Why?

[to_seek]

Of course they were ones trained by the Apostles and sent into the world, after they had the “laying on of hands”, which, whether they be called in scripture, “elders”, “presbyters” or priests amount to the same thing. They are people set apart from the general layman endowed by God, through the Apostolic succession and annointing with the grace and authority to forgive sins.
We all have this power to the extent that we are to forgive others (our neighbor) for any wrongs against us personally, but where sins are against God we need forgiveness through the sacrament that God has provided.

I agree that there was no “formalized Church” in the sense that would think of it today. I do not agree that it is a “normal conclusion” that the, “Authority would extend to all elders of all christians, be they Priests or Pastors, or just when 2 are gathered together”. To those thoroughly trained and tested, the “Elders” or “priests” or whatever term was used at the time, but not to all Christians.
And the reason is simple. We have great trouble in forgiving each other. Even in personal sin against our neighbor, we might have trouble forgiving them - even if they ask for it.
No the Forgiving of sins in the sacramental sense needs to be handled by someone properly trained, properly anointed and not just by “two gathered together”.

Likewise I think that you will find a well organized church well before Constantine, though less on the lines of the formal “Roman Catholic” model. Probably more along the lines of the EO model, but including Rome as the “first among equals”.
The more formal construct that we know today could not come about until Christianity was legalized which as you point out was around the time of Constantine.

Peace
James

Thanks James, what you say makes more sense. One question, are not all sins against God? Can you explain a bit about sins against God for me, thanks, ts.

 

[to_seek]

I’ll be happy to.

During apostolic times,

You DO know that the book of Romans was written to the Church of Rome…correct? That book was written around year 58. At that time, Paul writes,

" 7* To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 8* First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world…[Rm 1]

Paul concludes his letter " 17* I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create divisions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. 18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, * and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded. 19* For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I would have you wise as to what is good and guileless as to what is evil; 20* then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. " [Rm 16]

Do you know who Clement of Rome is? He was bishop of Rome, the 3rd successor to St Peter. In the year 80 Clement settles sedition in Corinth among THEIR bishops. St John is still alive living in either Ephesus or Patmos. He hasn’t written the book of Revelation yet at the time of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians… Here is his letter newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Do you know who Ignatius, bishop of Antioch is? Ignatius was a disciple of St John. In approx year 107, he writes 6 letters to the Church in 6 locations. He only writes in his letter to the Church of Rome, that the Church of Rome holds the presdidency. Ignatius is also writing that the Church is called the Catholic Church. You can read his letters online.

After the apostles have died.

Ever hear if bishop Irenaeus? He was originally from Smyrna. He writes in his work “Against Heresies” Book 3 Ch 3 ~ year 170 you can read his letters online. Here’s an exerpt

"2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority that is, the faithful everywhere, in as much as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes

I’ll stop here due to space.

what you said in that post contradicted what scripture taught.

Your error is truly profound

I quoted scripture not my opinion to prove you wrong.

that is a total corruption of the scriptures I quoted

Why do you ask that question? I used scripture. Scripture set the rule. You’ve seen the scripture that supports the point I made. You’re not ignorant of it anymore. Therefore, you KNOW it is God who set the rule.

I didn’t say they weren’t Christian. I said they weren’t churches. And I said they don’t have the Eucharist.

Hello again,I think you and I think a bit different about what Scripture or as I prefer to call it the Holy Bible, teaches. That does not mean I am profoundly ignorant, although I am with regards to history of the CC and traditions. Tradition isnt everything my friend. It probably is to those like yourself steeped in it, but there are many many people who live by His Word , even in the RC, and worship in spirit and belief, as we are taught to. I really am not into Papal History even as a returning RC, because many Popes were not of God at all, and many were corrupted. I do know that much of history. I prefer the direct Word of God, who IS ABOVE ALL ELSE. That is my viewpoint and I respect where you are coming from also. Protestant churches are indeed churches, they are a group of people who meet in buildings, just like Catholics and worship. I do not understand what you mean when you say they are not churches. Churches are people, not buildings. Buildings are where people meet. Christ spoke to the CHURCH, which is all believers. Thanks for your reply. I choose to ignore the tone of some of your replies because it does not help if dialogue gets tangled in heated agument. Regards, ts

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James, what you say makes more sense. One question, are not all sins against God? Can you explain a bit about sins against God for me, thanks, ts.

You are quite right in that All sins are against God whether directly, by “blaspheming”, or indirectly, through lack of love for our neighbor.
All sin stems first of all from a lack of Charity, from Love.

The Great commandment that Christ gave us is Love.
John 13:34-35 “34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

In addition to that he tells us all that had been revealed by the Father came from Love.
Mt 22:36-40 36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, " YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."

Now the question becomes, can we Love God as He deserves to be Loved? The answer is no, at least not in this life. What we can do is to Love our neighbor for the Love of God. Thus it is that through our charity, our Love, toward our neighbor we are best able to show our Love for God.
Likewise, we cannot hurt God by sin since evil cannot touch God. But we can injure ourselves and our neighbor by sinning. The sin against our neighbor might have many details (anger, stealing, envy etc), but he sin against God is always the sin against Love.

So sin, any sin will have two components. The specific detail of the sin (which commandmet is broken) and the sin against Love.

St Catherine of Seinna said it very well in **this section **of her “dialogs”. It’s a little long but worth the read.

It’s summerized in this:
"See now, that, in all places and in all kinds of people, sin is always produced against the neighbor, and through his medium; in no other way could sin ever be committed either secret or open. A secret sin is when you deprive your neighbor of that which you ought to give him; an open sin is where you perform positive acts of sin, as I have related to you.

“It is, therefore, indeed the truth that every sin done against Me, is done through the medium of the neighbor.”

Peace
James

 

[steve_b]

Hello again,I think you and I think a bit different about what Scripture or as I prefer to call it the Holy Bible, teaches. That does not mean I am profoundly ignorant, although I am with regards to history of the CC and traditions.

Tradition isnt everything my friend. It probably is to those like yourself steeped in it, but there are many many people who live by His Word , even in the RC, and worship in spirit and belief, as we are taught to.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”.[2 Thes 2:14]

word of mouth by an apostle = oral Tradition
letter from an apostle = written Tradition/scripture

What are we supposed to do with these traditions? Stand firm in them and hold fast to them. IOW steep yourself in them, obey them, because ignorance of these is ignorance of Christ, “The Word”.
ms:

I really am not into Papal History even as a returning RC, because many Popes were not of God at all, and many were corrupted. I do know that much of history.

Are you really a returning Catholic?
ts:

That is my viewpoint and I respect where you are coming from also. Protestant churches are indeed churches, they are a group of people who meet in buildings, just like Catholics and worship.

1. 
   *]Protestants are communities they aren’t churches.That’s NOT my viewpoint. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
   *]This isn’t about buildings.

 

[to_seek]

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us”.[2 Thes 2:14]

word of mouth by an apostle = oral Tradition
letter from an apostle = written Tradition/scripture

What are we supposed to do with these traditions? Stand firm in them and hold fast to them. IOW steep yourself in them, obey them, because ignorance of these is ignorance of Christ, “The Word”.

The letters that were written and passed on became the Bible as we know it today. Where does the Catholic traditions come in then? The Apostles never talked about half the stuff the Catholics hold dear! Hense my confusion. Yes I am a person who is returning, but Im not a person this time to believe every and anything a Pope or Priest teaches. It has to stack up with The Bible and thus I question a lot. As a child in the RC I was not able to reason, question, ague or anything because I like most RCs just went with everything. 45 years later I am on a quest. If your sensibilities cannot take direct questions, ask yourself why you feel angry or whatever? Do you have doubts that you cant allow yourself to ask because it might take you on a unknown course? Thats right, I forgot, us Catholics were not permitted to ask or search or question the Church. We were told to believe it or go elsewhere, or worse, be excommunicated! Maybe you dont remember those days, I do.

Are you really a returning Catholic?

1. 
   *]Protestants are communities they aren’t churches.That’s NOT my viewpoint. vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
   *]This isn’t about buildings.

1. 
   All denominations are Communities. I think you mean the Universal Church which the Catholics think is the Catholic Church alone. Maybe we all have it so badly wrong that we all will look silly when Christ returns. Who knows?

 

[to_seek]

Sounds a bit like subjectivism. Surly, you can support this with scripture? How so does scripture support your position on Point 1 through Point 5? How do you know you got it right?

JoeT

P.S. what is a ‘datholic’?

Hi Joe, I guess when it comes down to it, I believe what the Bible teaches, first and foremost before anything else. Everything Ive written comes from those beliefs. I believe in the truth written in the Bible inspired by God and passed on by the apostles. I have many confusions re both Catholic and Protestant Churches, but in the end it comes down to the Holiness in the RC Church for me dictates where I worship. In saying that however I think in my heart Id love to worship etc just like the Apostels, without buildings, without all the stuff denominations have put in place. So I do have a subjective point of view. I think you have to do the faith journey which is true to you. In the end Im going to meet The Lord as we all do, and fall on my face knowing Its His Grace and Mercy for me that will save me. ts. Ps I made a typo error writing the post, its catholic, not with the d.

 

[JimG]

Everybody believes in what the bible teaches. Trouble is, it seems to teach different truths to different denominations, many of them contradictory.

Actually, the bible is a collection of books, letters, and writings. Books don’t teach. People teach. In fact, it was the apostolic teaching which resulted in the new testament being written. But it can’t teach by itself, with no context. That’s why apostolic tradition is always needed.

 

[JoeT777]

Hi Joe, I guess when it comes down to it, I believe what the Bible teaches, first and foremost before anything else. Everything I’ve written comes from those beliefs.

That’s interesting, I haven’t seen anything in the bible that was quoted or used to point to any single issue discussed. Thus far all I’ve seen is how you ‘believe’ – i.e., your opinion. It’s nice that you have an opinion and believe these things, but on what authority are the claims made? If your immediate response is ‘the bible’ you’ve got a problem, Holy Scriptures gives the teaching authority to the Church – nowhere in scripture does it make the claim that it is the sole and infallible authority. Your authority had better be a real high one if you want me to believe Christ, His Apostles, their successors, reject the Catholic Church as the Kingdom of God.

I believe in the truth written in the Bible inspired by God and passed on by the apostles. I have many confusions re both Catholic and Protestant Churches, but in the end it comes down to the Holiness in the RC Church for me dictates where I worship. In saying that however I think in my heart I’d love to worship etc just like the Apostles, without buildings, without all the stuff denominations have put in place.

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. I’ll briefly discuss two of them here.

We say these principles give us knowledge in “Christian faith grounded on the Word of God.” It is warranted as being eternal and infallible God’s Truth. We are assured that those things taught by the Apostles and their successors are proof of the living Word residing in those first twelve witnesses. Scripture is special case of our living Tradition, preserving the very actions and deeds of witnesses who received their instruction directly from Christ. Scripture is special because it is those traditions put to paper by the Apostles. Not necessarily all of what Christ said and did was written to a holy perfection worthy of worship, not even a Protestant worship. However what is written is necessary for a redemptive faith. Thus, our objective faith can be validated by the witness of Scripture when rightly understood. But, what of those things that are subjective in our faith or what of those things not clear or understood in Scripture. Who validates Scripture? Since scripture is of an infallible Word of God, there can be only one infallible accreditation. Should we assign this task to our own subjective approval? I would suggest not. Consequently, the formal and sacred rule of faith must have an infallible judge to determine ‘right-reasoning.’ How else are we to validate the revealed Word as genuine, that the guidance given in the practical application is correct without constant doubt; do we believe rightly or not?

In the formal rule of faith, some put Holy Tradition first primarily because it came first. That is Holy Scripture is a special case of Tradition coming from a faith lived in Christ by the Apostles. However, Saint Francis de Sales places Tradition second because Scripture is most profitable and that Tradition’s role is more to maintaining unity. If we think of Holy Scripture as the ‘what’ of our belief, then Tradition could be thought of as the ‘how, why, and wherefore’ of our belief. That is its role applies discipline in ‘right-reasoning’ in the revelation of Devine revelations. Hence, we are told to, “hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” Many hold that God’s revelation to man ends with closing the book on the Gospels, but we know that God continues to work in this world through men. St. John reminds us that not all things have been written concerning Christ and God’s revelations “having more things to write.” And likewise John tells us of Christ’s promise of more revelations to come, “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12). Tradition’s role is not only to recognize God’s revelations deposited in the Church but to hold the “form of sound words which you have heard of me… Keep the good thing committed”. (Cf. 2 Tim 1:13, 14). Consequently, we find that the rule that makes tradition the collective wisdom of the past and the splendor of the here and now holding the faithful doctrine of Christ, taught to us by Peter.

So I do have a subjective point of view. I think you have to do the faith journey which is true to you. In the end I’m going to meet The Lord as we all do, and fall on my face knowing Its His Grace and Mercy for me that will save me. ts. Ps I made a typo error writing the post, its catholic, not with the d.

Yes, your view is subjective, and as such may do you a disservice – your opinion rules by the passions; as such what feels good must be good. If my salvation is subject to my own will – of what need do I have of God?

I’ve learned that falling on one’s face is no fault, but nor is it an indication that things are aright; it seems to me it tends towards flat noses. Wouldn’t it be better to walk upright like man’s Creator intended?

JoeT

 

[JRKH]

All denominations are Communities. I think you mean the Universal Church which the Catholics think is the Catholic Church alone. Maybe we all have it so badly wrong that we all will look silly when Christ returns. Who knows?

The term catholic, as I’m sure you know, comes from the Greek and means “universal”, Therefore “Catholics” are quite correct in their conviction that the “Catholic”, (Universal) Church is “The Church”.
The Problem that crops up is that protestants will often use the term “catholic” as meaning the same thing as “Roman Catholic” or, more correctly, Catholic of the Latin Rite.

Also it seems that in many protestant communites there is a tendancy to see everyone as “catholic” (universal) except the Ancient Latin Rite Church.

The Latin Rite Catholic Church, recognizes other Christian communities as being a part of “The Church”. This is spelled out in the CCC HERE
In particular it is addressed in these paragraphs.
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."

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” 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.” 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, and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

I have no doubt that Christ is shaking his head in wonderment at our folly in many instances. We continue to be a “stiff necked people” in need of serious “Christo-chiropracty”

Peace
James

 

[windlessuser]

From the Catechisim of the Bible, which can be found here

Lesson 14:
Interpreting The Bible

1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?
   The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: “… hard to be understood …” (II Pet. III,16).

1. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?
   The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

1. Is it natural that we should have a guide in interpreting the Bible?
   Quite natural, just as in America, we have the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution of the United States. The difference is that the Church is infallible and the Supreme Court is not!

1. So the Church cannot make mistakes in interpreting the Bible?
   No, for she is under the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

1. How does that guidance manifest itself?
   Through Tradition, the teachings of the Fathers, the Doctors of the Church, and of learned men.

1. Do Protestants acknowledge the interpretation of the Church or of any other authority?
   No; Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

1. Is this belief of Protestants a sensible one?
   No; it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason.

1. How is it against reason?
   Because the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false.

1. How is it against Tradition?
   The constant Tradition of the Church since Apostolic times is that the proper interpretation of the Word of God belongs to the Church founded by Him, i.e., the Catholic Church; and as St Paul tells us, we have to: “… stand fast: and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. …” (II Thes. II, 14).

1. How is it against the Bible?
   St. Peter warns us that in the Bible, there are: “… things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. …” (II Pet. III,16). Now, if the Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individual reader of Scripture, what St Peter tells us would be impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Bible for their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost at the same time. Since it is certain that St Peter was inspired by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it means that there is no personal inspiration from the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible; and that this Protestant belief cannot be true, since it contradicts the Bible.

1. Is the accusation that Catholics have no freedom of interpretation in biblical matters true?
   In a material or literal sense, it is true, exactly as in any well-regulated society, nobody has the “freedom” to kill, maim, and loot. In a spiritual sense, it is quite the opposite, for St. John reminds us that: “… the truth shall make you free …” (Jn. VIII, 32), and thanks to the vigilance of the Church, Catholics do enjoy freedom from error, which cannot be the case with the Protestants.

 

[steve_b]

The letters that were written and passed on became the Bible as we know it today. Where does the Catholic traditions come in then?

Have you not read any of the materials I quoted from previously?.
ts:

The Apostles never talked about half the stuff the Catholics hold dear! Hense my confusion.

like what?
ms:

Yes I am a person who is returning, but Im not a person this time to believe every and anything a Pope or Priest teaches.

Is there a question in there someplace?
ts:

It has to stack up with The Bible and thus I question a lot.

And have your questions been answered so far using scripture? I know for my part I’ve used scripture to answer your questions
ts:

As a child in the RC I was not able to reason, question, ague or anything because I like most RCs just went with everything. 45 years later I am on a quest.

I’m glad you’re on a quest. But I’m a cradle Catholic. And I’m older than you. Who are you including in "most RC’s" just went with everything? That’s a generalization that’s rather broad don’t you think? Did it occur to you that maybe “most” Catholics can explain their faith because they studied their faith, and as a result have remained Catholic? Have you ever seen the avalanche of CC materials spanning 2000 years that the Church has to defend and explain our faith? But somehow maybe you, because you didn’t study the faith, or maybe weren’t aware all this information was available, just went along without knowing why, and you ultimately just drifted off?
ts:

If your sensibilities cannot take direct questions, ask yourself why you feel angry or whatever?

Where have I not been able to take a direct quesation from you? Where have I gotten angry with you?

Here’s my previous 4 answers to your posts…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6739497&postcount=19
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6751437&postcount=35
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6758757&postcount=39
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6765701&postcount=44
ts:

Do you have doubts that you cant allow yourself to ask because it might take you on a unknown course? Thats right, I forgot, us Catholics were not permitted to ask or search or question the Church. We were told to believe it or go elsewhere, or worse, be excommunicated! Maybe you dont remember those days, I do.

That’s just plain nonsense. And as I said, I’m older than you.
ts:

All denominations are Communities.

The point is, not all communities are Churches. I gave you the Church document explaining this.

 

[to_seek]

Everybody believes in what the bible teaches. Trouble is, it seems to teach different truths to different denominations, many of them contradictory.

Actually, the bible is a collection of books, letters, and writings. Books don’t teach. People teach. In fact, it was the apostolic teaching which resulted in the new testament being written. But it can’t teach by itself, with no context. That’s why apostolic tradition is always needed.

Hi what Ive recently understood is that if the Bible is inspired by God which we know it is, a discerning praying person reading it will see The Truth. A lot of people/denominations wont mainly because they do not like the Truth, hence all their contradictions. The difficulty also is that many preachers do not teach the truth, in fact far from it these days with many churches falling into apostasy. In the end, to me , an open heart mind and soul asking God to direct his/her reading is the surest way for the truth to be revealed. However it is God Himself who exhorts us all to fellowship and worship in community, so in that way I do agree with you. From ts

 

[to_seek]

Have you not read any of the materials I quoted from previously?.

like what?

Is there a question in there someplace?

And have your questions been answered so far using scripture? I know for my part I’ve used scripture to answer your questions

I’m glad you’re on a quest. But I’m a cradle Catholic. And I’m older than you. Who are you including in "most RC’s" just went with everything? That’s a generalization that’s rather broad don’t you think? Did it occur to you that maybe “most” Catholics can explain their faith because they studied their faith, and as a result have remained Catholic? Have you ever seen the avalanche of CC materials spanning 2000 years that the Church has to defend and explain our faith? But somehow maybe you, because you didn’t study the faith, or maybe weren’t aware all this information was available, just went along without knowing why, and you ultimately just drifted off?
Yes I too was a cradle Catholic and in actual fact it took a great deal of years before I left and it wasnt easy. No I have not seen any CC materials for many years, and only recently have got a computer to help me find my way. Yes I generalised. However here in NZ many of my generation who grew up in the Church in the 60,s left much sooner than I did. Maybe you were lucky enough where you are to get that kind of education and background. Here in nz , the Church modernized very quickly and a lot of what you were taught disappeared back in the 70s. I personally didnot take to the modernisation much and I think it destroyed much of the beauty of the RC Church as it can be. I did not get to go to Catholic Schools at all, as I lived in a small town, and we did not have money to go to the Catholic Boarding Schools available, so I guess I am deficient of knowledge.

Where have I not been able to take a direct quesation from you? Where have I gotten angry with you?

Here’s my previous 4 answers to your posts…
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6739497&postcount=19
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6751437&postcount=35
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6758757&postcount=39
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6765701&postcount=44

That’s just plain nonsense. And as I said, I’m older than you.
I dont think age has got much to do with anything in this conversation. I make a point that somehow it seems you get angry or frustrated with my responses, its in the way you word things. Its just a impression, but a strong one. Do I aggravate you somehow?

The point is, not all communities are Churches. I gave you the Church document explaining this.

Thanks for taking time out to converse with me via internet. TS

 

[MariaG]

Hi what Ive recently understood is that if the Bible is inspired by God which we know it is, a discerning praying person reading it will see The Truth. A lot of people/denominations wont mainly because they do not like the Truth, hence all their contradictions. The difficulty also is that many preachers do not teach the truth, in fact far from it these days with many churches falling into apostasy. In the end, to me , an open heart mind and soul asking God to direct his/her reading is the surest way for the truth to be revealed. However it is God Himself who exhorts us all to fellowship and worship in community, so in that way I do agree with you. From ts

So, accorsing to you, how is one able to determine if one is on the right track?

I before I came to the Catholic church I went to various denominations who did not interpret scripture the same way. And it IS quite clear from scripture that there is a church we are supposed to be a part of and obey. So whaT is a honestly seeking Christian supposed to do?

Fortunately, God left more than just a book, but He gave us a living, breathing authority to interpret that book, an authority that we are exhorted to take things to in order to settle disagreements. Historically, that would leave an honestly seeking Christian two options, Catholic or Orthodox.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[JRKH]

Hi what Ive recently understood is that if the Bible is inspired by God which we know it is, a discerning praying person reading it will see The Truth. A lot of people/denominations wont mainly because they do not like the Truth, hence all their contradictions. The difficulty also is that many preachers do not teach the truth, in fact far from it these days with many churches falling into apostasy. In the end, to me , an open heart mind and soul asking God to direct his/her reading is the surest way for the truth to be revealed. However it is God Himself who exhorts us all to fellowship and worship in community, so in that way I do agree with you. From ts

Related to the bolded section above.

Let us assume we have two people fully convinced that they are, “a discerning praying person(s)” who are seeing the Truth in what they are reading but the conclusions they come to are completely opposed one to the other. (And it is on an issue seen as central to salvic belief)

So how do we, as a Church, discern who is right and who is wrong. Both people are sincere. Both believe they are Spirit led. Both are able to use the Bible to support their position.
Yet it is obvious that both cannot be right and so one or the other is not actually “Spirit led”. How do we determine which is which?

Peace
James

 

[steve_b]

I dont think age has got much to do with anything in this conversation.

Do you remember saying the following?

“the letters that were written and passed on became the Bible as we know it today. Where does the Catholic traditions come in then? The Apostles never talked about half the stuff the Catholics hold dear! Hense my confusion. Yes I am a person who is returning, but Im not a person this time to believe every and anything a Pope or Priest teaches. It has to stack up with The Bible and thus I question a lot. As a child in the RC I was not able to reason, question, ague or anything because I like most RCs just went with everything. 45 years later I am on a quest. If your sensibilities cannot take direct questions, ask yourself why you feel angry or whatever? Do you have doubts that you cant allow yourself to ask because it might take you on a unknown course? Thats right, I forgot, us Catholics were not permitted to ask or search or question the Church. We were told to believe it or go elsewhere, or worse, be excommunicated! Maybe you dont remember those days, I do.”

Seems to me if you ask whether I remember “those days”, it’s an age issue as well … true? I mentioned I’m older than you, i.e. I’ve been through that time, however, I don’t remember it as you do. I questioned, I was encouraged to study, and I received answers. I was never told to believe or leave. I was always given reasons to believe. Therefore, I took exception to your collective “like most RCs”. I can tell you sitting in classes with my friends, with the same teachers, I’ve heard some of my friends, who sat with me in those classes recall those days completely different than I do. IMO, their perception of those days, had to do more with THEIR home life more than anything. AND when one looks at it constructively, I know those friends of mine also had issues with authority. And that’s something they can’t blame on others, they have to take possession of that personally. And to this day, they don’t study their faith, i.e. they really know nothing, they don’t go to mass, and will blame the Church for everything.
ts:

I make a point that somehow it seems you get angry or frustrated with my responses, its in the way you word things. Its just a impression, but a strong one. Do I aggravate you somehow?

Take a close look at what you wrote above as to all your responses. Look at how you word things. My responses were only based on what you wrote. Maybe it’s the way YOU word things.
ts:

Thanks for taking time out to converse with me via internet. TS

No problem :tiphat:

 

[to_seek]

That’s interesting, I haven’t seen anything in the bible that was quoted or used to point to any single issue discussed. Thus far all I’ve seen is how you ‘believe’ – i.e., your opinion. It’s nice that you have an opinion and believe these things, but on what authority are the claims made? If your immediate response is ‘the bible’ you’ve got a problem, Holy Scriptures gives the teaching authority to the Church – nowhere in scripture does it make the claim that it is the sole and infallible authority. Your authority had better be a real high one if you want me to believe Christ, His Apostles, their successors, reject the Catholic Church as the Kingdom of God.

How about the authority of God? My subjectiveness etc is subject to accountability to God, not to my will, or passions. Even the Church comes under authority of God. Are you telling me then that Gods word is not sufficient? If so, then it is you who have a problem, not me.

Paraphrasing St. Francis de Sales, the sole and true rule of right-believing is the Word of God taught by the Church of Jesus Christ. This rule is made up of eight individual principles, Scripture, Tradition, the Church, Councils, the Fathers, the Pope, miracles, and natural reasoning. I’ll briefly discuss two of them here.
I do not agree. The sole and true right to believe comes alone from Jesus Christ. Everything else except for miracles, is man. I think even reasoning can lead a person away from the truth. That doesnt mean that we should not subject ourselves to the Authority of The Church, just in case you are going to say something about that, because iwe are called to worship, under Authority.
We say these principles give us knowledge in “Christian faith grounded on the Word of God.” It is warranted as being eternal and infallible God’s Truth. We are assured that those things taught by the Apostles and their successors are proof of the living Word residing in those first twelve witnesses. Scripture is special case of our living Tradition, preserving the very actions and deeds of witnesses who received their instruction directly from Christ. Scripture is special because it is those traditions put to paper by the Apostles. Not necessarily all of what Christ said and did was written to a holy perfection worthy of worship, not even a Protestant worship. However what is written is necessary for a redemptive faith. Thus, our objective faith can be validated by the witness of Scripture when rightly understood. But, what of those things that are subjective in our faith or what of those things not clear or understood in Scripture. Who validates Scripture? Since scripture is of an infallible Word of God, there can be only one infallible accreditation. Should we assign this task to our own subjective approval? I would suggest not. Consequently, the formal and sacred rule of faith must have an infallible judge to determine ‘right-reasoning.’ How else are we to validate the revealed Word as genuine, that the guidance given in the practical application is correct without constant doubt; do we believe rightly or not?
Surely, the Holy Spirit?
In the formal rule of faith, some put Holy Tradition first primarily because it came first. That is Holy Scripture is a special case of Tradition coming from a faith lived in Christ by the Apostles. However, Saint Francis de Sales places Tradition second because Scripture is most profitable and that Tradition’s role is more to maintaining unity. If we think of Holy Scripture as the ‘what’ of our belief, then Tradition could be thought of as the ‘how, why, and wherefore’ of our belief. That is its role applies discipline in ‘right-reasoning’ in the revelation of Devine revelations. Hence, we are told to, “hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.” Many hold that God’s revelation to man ends with closing the book on the Gospels, but we know that God continues to work in this world through men. St. John reminds us that not all things have been written concerning Christ and God’s revelations “having more things to write.” And likewise John tells us of Christ’s promise of more revelations to come, “I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12). Tradition’s role is not only to recognize God’s revelations deposited in the Church but to hold the “form of sound words which you have heard of me… Keep the good thing committed”. (Cf. 2 Tim 1:13, 14). Consequently, we find that the rule that makes tradition the collective wisdom of the past and the splendor of the here and now holding the faithful doctrine of Christ, taught to us by Peter.

Yes, your view is subjective, and as such may do you a disservice – your opinion rules by the passions; as such what feels good must be good. If my salvation is subject to my own will – of what need do I have of God?
I I have a great need of God so I agree with you. I am subject to Gods authority, not my will.
I’ve learned that falling on one’s face is no fault, but nor is it an indication that things are aright; it seems to me it tends towards flat noses. Wouldn’t it be better to walk upright like man’s Creator intended?
What makes you think I am not walking upright? ts.
JoeT

 

[to_seek]

Related to the bolded section above.

Let us assume we have two people fully convinced that they are, “a discerning praying person(s)” who are seeing the Truth in what they are reading but the conclusions they come to are completely opposed one to the other. (And it is on an issue seen as central to salvic belief)

So how do we, as a Church, discern who is right and who is wrong. Both people are sincere. Both believe they are Spirit led. Both are able to use the Bible to support their position.
Yet it is obvious that both cannot be right and so one or the other is not actually “Spirit led”. How do we determine which is which?

Peace
James/QUOI see what you are saying, but in the end it matters only if a person lives by Christs teachings. Servanthood, faith in action with a humble heart. You see, the Church can equally bring up two different ways of looking at things also. In the end we need to do what Christ taught In the end God will judge us all. ts

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

JRKH;6780331:

Related to the bolded section above.

Let us assume we have two people fully convinced that they are, “a discerning praying person(s)” who are seeing the Truth in what they are reading but the conclusions they come to are completely opposed one to the other. (And it is on an issue seen as central to salvic belief)

So how do we, as a Church, discern who is right and who is wrong. Both people are sincere. Both believe they are Spirit led. Both are able to use the Bible to support their position.
Yet it is obvious that both cannot be right and so one or the other is not actually “Spirit led”. How do we determine which is which?

Peace
James[/QUOI see what you are saying, but in the end it matters only if a person lives by Christs teachings. Servanthood, faith in action with a humble heart. You see, the Church can equally bring up two different ways of looking at things also. In the end we need to do what Christ taught In the end God will judge us all. ts

The Church authority decides. These are people that are far smarter then us…whether we like to think so or not.

You said in one of your posts that you would like to worship like the apostles…you should read some of Thomas Martyrs discription of early Christian worship…it is also outlined in Scott Hahn’s The Lambs Supper

. You will discover that you ALREADY do–it’s called the Mass
[/quote]

 

[JRKH]

I see what you are saying, but in the end it matters only if a person lives by Christs teachings. Servanthood, faith in action with a humble heart.

All very true my friend. And yet in the scenerio that I outlined, both believe they are living, “by Christ’s teachings”, and yet both, being diametrically opposed, cannot both be correct.
This is why Christ told us to “Tell it To The Church” and to “Listen To The Church”. This too is a part of living, “by Christ’s teachings”.

You see, the Church can equally bring up two different ways of looking at things also. In the end we need to do what Christ taught In the end God will judge us all. ts

Oh yes you are absolutely right. In fact I will go farther and say that the Church encourages different viewpoints. She encourages discussion and debate so long as it is in Christian Charity. And often times when she needs to make a determination on some issue, she will look at the arguments and find good and bad in both. she will then issue a teachings that addresses all aspects fo the issue and takes into account the very best of each side of an argument.
But more importantly she will speak up for Christ who is our King. She will uphold His highest desires and His will is done in Her teachings.

So - When we Love our neighbor, and act in charity; When we read Scripture and other spiritual texts; When we spend time in prayer and reflection; When we attend mass and worthily receive communion; When we, in humble obedience to Our King, “Listen To The Church” who is the “Pillar and Bulwark of Truth”, we are then truly “Living by Christs teachings”.

Peace to you on this Blessed Lords Day
James