposit of Truth, no matter how little we understand that Truth right now and how poorly we actually communicate it.

Is it simply having a set of rules or statements about your faith? Is it having everyone obey and believe those rules and statements about your faith? Is it that all Catholics are in lock step on contraception, divorce, abortion…well that can’t be it because your church is rather notorius in that regards. So I am guessing “unity” to you is simply having a mission statement? If I am wrong, please tell me how you define unity.

Catholic Unity is in that Oneness and Holiness that come from Christ himself and his protection of the Deposit of Truth. It is protected from teaching error–not guaranteed to teach the best way and reach all people in the perfect way.

What would be the point of having a Shepherd if the flock needed no tending?

So no, individual Catholic disagreements are not a sign of disunity. Some may come over valid interpretations that do not contradict revealed, defined truth. Some may come over practice, culture, custom, and discipline. These represent probably the bulk of disagreements and don’t even demonstrate a deficiency in the Church’s teaching.

Those “cafeteria Catholics” or others who don’t yet accept the authority of Christ and his defined teachings are not in full Communion with the Church and thus are indeed, though baptized, in a state of disunity. The Church may not have catechized or evangelized these people well, but this is not a failing of Christ, but of the human condition. It is not so much different than saying that you, as a non-Catholic, are disunited with the Church; your disunity, or that of a Catholic not in full communion, is a matter of degree that is the fault of both you as an individual and perhaps of the individuals who impair in whatever way your acceptance of full Communion with Christ through his Church. You can lay this fault partly at the feat of the human constituents of the Church, but not at the feat of the Divine Institution of the Church.

 

[Teflon93]

We should also note that by SemperReformada’s definition of unity the early Church was not unified.

We know this because St Paul, St Jude, and St Peter in particular had to write epistles calling for unity. No need to chastice the Corinthians if they were adhering to the apostolic tradition they had received, right?

Moreover, the Church of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries was often subject to outbreaks of heresy. Did the fact that some Christians fell away from the Church from the very beginning — indeed, even predating Pentecost per John 6—mean that the Church was never “one Church”, or that Christ had abandoned her, or that the Gates of Hell had stood against her despite Christ’s promise?

No—just as a sheep straying from a flock doesn’t imply that there is no flock or no shepherd.

 

[SemperReformada]

you are very funny. just find out who had the Bible first and you will come to the realization. you can have the Bible but you will not have the understanding.

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

So since the Catholic is the Church of our Lord and the Apostles and she has been here from the beginiing, we can only conclude that any religion that came later and is not obedient to the Church is preaching another Gospel.

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

Can you show me where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, etc…?

Clearly you follow another gospel.

 

[Teflon93]

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

Can you show me where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, etc…?

Clearly you follow another gospel.

Clearly, you are reading a different Scripture:

Matthew 16:

18: And 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.
19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And since our Protestant brethren can always use a good dose of explicit argument, I’ll present mine in easy-to-follow format:

1. Christ founded the Church ~ 33 A.D.
2. Christ gave binding and loosing authority to the apostles.
3. Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
4. Protestantism was not founded until 1520 A.D, some 1,500 years AFTER Christ founded the Church.
5. For Protestantism to be true, the gates of hell had to have prevailed against the Church.
6. If the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, Christ had to be a liar.
7. Lying is a sin.
8. Christ never sinned.
9. Therefore, Christ didn’t lie.
10. Therefore, Protestantism is untrue.

The fact that the Church Christ founded continues unabated to this day; indeed, is far larger than all of Protestantism, is rather dispositive, don’t you think?

The Catholic Church—from Pentecost to today—accept no substitutes!

 

[Arandur]

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

Can you show me where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, etc…?

Clearly you follow another gospel.

Does it matter whether it came explicitly from the original Apostles (many of whom may have died before Mary or not heard of the end of her life on earth, for instance), or whether it came from valid apostolic successors and/or through the tradition of the the faithful in full Communion with Christ? Or whether it was affirmed by these same at a later date? All the while not being contradicted by Scripture, but rather having Scripture passages that support the concepts, even if not explicitly stated (like the Trinity was not explicitly stated)?

 

[Teflon93]

Yes, SemperReformada seems to be rather forcefully avoiding the dogma of the Trinity.

Wonder why.

 

[Teflon93]

BTW, here’s an excellent article on the ECF views of the Trinity, a dogma which is found only in mustard seed form in Scripture but which tradition has a lot to say about, culminating in the formal definition of the dogma in the 4th century:

catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp

If the Protestants accept Scripture and the dogma represented in the Nicene Creed, which goes to the very nature of God, from the Catholic Church, on what basis do they reject her authority otherwise?

The answer to that question is the answer to the OP, at least for Protestants.

 

[greystoke]

Clearly, you are reading a different Scripture:

Matthew 16:

18: And 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.
19: And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

And since our Protestant brethren can always use a good dose of explicit argument, I’ll present mine in easy-to-follow format:

1. Christ founded the Church ~ 33 A.D.
2. Christ gave binding and loosing authority to the apostles.
3. Christ promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.
4. Protestantism was not founded until 1520 A.D, some 1,500 years AFTER Christ founded the Church.
5. For Protestantism to be true, the gates of hell had to have prevailed against the Church.
6. If the gates of hell prevailed against the Church, Christ had to be a liar.
7. Lying is a sin.
8. Christ never sinned.
9. Therefore, Christ didn’t lie.
10. Therefore, Protestantism is untrue.

The fact that the Church Christ founded continues unabated to this day; indeed, is far larger than all of Protestantism, is rather dispositive, don’t you think?

The Catholic Church—from Pentecost to today—accept no substitutes!

Wow, Teflon! If I ever need advice in apologetics, I’ll ask you first!

You’re not a scientist or mathematician, by any chance?

 

[wisdomseeker]

**
Galatians 1:9, “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach a Gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be Anathema.”**

Can you show me where the apostles taught the assumption of Mary, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility, etc…?

Clearly you follow another gospel.

dont worry Semper, you were not there, the Church was. there were many things done and said that you and me could not know about it. there is a reason for that. here is one: Jesus knew exactly what man could do once they could have the Bible. So many things were kept secret that only those in contact with the Apostles could know. this identifies the One Church. she is distinct from all the others. no matter how hard you try, you can not understand the written without the instructions from the Apostles. and i do appreciate if you refer to our Mother with more reverence. thank you.

12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.