Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels
The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

Posted on 11/18/2002 8:34:02 AM PST by pseudo-justin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-414 last
To: pseudo-justin
Now how do you know two things:

1. The Holy Spirit is teaching the Universal Church X.

2. The Universal Church is receiving without deception the Holy Spirit's infallible teaching that X.

Unless there are clear conditions which, if satisfied, give me the knowledge that 1 and 2 are true, what difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching X?

What difference does it make that the Holy Spirit is teaching that X to the Universal Church unless we can know that the Holy Spirit is teaching X to the Universal Church?

Even if the Holy Spirit's teaching is to, and so, ultimately, through the Church, any individual Christian can (and should) confirm that teaching with GOD, Himself, per ...

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

In this very way, many have found that GOD's Word to the Church, delivered through the action of the Holy Spirit, has nonetheless been corrupted (by various degrees) by the very church authorities (with which they have had association) who were given the responsibility of faithfully delivering the Word of GOD to His people.

Fortunately for these, God is faithful to direct them to church leadership which more faithfully delivers His Word.


401 posted on 11/22/2002 2:27:28 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
The post I was responding to,#371,contained passages from John. They were all verses wherein Jesus was speaking to the Apostles only. The Apostles were not speaking to Him.They were listening.

OK. I still wonder why you are ignoring where Jesus was speaking to others. Do you feel only the Apostles, and by extension in your belief, the hierarchy, were important?
402 posted on 11/22/2002 2:36:16 PM PST by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 396 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
The Bereans,I have learned from nonCatholics,were in great favor because they pored over scripture,testing everything against it. That is what I do.

This is good. This, plus earnest prayer to God for understanding of what you read, will bring you into a fuller and fuller truth.

So while there is much that Paul has written that conforms to scripture, some simply does not.

It's strange that you should say this, because the Catholic Church affirms the writings of Paul in the New Testament as scripture.

But, that aside, ... what is there, in your opinion, which Paul has written which does not conform to scripture ?


403 posted on 11/22/2002 2:37:47 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Quester; xzins; LibertyGirl77; OLD REGGIE; SoothingDave; Catholicguy; Desdemona; RnMomof7
Quester (and you too xzins), I am not at all sure how the story you tell is supposed to help the Universal Chruch to decide upon which doctrines are normative for all Christians. It is a procedure that, at best, can arrive at what is normative, i.e. ought to be believed, only for you. How is the whole Church at once supposed to know that certain doctrines are contrary to the word of God or not? Some members of the Church say yes on a certain interpretation of Scripture, others say no on the very same passage. How is the dispute to be adjudicated in a decisive way?

Furthermore,I do not think you see fully what I am saying. Let me put it this way. You hold:

All post-Apostolic Christians are always fallible.

and you also hold, I take it:

I am a post-Apostolic Christian Now, the judgment you make, "I have checked the word of God and this pastor is faithfuly delivering it" is therefore fallible. You might very well be hearing something that really is not God's word even though you think it is, and even though you think the Holy Spirit has confirmed it.By the way, I think you also hold the following too. I will draw the implications of the affirming that all post-Apostolic Christians are fallible:

Some post-apostolic Christians decided upon the table of contents for my bible.Therfore, your table of contents might have certain erros in it.

some post-Apostolic Christians say that the apocrypha is not God's word. Therfore, the apocryphal texts might be God's word too.

some post apostolic Christians say that baptim is necessary for salvation.Therefore, baptism might not be necessary.

some post-apostolic Christians say that baptism is not necessary for salvation.Therefore, baptism might be necessary.

Jones says that Scripture says X. Therefore, Scripture might not really say X.

Bob says scripture does not say X. Therefore, Scripture might really say X.

Telling me that you are going to check the word of God for yourself does not help you, since you too are fallible, and it certainly does not help anyone else, for we are all fallible too, fallibly checking what each other says and fallibly coming to different conclusions. We might all be wrong about even very basic things. How is the WHOLE CHURCH supposed to get out of this quagmire? This is precisley the problem mentioned in the article that starts this off. Protestantism, because it affirms that all post-apostolic Christians are always fallible, directly attacks the very foundations of Christianity.

To really see the problem, I want you to draw a big circle on a piece of paper. Label that circle FALLIBLE. Then put in the circle, first, all the Christians after the apostles, then the table of contents in your Bible, then the Creeds drawn up by the councils, then all your bible commentaries, bible studies (from all times), bible dictionaries, theology books, confessions of faith, sunday school lessons, and all the beliefs you, your momma, your daddy, your pastors, your fellow Christians have (whether they agree with you or not on a certain point) because all of it is merely the work or belief of post-apostolic Christians.

404 posted on 11/22/2002 3:20:06 PM PST by pseudo-justin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
In the absence of a word by word interpretation of Scripture approved by the unanimous consent of the fathers, it would appear you could be in deep doo doo.

Why in the world would you say that? You seem to think the follwing:

There was unanaimous consent of the Fathers on a certain point (or any point)only if there is one place, or text, written by the Fathers themselves,where all the views of the Fathers are drawn up.

But this is just simply a false assumption. The Fathers wrote at different times and places on different texts, in different genres;not just commentaries but homilies,treatises, etc. DO you think the Fathers of Trent did not realize that? The whole vast body of Patristic literature needs to be considered. I receive the truth about the unanimous consent of the Fathers in any one of a number of ways: first by reading as much of them as I can, second, by leaning on the Church's teaching office, which does not pronounce on something until the Fathers have been reviewed, and finally in other places where alot of their unanimous opinions have already been gathered, codified and systematically presented. There is a cooperative division of labor among all the people who contribute to the Chruch's teaching office (despite the false image of top-down unilateral, papal deliverances) See, for one example, Ludwig Ott's "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" for a primer text. Or go to the Catholic answers website and see their pieces that present the unanimous opinions of the Fathers, in excerpt form. Maybe you better not, they were all in unanimous consent on the things the Catholic Church teaches.

In all fairness, perhaps you are concerned that the decree from Trent forbids you from holding what is contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, and yet you have no easy way of knowing what the unanaimous consent of the Fathers was on a point. But you do, it is called the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was composed after the largest consultation of Bishops and theologians of any text in the history of Christianity. And yes, the composers of the Catechism knew about this very decreee from Trent (which has been reaffirmed by Pope Leo XII and, I think, more Popes) and were concerned not to put forward anything contray to the unaimous consent of the Fathers.

If you are interested in a Patristic Commentary on Scripture that attempts to put together in one place some, and only some, of what they thought on particular passages, I can refer you to some titles.

405 posted on 11/22/2002 3:39:21 PM PST by pseudo-justin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: pseudo-justin
That is my whole point. Rom 3:8 admits of at least one exception: Jesus Christ.

Romans3:10 speaks of men..was Jesus fully a man ?

From the mouth of Jesus

Mar 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? [there is] none good but one, [that is], God

I see you and raise the stakes

This is the word of God speaking to men that THINK they are "good" He confronts you (and me)with these words

Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

Rom 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

Rom 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Rom 3:13 Their throat [is] an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps [is] under their lips:

Rom 3:14 Whose mouth [is] full of cursing and bitterness:

Rom 3:15 Their feet [are] swift to shed blood:

Rom 3:16 Destruction and misery [are] in their ways:

Rom 3:17 And the way of peace have they not known:

Rom 3:18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Rom 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law [is] the knowledge of sin.

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

There you have it !God speaks to you and tells you what you do not choose to hear..Everyone needs a savior..Everyone

Luk 1:46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,

Luk 1:47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

406 posted on 11/22/2002 4:04:37 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 397 | View Replies]

To: pseudo-justin
Here's what I'm saying PJ.

1. (As an example) You say that the bread of the eucharist becomes Jesus' actual body.

2. Prove it. Who said so?

407 posted on 11/22/2002 6:44:53 PM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: pseudo-justin
The only answer is to place your ultimate trust only in God ... to take the position ... no matter what any man or woman may tell me ... if GOD tells me something different, then I believe GOD.

And how do I approach believing God ?

Well, I start out by believing those who have demonstrated a closeness to God. In this case, these would be, primarily, the Old Testament patriarchs, the prophets, and the apostles of JESUS. These are they who walked with God, and, whose walk with God is recorded in scripture. Their walk is not a perfect one, ..., but one which is, undeniably, affected by their relationship to God.

These set the standard, ... and their writings are thode which (appropriately) compose our scriptures.

If I place my trust in any men, it is these.

All those which come after MUST harmonize with these.

To the extent that they don't, they lose some degree of my trust.

Finally, in their writings, these men talked of relationship with God ... who God is ... what He is like ... what He desires from us ... how to draw close to Him ... and to petition Him for provision ... wisdom ... forgiveness ... salvation.

I have followed the teachings of these men ... I have drawn close to God ... I have sought His will for my life ... I have petitioned Him for His provision ... for His wisdom, ... for His forgiveness ... for His salvation.

I have experienced His love. I have witnessed His power. I live by His provision. I negotiate this life by His wisdom. I have received His forgiveness and His salvation. The men who walked with Him are the standard. All others MUST reconcile to them.


408 posted on 11/22/2002 7:56:10 PM PST by Quester
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
OK. I still wonder why you are ignoring where Jesus was speaking to others. Do you feel only the Apostles,and by extension,in your belief,the hierarchy were important?

No,not at all.I don't ignore Jesus speaking to others,in fact,I pay close attention to what He says to others and to specfics about those "others",to whom He says things.

409 posted on 11/23/2002 4:34:51 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: pseudo-justin
If you are interested in a Patristic Commentary on Scripture that attempts to put together in one place some, and only some, of what they thought on particular passages, I can refer you to some titles.

I have little, or no, interest in a body of literature which "attempts to put together in one place some, and only some, of what they thought on particular passages,".

Why in the world would you say that? You seem to think the follwing:

There was unanaimous consent of the Fathers on a certain point (or any point)only if there is one place, or text, written by the Fathers themselves,where all the views of the Fathers are drawn up.


"Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it [the Council of Trent] decrees that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,-in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,-wresting the sacred Scriptures to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy Mother Church-to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures-hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries and be punished with the penalties by law established."

"never (intended) to be at any time published." Never published. Exists nowhere.

You must rely on what some men tell you. You would be better off not reading the Bible at all. Confine yourself to the writings and words of a bunch of men who will tell you what to think.

It is not possible in any way to prove such a thing as "Unanimous Consent Of The Fathers"..

==============================

Or go to the Catholic answers website and see their pieces that present the unanimous opinions of the Fathers, in excerpt form. Maybe you better not, they were all in unanimous consent on the things the Catholic Church teaches.

Catholic Answers has given too many incorrect answers to be considered a consistently reliable source.

=================================================================================

Just who are these "Fathers" you speak of? Can you list them? Does the list change throughout history?

410 posted on 11/23/2002 8:18:47 AM PST by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 405 | View Replies]

To: Quester
You ask which writings of Paul,do I think are not in conformance with Gospel writings.

With my lack of knowledge about specific Bible passages I probably should not have entered into this particular discussion. But I did because I was curious and I will continue because I do have these questions or misgivings and I would like to hear how others see things.

I guess the best place to start is to say that in my twenties (in the mid-sixties)I noticed a diminution of the emphasis on the first three Commandments. It seemed that the whole reason for my being,the purpose for which I and others were born was getting fuzzier and a new facet was taking precedence,and that was to love my neighbor as I loved myself.

I had always heard this as part of the Gospel and the reason we were to help others and act with charity to anyone in any kind of material and spiritual need but to that point (the sixties)it had always been emphasized that first we must love God.This was in order to understand love,since He created us and loved us first and in that process we would begin to understand love and how to love HIm. From that base,understanding His love for us and our returning that love,we would get an understanding of the love we should bring to others.

As time went on I heard the epistles from Galations and Romans used as the scriptural basis for the homilies that were more and more boring and useless. Both of these passages sum up the Gospel (according to Paul) as "love your neighbor".Since I knew Jesus in both Mark and Matthew said the greatest Commandment was "Love God" and then,"Love your neighbor as yourself",I just continued to love God first and did not look at this as conflict (Jesus vis a vis Paul)but I was aware of a deemphasis.

Concomitant with this subtle change in the "preaching" was a change in the "teaching".The search for God became an individual "experiential" endeavor.Again,I attributed to reading more and more of Paul,who I had accepted previously as the "apostle" to the Gentiles and building on the Old Testament and the New but never denying Truth.But then I started listening for traces of what God had asked of all who believed in Him,such as obedience to the Ten Commandments but all I saw in Paul was testimony that we were no longer under the law.And,as I listened and read,it seemed to me that I was hearing an advocacy of a new religion,free of more than just the dietary laws and the sacrificial laws but free of the moral Law.

I know I am not expressing myself clearly but I hope you can discern my concerns.To try to put it another way. Jesus seems to cultivate,plant,water and weed in order to bring Truth and establish it within the kingdom,He is a nourisher and a nurturer and a shepherd,He is God.Paul seems to act as if,the Truth springs full grown in your heart from some "enlightenment experience" similar to his.

I know Paul is accepted by the Church and his writings as official scripture,my thoughts are that at this point in the Western world he is used without the proper foundation and has hurt Christianity.That is what I meant.Help!!

411 posted on 11/23/2002 10:10:01 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published

Reggie, have you asked yourself what the term "such interpretations" refers too? Given its place in the sentence of the decree, the "such interpretations" could refer either to the subject of the immediately prior clause -- the unanimous consent of the Fathers--or it could refer to the subject of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits that are either contrary to the sense of the text accepted by the Church or the sense of the text having unanimous consent of the Fathers. The antecedent of "such interpretations" is the interpretations of pestulant spirits, namely, the interpretations are forbidden EVEN IF NOT YET PUBLISHED. That is the subject matter of the whole decree--the interpretations of the pestulant spirits. Certainly, the decree is not at all forbidding the publication of the writings of the Fathers. After all, Bellarmine, (and de Sales and a million others) were, after Trent, reading published copies of the Fathers and constructing again and again, overwhelming arguments, drawn from the full range of Patristic writings, showing that there was unanimous consent of the Fathers on this or that point. Even if you deny in advance that such arguments are possible, they have already been produced. Read any one of these authors.

You would be better off not reading the Bible at allWhy in the world would you say that? Would it be better off not to read it just because I cannot make it say whatever I personally want, but am to understand it along with the rest of the Church? Are you saying that just because you cannot be a lone ranger, you cannot profit from the text? Unless I interpret the text on my own authority, like you do, it is not worth studying or contemplating at all?

As for the list of Fathers, much of what they wrote is available online at www.newadvent.org Take about fifteen years off, work through that list of texts, then tell me you cannot prove anything. Then learn Latin and Greek, then take another forty years and read the texts that have not been translated. Until then, you are simply stepping way beyond your ability to verify what can and cannot be done.

412 posted on 11/23/2002 2:29:57 PM PST by pseudo-justin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
Romans3:10 speaks of men..was Jesus fully a man?

Jesus was fully human and fully divine.

If you do not believe that he was both fully human and fully divine, then he is only partly human or partly divine, and you just affirmed either a particular version of Arianism or Nestorianism, which ever way you go.

Pulling out all those passages from Romans simply raises they same point all over. They obviously do not apply to Jesus Christ, so "all" means "all with at least one exception" "none" means "none with at least one exception". If you do not admit this, my atheist buddy can point out to you some more contradictions in your bible.

As for the point about Mary needing a savior, the Catholic Church concedes the point. see my post #302. If all this time you have thought that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is not saved by Jesus Christ, then you have been attacking a gigantic straw man -- a doctrine no one holds, not even the Catholic Church.

413 posted on 11/23/2002 2:41:24 PM PST by pseudo-justin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: pseudo-justin
(OR) You would be better off not reading the Bible at all

"Why in the world would you say that? Would it be better off not to read it just because I cannot make it say whatever I personally want, but am to understand it along with the rest of the Church? Are you saying that just because you cannot be a lone ranger, you cannot profit from the text? Unless I interpret the text on my own authority, like you do, it is not worth studying or contemplating at all?

Because you are not competent or qualified to do so. That is not my opinion, it is the stated as a fact by your Church. Rather than stick your neck out and possibly be in serious error you should simply ask for the "authentic" interpretation. Shut of your "Thinker" and turn on your "Acceptor".

Catholic Catechism 100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. Article 3

=================================================================================

As for the list of Fathers, much of what they wrote is available online at www.newadvent.org Take about fifteen years off, work through that list of texts, then tell me you cannot prove anything. Then learn Latin and Greek, then take another forty years and read the texts that have not been translated. Until then, you are simply stepping way beyond your ability to verify what can and cannot be done.

Surely you are aware "much" doesn't begin to approach the all inclusiveness of "unanimous". I am asking for your unique definition of "unanimous" and how you intend to prove it.

Since you obviously feel it is within your ability to "verify what can or cannot be done", why don't you do it for this simpleton and the millions of others in the same condition.

It is not possible, is it, that you are simply submitting your will and intellect to the "Church" and accepting what "they" say simply because "they" said it?

Canon 752: “While the assent of faith is not required, a religious submission of intellect and will is to be given to any doctrine which either the Supreme Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising their authentic Magisterium, declare upon a matter of faith or morals, even though they do not intend to proclaim that doctrine by definitive act. Christ's faithful are therefore to ensure that they avoid whatever does not accord with that doctrine.”

Canon 753: “While not infallible in their teaching, [Catholic bishops] are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.”

There, that makes it easier for you, no longer a need for pretense, no longer a need to think, simply submit your will, mind, and intellect!

414 posted on 11/24/2002 8:47:02 AM PST by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400401-414 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson