Skip to comments.[Why I Am Catholic]: Because I Love the Bible [Catholic and Open]
Posted on 04/16/2012 4:21:51 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
-—You mean like the church at Corinth? Or like the church at Ephesus. Or maybe the church in Smyrna? How about the church in Sardis or the church of the of the Laodiceans?——
Jesus would not COMMAND us to take our disputes to THE Church, unless It was His Church (SINGULAR), a visible Church, and unless it taught authoritatively.
Otherwise, His COMMAND would be impossible to follow. His command would be void.
Therefore, any individual church, to be fully in communion with Christ’s Church, would have to be obedient in its teachings to those teachings proclaimed by the apostles, or their successors, the bishops, when meeting in Council, or the Pope, when invoking his infallible teaching authority.
Yep you are arguing the odd views of a poster (CynicalBear) who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and who claims that even the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical.
Thank God no one gets robbed, tortured and murdered anymore for reading it in anything other than Latin! ‘Twasn’t always so.
But in the end, God works out all things for the good.
Yet even those who are Bible-only Christians forget that there are good Bible teachers who are Catholic, such as Scott Hahn and Stephen Ray.
Those whose actions are used by God for His good dont necessarily enjoy that good.
In the short term it takes place it does not seem good, but it is worked out to be good in the long term.
‘Twas never so. If you read even a flawed translation, it was bad in the sense of the 12th century when there was the flawed Albigensian translation which portrayed the flesh as evil, the world as evil and death the best way out.
Folks like that lose more and more of their faith in Christ and being more and more pagan each time with their rejection of the faith from, through and in Christ.
And I’m a Christian because I love Jesus.
Which does not by default mean the RCC. There is only one church which is why the word is not plural in the passage.
The church is a body, a living organism - the body of Christ. It's an organism, not an organization.
The Roman Catholic Church never killed anyone for heresy?
-— Which does not by default mean the RCC.-—
True. To find the visible Church that Christ established, one has to study early Christian history. As Cardinal Newman said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
-—There is only one church which is why the word is not plural in the passage.
The church is a body, a living organism - the body of Christ. It’s an organism, not an organization.-—
This is partially true, but the Church is also a visible organization. The problem with the idea that the church lacks organization is that it contradicts the data of Scripture. How can Christians take their disagreements to an invisible or nebulous Church, with as many contradictory doctrines as members? Christ’s command to take our disputes to the church would be impossible to follow.
But Christ cannot issue empty commands, because He is Truth.
"At Mass today, for example, the gospel reading is from Luke and begins like this,"
"Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had grown up and went according to his custom into the synagogue on the sabbath day. He stood up to read and was handed a scroll from the prophet Isaiah. (Luke 4:16-17).
What the passage doesn't say of course, is that He could possibly, on a different day of the week, or on a different day of the liturgical calendar, have been handed a scroll from Tobit, Sirach,......
What the passage also doesn't say, of course, is that "And when he had opened the book, HE FOUND THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS WRITTEN...". Jesus Christ CHOSE what was read in His FIRST SERMON. Not only that, but He CHOSE HOW it was read, if you will take the time to study it, "for education's sake", you know.
He was quoting from Isaiah 61:1,2.
"The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings, unto the meek; he hath sent me to blind up the broken hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound: TO PROCLAIM THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD, AND THE DAY OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD; TO COMFORT ALL THAT MOURN;"
But what does Luke 4:17-21 say?
"...The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor: he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, TO PREACH THE ACCEPTABLE YEAR OF THE LORD. AND HE CLOSED THE BOOK, and he gave it again to the minister, and SAT DOWN...".
WHY didn't He finish verse 2 of Isaiah 61:2? He stopped mid-verse and left out "..and the day of vengeance of our God;..."
Instead of saving this for a long time, studying it would have been far more beneficial. He didn't finish Isaiah 61:2 because the comma separating "to preach the acceptable year of the Lord" and "the day of vengeance of our God" is separated by 2000 years, so far. It's the difference in His first coming, His earthly ministry, and His second coming, to set up His Millenial Kingdom. "The day of vengeance of our God is of course, the Tribulation. One comma separates two time periods.
If you understood 2 Tim. 2:15, you would understand that easily. Rightly dividing the Word of Truth. NOT truth from a lie. But truth from truth. The "acceptable year of the Lord" is truth. "The day of vengeance of our God" is also truth. But they have been separated by about 2000 years, so far.
So tell me again how much you believe the "whole Bible".
Hey, we aim to get them all.
The reason it seems that these things are directed at Protestants is that, for the most part, they already know the basics and further of Christianity. So the question isn’t “Are you Christian?”, but “Do you have all the gifts that God has given us in this world?”
I have tried with Agnostics and Atheists on several occasions and every time you are making a point they resort to "Well there is no god so you are wrong"
With out that initial point you are just wasting your breath.
Go back and read the context of the comment. We are not Jews, is correct, but my comment had to do with the author's imagination that Jesus "may" have read from the Apocryphal books when he read from Isaiah in the temple at sabbath. Can you at least concede that point or is it more important to contradict a "Protestant"?
What deserves to be slammed is obviously false statements posted as truth just because a "Catholic" said them.
He could possibly, on a different day of the week, or on a different day of the liturgical calendar, have been handed a scroll from Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Wisdom, Baruch, or 1 & 2 Maccabees. These books were in the scrolls too, when God walked upon the earth. I dont know for sure, but like I said, Im not a biblical scholar.
This indeed is unlikely as the readings at worship were done in Hebrew and from the Hebrew Bible. But the author admits not being a scholar right away.
These are FR links.