For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty... that no flesh should glory in His presence.... —that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.”
1 Corinthians 1:26-31
This is precisely why Jesus left us His Church to guide us. We are required under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass every Sunday, unless circumstances prevent us from doing so for serious reasons. In other words, it should be our number one desire to get there.
We recite the Nicene Creed every week to remind us what we believe. There is good reason for this. Jesus refers to us as sheep because sheep are dumb animals and do not know danger. If two sheep are attacked by a wolf, for example, the one not attacked will simply stand there, ignoring the danger.
This is one of the major reasons Catholics leave the Church. They do not learn the Faith and someone can come along and snatch them away. They do not really know Jesus, Mary, or any of the saints. This is a result of poor catechesis and why I began teaching the Faith 20+ years ago.
It's interesting that the Holy Spirit knew that the information age was coming and that the clergy would be unprepared to deal with the onslaught of technology. Thus, Vatican II was convened to begin perparing the laity for what has now come.
The word catechism is derived from the Greek word 'catecheo', which means 'faithful echoing'. This is the absolute number one mission of the Church: to faithfully hand down the deposit of Faith.
Yes, there are even priests and bishops(as there always have been) who lack true understanding of the Faith. Thus, the Holy Spirit saw fit to have the Holy Father assemble the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because of errors, a key discipline was also changed.
It used to be that a Catholic was expected to attend Mass at their home parish many years ago. That was changed to allow attendance at any Church for Mass.
We need divinely guided authority to lead us so that we might be free to live the Gospel. Otherwise, we end up spending most of our lives just trying to know what to believe. This just causes the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and generally all others to suffer...because we become focused inwardly about our own belief system and have no time left for them.
Put it this way...a devout Catholic who goes to Mass and loves Jesus and also loves Mary and the rest of God's children and goes about living in love of others, is going to heaven. That person may be illiterate, unlearned, etc., but is transformed by the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments. If someone puts thoughts into their heads that lead them away from this childlike living of the Gospel, they are doing great damage to the family of God.
Leo, Jesus didn't 'leave us His church to guide us.' We ARE the church, if we are redeemed. He left us His Spirit and His word to guide us, and commanded us to abide in Him by listening to His word, obeying His commands, and loving one another. If we remain in fellowship with Him and with the body of Christ then we will not go far wrong. The scripture says that the Spirit calls us and equips us so the body will have everything it needs to function. Each member of the body has a specific function to help the rest. This refers to the local body first and then to the whole body, I believe, since we live closely with the local body of Christ if we are in obedience to Him.
Christine, that's not as simple as it was at the beginning when people met with those of their neighborhood who were believers, and everyone was of one mind. However, if one desires to obey God in being in fellowship with the body of Christ, and doesn't already have a connection to a certain church or denomination, praying for guidance and visiting churches in your area, asking a neighbor, or going with a friend, is a good place to start.
No, we are MEMBERS of the Church, but we are not the authority of the Church. There is a huge difference. You and I are not infallibly guided on our own.
Also, Christ refers to the Church as the BODY and not the SOUL. The body has a distinct physical structure and is not simply the nebulous mass of believers.
There are far too many disagreements amongst the believers for us to be one...that is, unless we are united to the Magisterium and the official teaching.
We need divinely guided authority to lead us so that we might be free to live the Gospel. Otherwise, we end up spending most of our lives just trying to know what to believe. This just causes the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and generally all others to suffer...because we become focused inwardly about our own belief system and have no time left for them.
Put it this way...a devout Catholic who goes to Mass and loves Jesus and also loves Mary and the rest of God's children and goes about living in love of others, is going to heaven. That person may be illiterate, unlearned, etc., but is transformed by the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments. If someone puts thoughts into their heads that lead them away from this childlike living of the Gospel, they are doing great damage to the family of God.
Leo, It is definitely true that if we spent less time on doctrinal disputes and questions and divisions, we would have much more time for 'being doers of the word.' It is true that we must become like little children in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is also true that people have different functions within the body of Christ and some people will be called and equipped to defend the faith and study it more deeply than others. Again it is also true that, in another way, we should not remain as children, but must mature in the faith and be able to distinguish between good and evil on our own by knowing the truth and having the discernment of the Spirit. We do this with the help of those equipped to teach us, but also by the teaching of the Spirit and by abiding in the word of God and in prayer and fellowship. Saying that, I have been thinking about this recently, along the lines of what you said, in effect spending so much time figuring out what we are to believe that we don't have time to live the gospel. That is perhaps kind of an occupational hazard with people that have been called to study deeply and to teach others. My husband has been called to study and teach, and the word just flows through him as he studies and writes and shares it. I have caught that from him and from my Dad too, who is always thinking and questioning, as an analytical scientist. I tend to spend alot of time thinking and reading and writing, and forget that action and life is supposed to flow from the faith that is in me. But, to get back to part of your point, one of course doesn't have to be an expert or a scholar to live the Christian life, but can simply live by love and faith and be obedient to the knowledge that one receives day to day in the family of God.
What do you find interesting about Kelly's post, Jennie?
It's interesting to me, Leo, that the Nicene Creed which Catholics recite each Sunday mentions "resurrection of the dead" (emphasis mine). It's the Apostles' Creed, that many other Christians profess, which says "resurrection of the body." It seems that, even in the 4th cent., creed drafters were trying to be inclusive and ecumenical.
Kelly comments on last Sunday's readings, 2 Mc 7:1-2, 9-14 and Lk 20:27, 34-38. It's interesting to me that Jesus says people become "like angels" in heaven. I suppose he doesn't mean literally or else they would be bodiless, pure spirit and our hard-wrought creeds would be wrong.
In the past week, I've heard two different Bible teachers, one Catholic and one not, say that Abraham willingly offered up Isaac because he was sure God could raise the dead (cf. Hebrews 11:19). So it seems that Jesus could have as easily gone with the Akedat (the "binding") as "proof" of the resurrection, as with that of Moses and his burning bush experience.
Teresa, One thing I found interesting is that I believe the concepts that are so clear to us today as Christians are all there in the Old Testament, and even in the Torah. I don't believe we lose that by not including the deuterocanonical books as inspired. I believe it is thought that Job lived long before Moses' time, and he apparently understood the resurrection of the body. It is interesting that well before scriptures were written, men who knew God understood these things. They received His word directly by walking with Him, like Abraham did, and Enoch, and Moses and Joshua later on, and then the prophets. I wonder if Job wrote down his own story, and that is really the first scripture written.
The problem comes back to authority and infallibility. Take for example the Church teaching on artificial contraception. This is not just a minor point; it is a MAJOR truth regarding Faith and Morals. The reason that there are so many divorces and abortions is precisely because of the open practice of birth control. As many Catholics get divorced as others, because most refuse to follow this teaching.
Even same sex unions and fornication have resulted from the abuse of this forbidden fruit. You have, by the grace of God, discovered the truth of this teaching even as a Protestant. You have most assuredly been blessed for following this teaching. Yet, imagine how many never do or do not follow because there is no authority that forbids the practice in their own minds. They just 'follow their misguided conscience'.
As a faithful Catholic, you would simply know that this was wrong and you would obey or at least know that you are required to.
Every single Christian denomination expressly forbade this practice until the 1930's and it has resulted in the dissolution of families and values.
I can assure you that you will not convince people by your 'sola scriptura' approach, yet you know that it is wrong.
This is why Christ left His Church to guide us. He did not leave us as orphans but left the light on the hill for everyone.
For one thing, we all come before Jesus at the moment of death. Other than Mary, the saints do not yet have their resurrected bodies in heaven, and will not receive them until the end of time.
Thus, they are resurrected from the dead but are still awaiting reunion with their bodies.
Someone could say "Most Catholics do not obey the Church's teaching on artificial contraception", and that may be sadly true.
However, there is something unambiguous that is being disobeyed. It is dissent and everyone knows it because the teaching is clearly stated. The Church just continues on with what many consider to be an unrealistic, ridiculous stance - and as Leo points out, everything that Pope Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae has come true as a result of the widespread acceptance, even in almost every Christian denomination, of artificial birth control.
I think there are a very few Protestant denominations that discourage contraception, but as an Evangelical, it was considered responsible to use it. All the moms, including mine, were on the pill when it came out in the sixties. There was never a word questioning it, except in my own heart when I was married - perhaps the same experience you had, Jennie. When I sought answers to the discomfort I had with birth control as an evangelical, the only place I found the profound and beautiful reasoning I was looking for was in Catholic teaching, where I never expected to find anything worthwhile of any kind!
Christine, Maybe it is a matter of what we consider most important as to which church's errors we are able to live with. I know that in general the Baptists have fallen into much compromise with worldly ideas in recent years, but I believe a good Biblical Baptist church is still one of the best places to be. And there is a mixture of convictions on things like contraception in our church. The ones who don't believe in using it can be a good influence on those who do if we do it in humility and love, and some of the ones who do use it are good examples in other ways, such as adoption. We all learn in different ways and at different paces, and we need each other. On the other hand, I can't live with many of the practices in the Catholic Church, and even though they are admirable on this issue. It doesn't mean I have to accept everything else as correct and good.
Before you conclude that there are 'errors' in the Church, please be open to the notion that the intransigent stance on contraception may be an indication of divine guidance.
It has nothing to do with being admirable; it has everything to do with being true. When it comes to an intrinsic evil such as contraception, it is not acceptable if replaced by adoption, for example.
When the Holy Father ruled definitively on the subject, he was criticized by many priests, bishops and lay people for his senility and stupidity. In fact, he went against the very recommendations of the committee he appointed and this shocked everyone.
However, when you understand that he is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit and is the only person on earth who needs to answer to no one else, it is not surprising. As Christine said, everything he prophesied has come to pass as a result of the use of artificial contraception. Yet, when he said it, the dissenters did not believe him.
As I have said, Jennie, the Church bears no burden of proof. She alone proclaims only Truth on Faith and Morals and she alone has been appointed to preserve the deposit of Faith. Truth is unchangeable and immutable. Membership is open to everyone on earth so all may have full access to sanctifying grace.
The inability of the Church to compromise is despised by the dissenters within, but deeply appreciated by those of us seeking to become one in Him. We never pray for God to come to our side; we only pray to understand His point of view and to desire His will in all things. He does not need any help from us in running the universe...
What a sad commentary on the state of Christendom, with folks trying to decide what they can live with, rather than finding something they can wholeheartedly embrace.
Could that really be the best Christ could do? Leave us wandering, not knowing where to find His church, our true family?
I went ahead and read what John B. wrote and his posting displays a high degree of both arrogance and pridefulness. He is making himself a judge of a theologian who has the depth of understanding of the Pacific Ocean, as compared to his own, which is like a shallow rain puddle by comparison. Only a fool mocks the holy ones of God...
Honestly, Jennie, you can do better than posting from those who go where angels fear to tread...
Jennie - as Leo says, I want to think that you are above the kind of thing that John B is about. Please. You're kind of doing some ego-stroking over there that I hope you don't intend. I'm sorry, I hope you are not offended by that, but that post and the comments with it are pretty bad.
Leo, I'm wondering what you think of what the Pope actually wrote, about evolution, etc. It's very unorthodox, and sounds 'new age' at best, and like a bad guy in C.S. Lewis' 'Space Trilogy' at the worst.
Also, as to the Pope having the depth of understanding of the Pacific Ocean, I would say that depth of knowledge of theology does not equal true faith, as you know.
As to posting from Beggars All, I'll have to be the judge of what I post. I don't know that it's any different than what has been said for hundreds of years past.
Christine, I'm not offended, and I see what you mean; maybe I shouldn't have said 'I couldn't follow' the quote, but that I didn't want to take the time to untangle the meaning of it, which is closer to the truth. I like John B. and I'm sorry you are offended by the tone there. I am very much in agreement with most of the things they teach, though not the Calvinism. As I said on the other thread, I am not in sympathy with the Pope or his teachings, and though I like you all, it seems you expect me to sympathize with the Catholic understanding of all these things. I can't always.
I went back and read the thread again, and realized that I was responding along with what your favorite 'Steelikat' said in the first comment: that he couldn't make 'head nor tail out of the quote' by the Pope. It's true that it's very hard to follow. That's what I get for having friends on both sides of the question; I can't please both, and shouldn't try to.
But Steelikat avoids the kind of meanness that is the norm there, and more importantly he has called them on it when they're being ridiculously arrogant. I know he's no Catholic sympathizer.
I don't at all expect you to sympathize with Catholic teachings, but I do expect all fair-minded Christians to seek understanding, and only judge when they've examined the original sources and not a partisan presentation. I expect that there is a respectful tone when disagreeing with admired leaders of other Christians. I expect, or hope, that you would not join in where there is NOT a respectful discussion. Of course you have no obligation to follow my way of thinking regarding how discussions should sound. That's between you and your conscience.
You make it sound like you are caught in the middle of two like entities. But only one of those is, again, a blog devoted to attacking another group of Christians. Not discussing, not "sharing", but attacking.
Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?
And this: Because of the absence of an authoritative Magisterium within Protestantism, in two thousand years of Church history, nothing has been definitively and irreversibly established. Every single theological question is unsettled, still up in the air, capable in principle of being answered in a way contrary to the way it has always been answered.
Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?
Christine, Where did that quote come from, by the way? First of all, I would say that protestantism is not a single entity and did not begin as a single entity, therefore it is reasonable that groups that identify as protestant are different since they came from different traditions at the beginning. Secondly, it is not the ones whose conscience causes them to separate from error who are responsible for divisions, but the one who is in error in the first place. Thirdly, since I and other protestants believe that the RCC departed from the original faith in various ways over the centuries, we believe that the RCC is not the original church and doesn't hold to the same beliefs as the Apostles, having added to them and changed them. Therefore, the RCC is a division from the original church, and the Reformers of all the earlier ages have dissented because of conscience based on Scripture and the discernment of the Spirit. Fourth, many of the so-called fragments of protestantism are not true protestants at all, but false sects. Most mainline denominations are very orthodox, and the ones who are departing from the truth are obvious to those of us who still hold to the Scriptures as our final authority. Fifth, the apostasy we see more and more was prophesied by Jesus and the Apostles and should not surprise us. We believe the RCC was the first sign of this apostasy, and her daughters are only following in her footsteps today.
Because of the absence of an authoritative Magisterium within Protestantism, in two thousand years of Church history, nothing has been definitively and irreversibly established. Every single theological question is unsettled, still up in the air, capable in principle of being answered in a way contrary to the way it has always been answered.
Again, where is this from?
I would say that some things cannot be irreversibly established, because as I said above, God has not given us all the information. I believe that the discussion of hard questions is part of the way that we learn and think things through, searching deeply for answers, and also learning, hopefully, to love each other, also as I said above.
How many things has the RCC magisterium actually settled infallibly? I've seen accounts that it hasn't really made that many 'infallible' pronouncements.
Again, there are things we are not going to understand fully and wrestling with these issues is an important part of getting to know God. He wants us to wrestle with His word and long to find Him and know Him deeper.
Christine, about reserving judgment, I was not quite serious when I said I didn't understand the quote. I understood enough to see that it was very strange and didn't have the ring of truth.
Is it possible for Jesus to have built a fallible church?
Is it possible for Jesus to create fallible human beings? ...to create and call out a fallible nation, Israel? ...to create and call out fallible men to be His prophets and Apostles? ...to use fallible people to show that His strength is made perfect in our weakness? ...to "commit them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all"? (Romans 11)
My quotes were from an article in Called to Communion, and I should have attributed them. I wish I could be so articulate.
When you say the mainline denominations are orthodox, what does that mean? Orthodox to what? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Evangelicalism? Where is orthodoxy outlined so that one might measure the various denominations? You may say scripture, but all the "isms" claim scripture as their basis.
Several of the largest, most long-standing mainline denominations are ordaining actively homosexual ministers and bishops, and also denying the bodily, actual Resurrection. I'm surprised at that particular viewpoint from you.
About reserving judgment, my comment was not about whether you understood the quote, but rather that you said you didn't want to take the time to untangle, but yet opined on its contents.
In John 17, Jesus' last prayer with his disciples, he prays that his Church would be one. So all these divisions would not seem to be His will. There are not many different truths - that is relativism - so it's probably not all that hunky-dory that there is ever fragmenting disagreement.
I think it is refreshingly honest, and gets us to a better understanding, to see that you find the Church Christ built, and that Paul called the pillar and foundation of truth, to be a fallible Bride. That right there leaves us at an impasse, but at least it is clear.
There are not many different truths - that is relativism - so it's probably not all that hunky-dory that there is ever fragmenting disagreement. No, there are not many different truths, only one. But there are many different levels of maturity and understanding. Ephesians 4 makes this clear, why there are differences and when they will cease to exist. So it isn't all hunky dory, but it is inevitable until we all come to maturity.
That is, unless Christ left us an infallible teaching authority to had down the deposit of Faith and to guide us through technological changes. Remember that you have no official authority in your church to guide you as far as artificial contraception, human cloning, in-vitro fertilization, etc.
It makes perfect sense that He would leave a teaching authority to correctly interpret scripture and to preserve the Faith. There is much more to the Faith than was contained in the scriptures. John said that there would not be enough room in all of the world to contain the books if everything Jesus said and did were written down. Heck, I can fit scripture in a small drawer. The Vatican archives are HUGE and anyone who can show that they are a serious scholar can be admitted to do research for themselves.
You are confining yourself to information(much of it incorrect) in a way that God has not intended. The concept of 'sola scriptura' came about 1500 years after Jesus returned to heaven. He made it clear that the gates of hell shall never prevail upon His Church...the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...
Leo, There is no scriptural support for an infallible teaching authority. We know that Scripture itself was infallibly inspired but there is nothing to say or prove that there is an ongoing infallible authority. Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, and upon the foundation of Scripture which the church must uphold. We have the infallible authority of God and His word to Guide us in each local church. If we stand on that foundation we do well. Your church takes a stand on contraception, etc. but it also adds to and changes the gospel in many ways, so your 'official infallible authority' has not done its job.
John did say the world could not contain the books if all that Jesus said and did were written down, but since those things were not written down, no one knows what they were. The Vatican archives do not claim to have that information, do they? If scripture can fit in a small drawer, then that makes it accessible to all, and it is all we need with the Spirit's help and the body of Christ to encourage and exhort its members. Each local body can do that, having been equipped by God.
In this latest comment, you make many statements that are either false, or unsupported in the scripture that is your sole authority.
Which statements? In fact, going sentence by sentence, the only true statement, the only one that can be found in scripture is "We know that Scripture itself was infallibly inspired ".
All the rest is presupposition or personal opinion.
Maybe I should have put it that a Catholic could refute each sentence except the "scripture is inspired" one that we agree with, and we'd use scripture to do it.
Christine wrote: a Catholic could refute each sentence except
Alright, refute this one: Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, - how is that false or un-Catholic? Shoot, that's the only way it could be infallible.
You're right; Catholics certainly believe that. The rest of the sentence implies (and we know Jennie believes) that scripture alone is the authority upon which other authority (that of the individual believer) rests. She doesn't believe that the magisterium's authority is from God's calling and the Holy Spirit's anointing. You're totally correct, and I wish it were understood, that ONLY because it IS an authority of calling and anointing, do we put trust in it.
Alright, refute this one: Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, - how is that false or un-Catholic? Shoot, that's the only way it could be infallible.
Leo says the RCC has infallible teaching authority, but protestants don't. I'm saying no human since the Apostles teaches infallibly, but that my pastor, for instance, has as much authority based on the calling and anointing of the Holy Spirit as any priest or bishop can have, because 'the Spirit goes where He wills'. Leo thinks we are outside of the true anointing because we are supposedly outside of Apostolic succession. If there is such a thing, it is based on the Spirit and the truth, not a physical line of ordination.
"Leo thinks we are outside of the true anointing because we are supposedly outside of Apostolic succession."
Jennie, that is not quite true in the way that you said and, I believe, meant it.
Yes, you are outside of Apostolic succession, and that means that you are not infallibly protected from teaching error as a church. No one in your church can thus confer any of the Sacraments, outside of baptism and marriage. Thus, you do not receive the additional sanctifying grace(after baptism) that is meant to be transmitted to you by ordinary means.
However, this does not prevent God from acting outside of ordinary means and you can certainly be led into a closer relationship with God by the Holy Spirit. I have heard a number of Protestant preachers through whom the Love of God flowed in powerful ways. Just look at how God revealed Himself to you regarding artificial contraception. Clearly you did not receive that from your authoritative church teaching.
There are many non-Catholic Christians I know who have a strong faith and relationship with God. Don't forget that baptism imparts a share in the Holy Spirit with divine life. You also have received our Lord in the Eucharist when you were younger and that has affected you as well.
The difference is that God has so much more in store for us when we submit ourselves in obedience to His authority in the Church. Notice that some of the Holy Father's teachings are for Catholics and some are for all Christians. More is expected of Catholics because we have received more. Unfortunately, Catholics often do less with more.
Anyone who calls upon God and acts uprightly can be anointed with a living faith. That is different from authoritative infallibility, however. I also know devout Christians who believe that abortion is okay in cases of incest or rape, for example.
Does this mean that they won't get to heaven for that belief? I would never say that. However, it does separate them from Truth and a deeper understanding of God.
And, by the way, Mary and the Saints are a gift from God and only serve to deepen our Faith in Him. It is impossible to turn to Mary without having her give us to her Son in a most powerful way. She just happens to be the ordinary means through which the Word chose to enter the world and us to return to Him. She magnifies the Lord and makes Him more real. I know it sounds goofy, but it's true.
When Jesus commanded the lepers to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam, did He really need the Pool, and did the Pool do the actual healing? No, but the fact remains that He chose this as the means of healing. They participating by obeying His instructions. He thus also leads us to Himself through Mary in a most powerful way. He also chooses to physically come to us in the Eucharist.
Don't ask me why He chooses to do so. He just does.
"I'm saying no human since the Apostles teaches infallibly,..."
Jennie, we believe that all new revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and the Church has the mission of passing on the Faith in its entirety.
I understand that you do not believe that Mary was held in high regard as pure and ever virgin and that she was assumed into heaven.
However, the people in the Holy Land know where all of the key biblical incidents took place. They know where the saints are buried and there is no body in the tombs of Mary or of Jesus.
You believe in scripture alone. We believe in the Word of God alone, but we include that which has been handed down through Tradition from the beginning. If these were later fabrications, I would not have believed them either. We fortunately have a Church guided by Jesus Christ through sinful men. He preserves the Truth and teaches as technology changes so we always know right from wrong.
Many well meaning Christians practiced in-vitro and do so today. The Church ruled on the evil from the beginning and we are now seeing the consequences.
So too with birth control. Science has only recently discovered that the pill sometimes causes a fertilized egg(live human embryo) to not implant, and thus to spontaneously abort. Anyone following Church teaching would never have inadvertently aborted or created tiny human beings who now live in freezers only to someday die.
In thinking through our discussion here, I knew we were missing a piece about Christ's bride, the Church. She can't be fallible (although her members can).
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant bride, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
And then, you mentioned the lack of infallible authority in Israel - and therefore, there doesn't need to be such in the Church today - isn't the answer to that found in Christ himself? The difference that his birth, death and resurrection makes? If he is the King of Kings (sinless, unlike the kings of Israel), then wouldn't it stand to reason that his bride the Church would be the faithful (infallible)version of the unfaithful Israel? Not sure if I am explaining this well, or if it makes sense. Thoughts?
Today is the feast of Christ the King, the end of the liturgical year. "Crown Him with Many Crowns" is one of the hymns we sing both in the Catholic church and evangelical ones :)
Here is a great video that should help explain the Catholic position. Listen to this girl and it is abundantly clear that she has the childlike faith which we are all called to have to enter the kingdom.
She is not Catholic, yet she is clearly a believer who is anointed by the Holy Spirit. This is the type of faith that I strive to have, as it is what we are called to be. There is no exegesis of scripture but she brings it to life beyond just the story.
Here faith is so pure, I could not imagine her having anything but deep love for Mary, for she would see her in all of her created perfection and beauty. I also could not picture this little girl doing anything but running up and hugging the Holy Father if she saw him.
There is a reason that children typically stop seeing angels after the age of 5 or so. They lose the perfect purity and begin to live apart from oneness with the Trinity.
Anyway, check this girl out and you will see the Faith that we are all called to have...simple, pure, and loving. She understands love and God better than most self-professed theologians.
Leo, she's very cute, precocious, and well-coached, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Catholicism. But then I do agree that childlike faith, and simple love and trust for God is much more important than knowing lots of theology or scripture. Yet if someone has both that's good too.
My point was that the self-professed theologians you tend to quote, don't display that childlike faith we just spoke about. The saints did indeed have both.
What I was also trying to share is regarding your comment about anointing by the Holy Spirit. She is Baptist and I think her faith is real. It's funny that you took her presentation cynically, by saying that she was well-coached and precocious. I just saw a child who is filled with the love of God and who really 'gets it'...
And THAT is what the true Catholic Faith is all about. My point is that she would feel perfectly at home and united with devout Catholics any day...the Faith is not quite the way you have represented it in your blog...
Leo, What I have presented on this blog is mainly pertaining to the official teaching of the RCC as well as what I've seen of the actions of the Magisterium that are objectionable.
I certainly agree that childlike faith and love is shared by Catholics and non-Catholics and that if we share that we can commune as believers on a personal level.
I admit I reacted cynically, which is a fault of mine, and I apologize. I guess my point was that you can't tell from a short online appearance whether a person really has faith. Either one of our impressions may be correct. I hope she really does have the faith that you saw in her.
As to the Reformed bloggers that you object to, saying they don't evidence childlike faith, I do see evidence in them of faith and love to God and to fellow believers in many of their posts. I also think that in the fight for truth, they sometimes lose perspective; or possibly that you don't understand the importance to them of the necessity to fight, and how hard it is to balance love with the fight for truth.
Jennie - the blog we've discussed has sunk even lower in recent days. They aren't trying to "balance love with the fight for truth". I don't think they even claim to do so; it's nice of you to - dare I say - impute them with that goal, but it's clear their purpose is to attack. That's it. And I could cut-and-paste about ten examples from just the past few days. I'm sorry for your friend there - to all appearances, he is obsessed with an irrational hatred. It ruins any argument he tries to make.
You well know that we who discuss with you DO understand the importance of fighting for the truth. I still maintain that if you are confident in your beliefs, you will defend them but not feel the need to attack others daily.
I welcome blog comments, although they are often notorious for unfruitful and uncharitable discussions.
I hope this can be a place where we “seek understanding” before critiquing, where we are quick to listen and slow to speak, where we can evaluate and critique each others views charitably, where we encourage and build up each other rather than tearing down and destroying each other.
I would encourage commenters to consider carefully the following commands and principles regarding our speech:
“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6).
“By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:37).
“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10).
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29).
Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15, 25).
“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” (James 1:26).
No one who truly loves God can attack Mary or the Holy Father. Nor would they ever try to diminish them.
There is no need to. If one has confidence in their faith and knows what they believe and why, they are in no way threatened by other forms of worship.
It is quite narrow minded to assume that even Hindus or Muslims cannot be saved. That is the work of Jesus to decide.
"As to the Reformed bloggers that you object to, saying they don't evidence childlike faith, I do see evidence in them of faith and love to God and to fellow believers in many of their posts. "
Ummm....no.
All they do is placate and try to be nice if they think they can 'convert' someone. There is no love evident...just hatred for the Church.
Again, no one hates the Church more than Satan does. I would most certainly caution people to think seventy times seven times before ever attacking it.
Can you think of a single instance of any satanists attacking your church? How about any pro-abortionists or homosexual activists? How about any liberals at all? If not, why not?
I would ask the same thing about those bloggers' churches...
I was thinking about this today. I was in a Bible study at a PCUSA church for the first time and wasn't really asked to introduce myself. So, on two occasions during the 90 minutes, Catholicism was belittled very specifically. But then the speakers caught themselves and found a way to say something kind. This is natural, isn't it? End on a positive note.
But I was wondering about the example of Balaam - how he was commissioned to curse Israel and he couldn't.
Pace Leo, what does it mean that people - albeit not prophets - can freely curse Catholics, Catholicism? Even Christ Himself?
Well, I think the issue is that Satan knows that his time is short and He hates God and His Church because he knows the power entrusted to it. The problem is that he has successfully deceived other Christians to attack it and thus weaken the body of believers.
You will find that Satan always tries to subtract. He tries to take away the Sacraments to weaken the faithful. He takes away Mary and the saints whom Jesus has given us to help us get to heaven.
Notice that in Protestant churches, they don't make the sign of the cross, thus weakening faith in a triune God. It becomes more of a 'Jesus and me' mindset as opposed to a 'family of God' mindset. It turns Christians into more loners where they never really feel the same unity that I believe comes through the Eucharist. The Nicene Creed typically gets subtracted too, so people start forgetting what they really even believe.
The Moral absolutes are lost amidst a morass of moral relativism. The Faith is stripped of its beauty. Churches begin to look like halls and garages and the sense of reverence and worship is weakened as well.
Let's not forget that the cross is a plus sign and we should not be subtracting from the Truth. I could not imagine making it without the Eucharist and Confession. I thank God constantly for those additional graces to help me to overcome my pathetic weaknesses.
I would also like to surmise that they either knew or suspected that a Catholic was with them. That is what amazes me. The Church is regularly accused of being judgmental, yet I have NEVER heard any Protestant church being attacked or belittled from the pulpit in a Catholic church. I have also never heard the faith or salvation of a Protestant being questioned.
I can't say never - I heard it once from Fr. V., but he was very old school.
they either knew or suspected that a Catholic
I was trying to make up my mind about that. If you are right, then I can only surmise that they were bullying me with the things they said. I'd rather not think that about them because I'd like to return. After all, the sign said, "All are welcome." (Sorry, couldn't resist that bit of irony).
I knew we were missing a piece about Christ's bride, the Church. She can't be fallible (although her members can).
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant bride, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. ....If he is the King of Kings (sinless, unlike the kings of Israel), then wouldn't it stand to reason that his bride the Church would be the faithful (infallible)version of the unfaithful Israel?
Christine, I don't think it makes sense to say 'the Church can't be fallible, but her members can.' The church IS the members and is always referred to that way in Scripture, as the congregation of the saints in various locations, or as the congregation of the saints as a whole. But it is never referred to as being yet perfect, but awaiting the perfection that will come when her trials of faith are over. If you do a search of the word church, you will see this:
You will also see in scripture that the church is not perfect, but is being perfected:
Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
In Revelation 2 and 3, you will see that Christ warns the churches of their faults and of coming judgment and trials, and that they must repent or lose their reward and place. In Revelation 21 you see the Bride finally completed, prepared for her Husband. In your passage of Eph. 5 the perfection of the Bride is yet to be finished as well, since everyone isn't saved yet who will be, and each believer is still being perfected.
The church is not the magisterium in scripture, it is always the body of believers, and God's plan is not yet complete.
And, by the way, Mary and the Saints are a gift from God and only serve to deepen our Faith in Him. It is impossible to turn to Mary without having her give us to her Son in a most powerful way. She just happens to be the ordinary means through which the Word chose to enter the world and us to return to Him. She magnifies the Lord and makes Him more real. I know it sounds goofy, but it's true.
Leo, Scripture never tells us to turn to Mary, and neither do any of the early church Fathers before the idea of devotion to Mary began to develop. As I have said before, Mary is a part of the church and represents her in foreshadowing, so therefore she is a picture of how the church is to magnify Christ and to lead people to Him. We are the church if we are redeemed by Christ, and we are to take that example as our own, but are never taught in scripture to lift ourselves up (as the church) or to lift Mary up. If we exalt her, we exalt ourselves. I see that, and the Lord tells me and shows me that I need to remove the plank from my own eye before attempting to remove the splinter I see in another's eye. We all tend to lift up idols, and sometimes our own self is the worst one. Pride has always been my worst sin, and I continually need to repent of that.
I don't think it makes sense to say 'the Church can't be fallible, but her members can'.
It makes sense in the exact same way that the writers of scripture were fallible people who wrote infallible books and letters. That wouldn't make sense either, by your reasoning. And, again, an infallible authority must have determined the canon.
The Hebrews passage doesn't indicate a fallible ever-fracturing church, but rather ONE body whose members are growing in faith and love.
The Church is her people, yes, but not that alone. It is also the "pillar and foundation of truth" - hence the sure confidence we can have in her teaching. It is also the "spotless Bride, adorned for her husband".
Scripture never tells us to turn to Mary "Behold your mother". OUR mother as we are "beloved disciples" and adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus - we can turn to our mother, of course, and she in turn says "Do whatever He tells you".
You don't interpret the verses the same way, but that doesn't invalidate our interpretation.
No one who truly loves God can attack Mary or the Holy Father. Nor would they ever try to diminish them.
Leo, that's purely an RC opinion, and carries no weight. And I haven't 'attacked Mary' but expressed that the 'Mary' of Catholicism isn't the Mary of the Bible, and that Mary shouldn't be exalted the way the RCC exalts her.
There is no need to. If one has confidence in their faith and knows what they believe and why, they are in no way threatened by other forms of worship.
People who see a contradiction between RCC teaching and that of scripture, such as those who convert out of it or those like me whose family revert, have a reason to see a threat, not to themselves but to those they care about.
It is quite narrow minded to assume that even Hindus or Muslims cannot be saved. That is the work of Jesus to decide.
Certainly Hindus and Muslims can be saved, but they must turn to Christ, repent of their sins, and leave their false gods.
Can you think of a single instance of any satanists attacking your church? How about any pro-abortionists or homosexual activists? How about any liberals at all? If not, why not?
Leo, my church consists of about 10 families. It's not a monolithic worldwide organization. What big enemy organization is going to come and attack a tiny church that quietly works in a small town? I don't know what Satanists or liberals, etc. may be doing on a national level, or if they protest at Baptist seminaries and colleges or not. Maybe they do. Here, I looked it up:
what does it mean that people - albeit not prophets - can freely curse Catholics, Catholicism? Even Christ Himself?
Non-Christians of all kinds curse Christ and Christians all the time without any thought and without being prevented. Balaam couldn't do it because he was a prophet, as you said, and was therefore speaking for God, not for himself. He was not able to do it because God wouldn't let him.
I was in a Bible study at a PCUSA church for the first time and wasn't really asked to introduce myself. So, on two occasions during the 90 minutes, Catholicism was belittled very specifically.
Teresa, I go to a Baptist church, as you know, and I hardly ever hear anything negative said about the Catholic church, nor anything said at all about it, actually. Most people come from different backgrounds, not all are lifelong Baptists, and some members have a rather ecumencal view.
I wonder that you continue to attend these classes, since I've several times seen you express a mild contempt for the attitudes of the people there.
Christine, thanks for sharing the commenting guidelines from Denny Burke's blog. I think he gives very good advice on getting along with each other. I'll check out his blog some more.
"Leo, that's purely an RC opinion, and carries no weight. And I haven't 'attacked Mary"
Okay, you did not specifically attack her, but you did attack the Holy Fathers and the Church, so you did indirectly attack her. In fact, you attacked Christ when you attacked the Church.
And, I would hope that it weren't just a 'Roman Catholic opinion'. We would never think of attacking a congregation that had believers in membership. You also made Mary out to basically be no more special than say, you or any other woman.
The point is that you should consider getting off of your 'attack the Church' pedestal and realize that perhaps we really do worship and that we really are working towards the same goals.
Consider that, just perhaps, scripture alone was never intended by God. Consider also, that perhaps there really are Sacraments instituted by God. Certainly, I would guess that you would not bet your life or the lives of your children on the stance that the Catholic Church really is not the one founded by and protected by Jesus Christ.
There should be at least a fraction of a percent of doubt. If there is, then attacking the Church has at least a modicum of risk. We, like your brother, are not idiots and we are not simply deceived. That, I WILL stake my life on...In fact, when I say 'Amen' to the Eucharist, I am willing to give my life for the eternal Truth that it is Jesus Christ whom I am receiving.
since I've several times seen you express a mild contempt for the attitudes of the people there.
Well, that's why, I'm trying to learn to love them. I can't change them; I can only change myself.
But not every group has been a challenge - one I joined this fall, Community Bible Study (CBS), has been absolutely wonderful - I feel really blessed by them. But they have a written policy about not denigrating other groups.
76 comments:
This is precisely why Jesus left us His Church to guide us. We are required under pain of mortal sin to attend Mass every Sunday, unless circumstances prevent us from doing so for serious reasons. In other words, it should be our number one desire to get there.
We recite the Nicene Creed every week to remind us what we believe. There is good reason for this. Jesus refers to us as sheep because sheep are dumb animals and do not know danger. If two sheep are attacked by a wolf, for example, the one not attacked will simply stand there, ignoring the danger.
This is one of the major reasons Catholics leave the Church. They do not learn the Faith and someone can come along and snatch them away. They do not really know Jesus, Mary, or any of the saints. This is a result of poor catechesis and why I began teaching the Faith 20+ years ago.
It's interesting that the Holy Spirit knew that the information age was coming and that the clergy would be unprepared to deal with the onslaught of technology. Thus, Vatican II was convened to begin perparing the laity for what has now come.
The word catechism is derived from the Greek word 'catecheo', which means 'faithful echoing'. This is the absolute number one mission of the Church: to faithfully hand down the deposit of Faith.
Yes, there are even priests and bishops(as there always have been) who lack true understanding of the Faith. Thus, the Holy Spirit saw fit to have the Holy Father assemble the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Because of errors, a key discipline was also changed.
It used to be that a Catholic was expected to attend Mass at their home parish many years ago. That was changed to allow attendance at any Church for Mass.
We need divinely guided authority to lead us so that we might be free to live the Gospel. Otherwise, we end up spending most of our lives just trying to know what to believe. This just causes the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and generally all others to suffer...because we become focused inwardly about our own belief system and have no time left for them.
Put it this way...a devout Catholic who goes to Mass and loves Jesus and also loves Mary and the rest of God's children and goes about living in love of others, is going to heaven. That person may be illiterate, unlearned, etc., but is transformed by the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments. If someone puts thoughts into their heads that lead them away from this childlike living of the Gospel, they are doing great damage to the family of God.
Leo,
Jesus didn't 'leave us His church to guide us.' We ARE the church, if we are redeemed. He left us His Spirit and His word to guide us, and commanded us to abide in Him by listening to His word, obeying His commands, and loving one another. If we remain in fellowship with Him and with the body of Christ then we will not go far wrong. The scripture says that the Spirit calls us and equips us so the body will have everything it needs to function. Each member of the body has a specific function to help the rest. This refers to the local body first and then to the whole body, I believe, since we live closely with the local body of Christ if we are in obedience to Him.
Where shall we find the local body of Christ and how will we recognize it?
Christine,
that's not as simple as it was at the beginning when people met with those of their neighborhood who were believers, and everyone was of one mind. However, if one desires to obey God in being in fellowship with the body of Christ, and doesn't already have a connection to a certain church or denomination, praying for guidance and visiting churches in your area, asking a neighbor, or going with a friend, is a good place to start.
No, we are MEMBERS of the Church, but we are not the authority of the Church. There is a huge difference. You and I are not infallibly guided on our own.
Also, Christ refers to the Church as the BODY and not the SOUL. The body has a distinct physical structure and is not simply the nebulous mass of believers.
There are far too many disagreements amongst the believers for us to be one...that is, unless we are united to the Magisterium and the official teaching.
We need divinely guided authority to lead us so that we might be free to live the Gospel. Otherwise, we end up spending most of our lives just trying to know what to believe. This just causes the poor, the sick, the imprisoned and generally all others to suffer...because we become focused inwardly about our own belief system and have no time left for them.
Put it this way...a devout Catholic who goes to Mass and loves Jesus and also loves Mary and the rest of God's children and goes about living in love of others, is going to heaven. That person may be illiterate, unlearned, etc., but is transformed by the sanctifying grace of the Sacraments. If someone puts thoughts into their heads that lead them away from this childlike living of the Gospel, they are doing great damage to the family of God.
Leo,
It is definitely true that if we spent less time on doctrinal disputes and questions and divisions, we would have much more time for 'being doers of the word.' It is true that we must become like little children in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is also true that people have different functions within the body of Christ and some people will be called and equipped to defend the faith and study it more deeply than others. Again it is also true that, in another way, we should not remain as children, but must mature in the faith and be able to distinguish between good and evil on our own by knowing the truth and having the discernment of the Spirit. We do this with the help of those equipped to teach us, but also by the teaching of the Spirit and by abiding in the word of God and in prayer and fellowship.
Saying that, I have been thinking about this recently, along the lines of what you said, in effect spending so much time figuring out what we are to believe that we don't have time to live the gospel. That is perhaps kind of an occupational hazard with people that have been called to study deeply and to teach others. My husband has been called to study and teach, and the word just flows through him as he studies and writes and shares it. I have caught that from him and from my Dad too, who is always thinking and questioning, as an analytical scientist. I tend to spend alot of time thinking and reading and writing, and forget that action and life is supposed to flow from the faith that is in me.
But, to get back to part of your point, one of course doesn't have to be an expert or a scholar to live the Christian life, but can simply live by love and faith and be obedient to the knowledge that one receives day to day in the family of God.
What do you find interesting about Kelly's post, Jennie?
It's interesting to me, Leo, that the Nicene Creed which Catholics recite each Sunday mentions "resurrection of the dead" (emphasis mine). It's the Apostles' Creed, that many other Christians profess, which says "resurrection of the body." It seems that, even in the 4th cent., creed drafters were trying to be inclusive and ecumenical.
Kelly comments on last Sunday's readings, 2 Mc 7:1-2, 9-14 and Lk 20:27, 34-38. It's interesting to me that Jesus says people become "like angels" in heaven. I suppose he doesn't mean literally or else they would be bodiless, pure spirit and our hard-wrought creeds would be wrong.
In the past week, I've heard two different Bible teachers, one Catholic and one not, say that Abraham willingly offered up Isaac because he was sure God could raise the dead (cf. Hebrews 11:19). So it seems that Jesus could have as easily gone with the Akedat (the "binding") as "proof" of the resurrection, as with that of Moses and his burning bush experience.
What do you think?
Teresa,
One thing I found interesting is that I believe the concepts that are so clear to us today as Christians are all there in the Old Testament, and even in the Torah. I don't believe we lose that by not including the deuterocanonical books as inspired.
I believe it is thought that Job lived long before Moses' time, and he apparently understood the resurrection of the body. It is interesting that well before scriptures were written, men who knew God understood these things. They received His word directly by walking with Him, like Abraham did, and Enoch, and Moses and Joshua later on, and then the prophets. I wonder if Job wrote down his own story, and that is really the first scripture written.
Jennie,
The problem comes back to authority and infallibility. Take for example the Church teaching on artificial contraception. This is not just a minor point; it is a MAJOR truth regarding Faith and Morals. The reason that there are so many divorces and abortions is precisely because of the open practice of birth control. As many Catholics get divorced as others, because most refuse to follow this teaching.
Even same sex unions and fornication have resulted from the abuse of this forbidden fruit. You have, by the grace of God, discovered the truth of this teaching even as a Protestant. You have most assuredly been blessed for following this teaching. Yet, imagine how many never do or do not follow because there is no authority that forbids the practice in their own minds. They just 'follow their misguided conscience'.
As a faithful Catholic, you would simply know that this was wrong and you would obey or at least know that you are required to.
Every single Christian denomination expressly forbade this practice until the 1930's and it has resulted in the dissolution of families and values.
I can assure you that you will not convince people by your 'sola scriptura' approach, yet you know that it is wrong.
This is why Christ left His Church to guide us. He did not leave us as orphans but left the light on the hill for everyone.
For one thing, we all come before Jesus at the moment of death. Other than Mary, the saints do not yet have their resurrected bodies in heaven, and will not receive them until the end of time.
Thus, they are resurrected from the dead but are still awaiting reunion with their bodies.
Someone could say "Most Catholics do not obey the Church's teaching on artificial contraception", and that may be sadly true.
However, there is something unambiguous that is being disobeyed. It is dissent and everyone knows it because the teaching is clearly stated. The Church just continues on with what many consider to be an unrealistic, ridiculous stance - and as Leo points out, everything that Pope Paul VI predicted in Humanae Vitae has come true as a result of the widespread acceptance, even in almost every Christian denomination, of artificial birth control.
I think there are a very few Protestant denominations that discourage contraception, but as an Evangelical, it was considered responsible to use it. All the moms, including mine, were on the pill when it came out in the sixties. There was never a word questioning it, except in my own heart when I was married - perhaps the same experience you had, Jennie. When I sought answers to the discomfort I had with birth control as an evangelical, the only place I found the profound and beautiful reasoning I was looking for was in Catholic teaching, where I never expected to find anything worthwhile of any kind!
Christine,
Maybe it is a matter of what we consider most important as to which church's errors we are able to live with. I know that in general the Baptists have fallen into much compromise with worldly ideas in recent years, but I believe a good Biblical Baptist church is still one of the best places to be. And there is a mixture of convictions on things like contraception in our church. The ones who don't believe in using it can be a good influence on those who do if we do it in humility and love, and some of the ones who do use it are good examples in other ways, such as adoption. We all learn in different ways and at different paces, and we need each other.
On the other hand, I can't live with many of the practices in the Catholic Church, and even though they are admirable on this issue. It doesn't mean I have to accept everything else as correct and good.
Jennie,
Before you conclude that there are 'errors' in the Church, please be open to the notion that the intransigent stance on contraception may be an indication of divine guidance.
It has nothing to do with being admirable; it has everything to do with being true. When it comes to an intrinsic evil such as contraception, it is not acceptable if replaced by adoption, for example.
When the Holy Father ruled definitively on the subject, he was criticized by many priests, bishops and lay people for his senility and stupidity. In fact, he went against the very recommendations of the committee he appointed and this shocked everyone.
However, when you understand that he is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit and is the only person on earth who needs to answer to no one else, it is not surprising. As Christine said, everything he prophesied has come to pass as a result of the use of artificial contraception. Yet, when he said it, the dissenters did not believe him.
As I have said, Jennie, the Church bears no burden of proof. She alone proclaims only Truth on Faith and Morals and she alone has been appointed to preserve the deposit of Faith. Truth is unchangeable and immutable. Membership is open to everyone on earth so all may have full access to sanctifying grace.
The inability of the Church to compromise is despised by the dissenters within, but deeply appreciated by those of us seeking to become one in Him. We never pray for God to come to our side; we only pray to understand His point of view and to desire His will in all things. He does not need any help from us in running the universe...
which church's errors we are able to live with
What a sad commentary on the state of Christendom, with folks trying to decide what they can live with, rather than finding something they can wholeheartedly embrace.
Could that really be the best Christ could do? Leave us wandering, not knowing where to find His church, our true family?
No, never.
Christine,
I have found His church, our true family, right where I am. We are not perfect, but Christ is. He never said we would be.
At your house, you mean?
I didn't mean that as a joke or a dig; it's a sincere question.
I went ahead and read what John B. wrote and his posting displays a high degree of both arrogance and pridefulness. He is making himself a judge of a theologian who has the depth of understanding of the Pacific Ocean, as compared to his own, which is like a shallow rain puddle by comparison. Only a fool mocks the holy ones of God...
Honestly, Jennie, you can do better than posting from those who go where angels fear to tread...
Christine,
No, I meant my church, which is a small Baptist church which we've attended for about 3 years.
Got it about your church, Jennie, thank you.
Jennie - as Leo says, I want to think that you are above the kind of thing that John B is about. Please. You're kind of doing some ego-stroking over there that I hope you don't intend. I'm sorry, I hope you are not offended by that, but that post and the comments with it are pretty bad.
Leo,
I'm wondering what you think of what the Pope actually wrote, about evolution, etc. It's very unorthodox, and sounds 'new age' at best, and like a bad guy in C.S. Lewis' 'Space Trilogy' at the worst.
Also, as to the Pope having the depth of understanding of the Pacific Ocean, I would say that depth of knowledge of theology does not equal true faith, as you know.
As to posting from Beggars All, I'll have to be the judge of what I post. I don't know that it's any different than what has been said for hundreds of years past.
Christine,
I'm not offended, and I see what you mean; maybe I shouldn't have said 'I couldn't follow' the quote, but that I didn't want to take the time to untangle the meaning of it, which is closer to the truth. I like John B. and I'm sorry you are offended by the tone there. I am very much in agreement with most of the things they teach, though not the Calvinism. As I said on the other thread, I am not in sympathy with the Pope or his teachings, and though I like you all, it seems you expect me to sympathize with the Catholic understanding of all these things. I can't always.
I went back and read the thread again, and realized that I was responding along with what your favorite 'Steelikat' said in the first comment: that he couldn't make 'head nor tail out of the quote' by the Pope. It's true that it's very hard to follow. That's what I get for having friends on both sides of the question; I can't please both, and shouldn't try to.
But Steelikat avoids the kind of meanness that is the norm there, and more importantly he has called them on it when they're being ridiculously arrogant. I know he's no Catholic sympathizer.
I don't at all expect you to sympathize with Catholic teachings, but I do expect all fair-minded Christians to seek understanding, and only judge when they've examined the original sources and not a partisan presentation. I expect that there is a respectful tone when disagreeing with admired leaders of other Christians. I expect, or hope, that you would not join in where there is NOT a respectful discussion. Of course you have no obligation to follow my way of thinking regarding how discussions should sound. That's between you and your conscience.
You make it sound like you are caught in the middle of two like entities. But only one of those is, again, a blog devoted to attacking another group of Christians. Not discussing, not "sharing", but attacking.
What is your response to this statement/question?
Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?
And this:
Because of the absence of an authoritative Magisterium within Protestantism, in two thousand years of Church history, nothing has been definitively and irreversibly established. Every single theological question is unsettled, still up in the air, capable in principle of being answered in a way contrary to the way it has always been answered.
I didn't want to take the time to untangle the meaning of it,
This is understandable - but then isn't the honorable thing to reserve judgement?
We agree that Jesus said, "I will build my Church".
Is it possible for Jesus to have built a fallible church?
Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it?
Christine,
Where did that quote come from, by the way?
First of all, I would say that protestantism is not a single entity and did not begin as a single entity, therefore it is reasonable that groups that identify as protestant are different since they came from different traditions at the beginning.
Secondly, it is not the ones whose conscience causes them to separate from error who are responsible for divisions, but the one who is in error in the first place.
Thirdly, since I and other protestants believe that the RCC departed from the original faith in various ways over the centuries, we believe that the RCC is not the original church and doesn't hold to the same beliefs as the Apostles, having added to them and changed them. Therefore, the RCC is a division from the original church, and the Reformers of all the earlier ages have dissented because of conscience based on Scripture and the discernment of the Spirit.
Fourth, many of the so-called fragments of protestantism are not true protestants at all, but false sects. Most mainline denominations are very orthodox, and the ones who are departing from the truth are obvious to those of us who still hold to the Scriptures as our final authority.
Fifth, the apostasy we see more and more was prophesied by Jesus and the Apostles and should not surprise us. We believe the RCC was the first sign of this apostasy, and her daughters are only following in her footsteps today.
Because of the absence of an authoritative Magisterium within Protestantism, in two thousand years of Church history, nothing has been definitively and irreversibly established. Every single theological question is unsettled, still up in the air, capable in principle of being answered in a way contrary to the way it has always been answered.
Again, where is this from?
I would say that some things cannot be irreversibly established, because as I said above, God has not given us all the information. I believe that the discussion of hard questions is part of the way that we learn and think things through, searching deeply for answers, and also learning, hopefully, to love each other, also as I said above.
How many things has the RCC magisterium actually settled infallibly? I've seen accounts that it hasn't really made that many 'infallible' pronouncements.
Again, there are things we are not going to understand fully and wrestling with these issues is an important part of getting to know God. He wants us to wrestle with His word and long to find Him and know Him deeper.
Christine,
about reserving judgment, I was not quite serious when I said I didn't understand the quote. I understood enough to see that it was very strange and didn't have the ring of truth.
Is it possible for Jesus to have built a fallible church?
Is it possible for Jesus to create fallible human beings?
...to create and call out a fallible nation, Israel?
...to create and call out fallible men to be His prophets and Apostles?
...to use fallible people to show that His strength is made perfect in our weakness?
...to "commit them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all"? (Romans 11)
My quotes were from an article in Called to Communion, and I should have attributed them. I wish I could be so articulate.
When you say the mainline denominations are orthodox, what does that mean? Orthodox to what? Calvinism? Lutheranism? Evangelicalism? Where is orthodoxy outlined so that one might measure the various denominations? You may say scripture, but all the "isms" claim scripture as their basis.
Several of the largest, most long-standing mainline denominations are ordaining actively homosexual ministers and bishops, and also denying the bodily, actual Resurrection. I'm surprised at that particular viewpoint from you.
About reserving judgment, my comment was not about whether you understood the quote, but rather that you said you didn't want to take the time to untangle, but yet opined on its contents.
In John 17, Jesus' last prayer with his disciples, he prays that his Church would be one. So all these divisions would not seem to be His will. There are not many different truths - that is relativism - so it's probably not all that hunky-dory that there is ever fragmenting disagreement.
I think it is refreshingly honest, and gets us to a better understanding, to see that you find the Church Christ built, and that Paul called the pillar and foundation of truth, to be a fallible Bride. That right there leaves us at an impasse, but at least it is clear.
There are not many different truths - that is relativism - so it's probably not all that hunky-dory that there is ever fragmenting disagreement.
No, there are not many different truths, only one. But there are many different levels of maturity and understanding. Ephesians 4 makes this clear, why there are differences and when they will cease to exist. So it isn't all hunky dory, but it is inevitable until we all come to maturity.
That is, unless Christ left us an infallible teaching authority to had down the deposit of Faith and to guide us through technological changes. Remember that you have no official authority in your church to guide you as far as artificial contraception, human cloning, in-vitro fertilization, etc.
It makes perfect sense that He would leave a teaching authority to correctly interpret scripture and to preserve the Faith. There is much more to the Faith than was contained in the scriptures. John said that there would not be enough room in all of the world to contain the books if everything Jesus said and did were written down. Heck, I can fit scripture in a small drawer. The Vatican archives are HUGE and anyone who can show that they are a serious scholar can be admitted to do research for themselves.
You are confining yourself to information(much of it incorrect) in a way that God has not intended. The concept of 'sola scriptura' came about 1500 years after Jesus returned to heaven. He made it clear that the gates of hell shall never prevail upon His Church...the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church...
Leo,
There is no scriptural support for an infallible teaching authority. We know that Scripture itself was infallibly inspired but there is nothing to say or prove that there is an ongoing infallible authority. Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, and upon the foundation of Scripture which the church must uphold.
We have the infallible authority of God and His word to Guide us in each local church. If we stand on that foundation we do well. Your church takes a stand on contraception, etc. but it also adds to and changes the gospel in many ways, so your 'official infallible authority' has not done its job.
John did say the world could not contain the books if all that Jesus said and did were written down, but since those things were not written down, no one knows what they were. The Vatican archives do not claim to have that information, do they? If scripture can fit in a small drawer, then that makes it accessible to all, and it is all we need with the Spirit's help and the body of Christ to encourage and exhort its members. Each local body can do that, having been equipped by God.
In this latest comment, you make many statements that are either false, or unsupported in the scripture that is your sole authority.
Which statements? In fact, going sentence by sentence, the only true statement, the only one that can be found in scripture is "We know that Scripture itself was infallibly inspired ".
All the rest is presupposition or personal opinion.
Maybe I should have put it that a Catholic could refute each sentence except the "scripture is inspired" one that we agree with, and we'd use scripture to do it.
We've had all those discussions before.
Christine wrote: a Catholic could refute each sentence except
Alright, refute this one: Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, - how is that false or un-Catholic? Shoot, that's the only way it could be infallible.
You're right; Catholics certainly believe that. The rest of the sentence implies (and we know Jennie believes) that scripture alone is the authority upon which other authority (that of the individual believer) rests. She doesn't believe that the magisterium's authority is from God's calling and the Holy Spirit's anointing. You're totally correct, and I wish it were understood, that ONLY because it IS an authority of calling and anointing, do we put trust in it.
Good call.
Alright, refute this one: Authority is based on the calling of God and the anointing of the Spirit, - how is that false or un-Catholic? Shoot, that's the only way it could be infallible.
Leo says the RCC has infallible teaching authority, but protestants don't. I'm saying no human since the Apostles teaches infallibly, but that my pastor, for instance, has as much authority based on the calling and anointing of the Holy Spirit as any priest or bishop can have, because 'the Spirit goes where He wills'. Leo thinks we are outside of the true anointing because we are supposedly outside of Apostolic succession. If there is such a thing, it is based on the Spirit and the truth, not a physical line of ordination.
Just wondering if your pastor is ordained, and if so, by whom, and what does it mean?
Do you believe the Apostles taught infallibly outside of scripture?
"Leo thinks we are outside of the true anointing because we are supposedly outside of Apostolic succession."
Jennie, that is not quite true in the way that you said and, I believe, meant it.
Yes, you are outside of Apostolic succession, and that means that you are not infallibly protected from teaching error as a church. No one in your church can thus confer any of the Sacraments, outside of baptism and marriage.
Thus, you do not receive the additional sanctifying grace(after baptism) that is meant to be transmitted to you by ordinary means.
However, this does not prevent God from acting outside of ordinary means and you can certainly be led into a closer relationship with God by the Holy Spirit. I have heard a number of Protestant preachers through whom the Love of God flowed in powerful ways. Just look at how God revealed Himself to you regarding artificial contraception. Clearly you did not receive that from your authoritative church teaching.
There are many non-Catholic Christians I know who have a strong faith and relationship with God. Don't forget that baptism imparts a share in the Holy Spirit with divine life. You also have received our Lord in the Eucharist when you were younger and that has affected you as well.
The difference is that God has so much more in store for us when we submit ourselves in obedience to His authority in the Church. Notice that some of the Holy Father's teachings are for Catholics and some are for all Christians. More is expected of Catholics because we have received more. Unfortunately, Catholics often do less with more.
Anyone who calls upon God and acts uprightly can be anointed with a living faith. That is different from authoritative infallibility, however. I also know devout Christians who believe that abortion is okay in cases of incest or rape, for example.
Does this mean that they won't get to heaven for that belief? I would never say that. However, it does separate them from Truth and a deeper understanding of God.
And, by the way, Mary and the Saints are a gift from God and only serve to deepen our Faith in Him. It is impossible to turn to Mary without having her give us to her Son in a most powerful way. She just happens to be the ordinary means through which the Word chose to enter the world and us to return to Him. She magnifies the Lord and makes Him more real. I know it sounds goofy, but it's true.
When Jesus commanded the lepers to go and wash in the Pool of Siloam, did He really need the Pool, and did the Pool do the actual healing? No, but the fact remains that He chose this as the means of healing. They participating by obeying His instructions. He thus also leads us to Himself through Mary in a most powerful way. He also chooses to physically come to us in the Eucharist.
Don't ask me why He chooses to do so. He just does.
participated...
"I'm saying no human since the Apostles teaches infallibly,..."
Jennie, we believe that all new revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and the Church has the mission of passing on the Faith in its entirety.
I understand that you do not believe that Mary was held in high regard as pure and ever virgin and that she was assumed into heaven.
However, the people in the Holy Land know where all of the key biblical incidents took place. They know where the saints are buried and there is no body in the tombs of Mary or of Jesus.
You believe in scripture alone. We believe in the Word of God alone, but we include that which has been handed down through Tradition from the beginning. If these were later fabrications, I would not have believed them either. We fortunately have a Church guided by Jesus Christ through sinful men. He preserves the Truth and teaches as technology changes so we always know right from wrong.
Many well meaning Christians practiced in-vitro and do so today. The Church ruled on the evil from the beginning and we are now seeing the consequences.
So too with birth control. Science has only recently discovered that the pill sometimes causes a fertilized egg(live human embryo) to not implant, and thus to spontaneously abort. Anyone following Church teaching would never have inadvertently aborted or created tiny human beings who now live in freezers only to someday die.
In thinking through our discussion here, I knew we were missing a piece about Christ's bride, the Church. She can't be fallible (although her members can).
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant bride, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
And then, you mentioned the lack of infallible authority in Israel - and therefore, there doesn't need to be such in the Church today - isn't the answer to that found in Christ himself? The difference that his birth, death and resurrection makes? If he is the King of Kings (sinless, unlike the kings of Israel), then wouldn't it stand to reason that his bride the Church would be the faithful (infallible)version of the unfaithful Israel? Not sure if I am explaining this well, or if it makes sense. Thoughts?
Today is the feast of Christ the King, the end of the liturgical year. "Crown Him with Many Crowns" is one of the hymns we sing both in the Catholic church and evangelical ones :)
Here is a great video that should help explain the Catholic position. Listen to this girl and it is abundantly clear that she has the childlike faith which we are all called to have to enter the kingdom.
She is not Catholic, yet she is clearly a believer who is anointed by the Holy Spirit. This is the type of faith that I strive to have, as it is what we are called to be. There is no exegesis of scripture but she brings it to life beyond just the story.
Here faith is so pure, I could not imagine her having anything but deep love for Mary, for she would see her in all of her created perfection and beauty. I also could not picture this little girl doing anything but running up and hugging the Holy Father if she saw him.
There is a reason that children typically stop seeing angels after the age of 5 or so. They lose the perfect purity and begin to live apart from oneness with the Trinity.
Anyway, check this girl out and you will see the Faith that we are all called to have...simple, pure, and loving. She understands love and God better than most self-professed theologians.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fvimeo.com%2F16404771&h=adb78
Thanks, Leo. That was delightful.
Leo,
she's very cute, precocious, and well-coached, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Catholicism.
But then I do agree that childlike faith, and simple love and trust for God is much more important than knowing lots of theology or scripture. Yet if someone has both that's good too.
My point was that the self-professed theologians you tend to quote, don't display that childlike faith we just spoke about. The saints did indeed have both.
What I was also trying to share is regarding your comment about anointing by the Holy Spirit. She is Baptist and I think her faith is real. It's funny that you took her presentation cynically, by saying that she was well-coached and precocious. I just saw a child who is filled with the love of God and who really 'gets it'...
And THAT is what the true Catholic Faith is all about. My point is that she would feel perfectly at home and united with devout Catholics any day...the Faith is not quite the way you have represented it in your blog...
Leo,
What I have presented on this blog is mainly pertaining to the official teaching of the RCC as well as what I've seen of the actions of the Magisterium that are objectionable.
I certainly agree that childlike faith and love is shared by Catholics and non-Catholics and that if we share that we can commune as believers on a personal level.
I admit I reacted cynically, which is a fault of mine, and I apologize. I guess my point was that you can't tell from a short online appearance whether a person really has faith. Either one of our impressions may be correct. I hope she really does have the faith that you saw in her.
As to the Reformed bloggers that you object to, saying they don't evidence childlike faith, I do see evidence in them of faith and love to God and to fellow believers in many of their posts. I also think that in the fight for truth, they sometimes lose perspective; or possibly that you don't understand the importance to them of the necessity to fight, and how hard it is to balance love with the fight for truth.
Jennie - the blog we've discussed has sunk even lower in recent days. They aren't trying to "balance love with the fight for truth". I don't think they even claim to do so; it's nice of you to - dare I say - impute them with that goal, but it's clear their purpose is to attack. That's it. And I could cut-and-paste about ten examples from just the past few days. I'm sorry for your friend there - to all appearances, he is obsessed with an irrational hatred. It ruins any argument he tries to make.
You well know that we who discuss with you DO understand the importance of fighting for the truth. I still maintain that if you are confident in your beliefs, you will defend them but not feel the need to attack others daily.
Denny Burk on blog comments:
I welcome blog comments, although they are often notorious for unfruitful and uncharitable discussions.
I hope this can be a place where we “seek understanding” before critiquing, where we are quick to listen and slow to speak, where we can evaluate and critique each others views charitably, where we encourage and build up each other rather than tearing down and destroying each other.
I would encourage commenters to consider carefully the following commands and principles regarding our speech:
“Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt” (Col. 4:6).
“By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned” (Matt. 12:37).
“Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor” (Rom. 12:10).
“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear” (Eph. 4:29).
Speak the truth in love (Eph. 4:15, 25).
“If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless” (James 1:26).
I meant to introduce this first - a very fine evangelical blog
http://www.dennyburk.com/
It shows how it can be done.
Christine,
Beautifully said!
No one who truly loves God can attack Mary or the Holy Father. Nor would they ever try to diminish them.
There is no need to. If one has confidence in their faith and knows what they believe and why, they are in no way threatened by other forms of worship.
It is quite narrow minded to assume that even Hindus or Muslims cannot be saved. That is the work of Jesus to decide.
"As to the Reformed bloggers that you object to, saying they don't evidence childlike faith, I do see evidence in them of faith and love to God and to fellow believers in many of their posts. "
Ummm....no.
All they do is placate and try to be nice if they think they can 'convert' someone. There is no love evident...just hatred for the Church.
Again, no one hates the Church more than Satan does. I would most certainly caution people to think seventy times seven times before ever attacking it.
Can you think of a single instance of any satanists attacking your church? How about any pro-abortionists or homosexual activists? How about any liberals at all? If not, why not?
I would ask the same thing about those bloggers' churches...
Leo asks, "If not, why not?"
I was thinking about this today. I was in a Bible study at a PCUSA church for the first time and wasn't really asked to introduce myself. So, on two occasions during the 90 minutes, Catholicism was belittled very specifically. But then the speakers caught themselves and found a way to say something kind. This is natural, isn't it? End on a positive note.
But I was wondering about the example of Balaam - how he was commissioned to curse Israel and he couldn't.
Pace Leo, what does it mean that people - albeit not prophets - can freely curse Catholics, Catholicism? Even Christ Himself?
Well, I think the issue is that Satan knows that his time is short and He hates God and His Church because he knows the power entrusted to it. The problem is that he has successfully deceived other Christians to attack it and thus weaken the body of believers.
You will find that Satan always tries to subtract. He tries to take away the Sacraments to weaken the faithful. He takes away Mary and the saints whom Jesus has given us to help us get to heaven.
Notice that in Protestant churches, they don't make the sign of the cross, thus weakening faith in a triune God. It becomes more of a 'Jesus and me' mindset as opposed to a 'family of God' mindset. It turns Christians into more loners where they never really feel the same unity that I believe comes through the Eucharist. The Nicene Creed typically gets subtracted too, so people start forgetting what they really even believe.
The Moral absolutes are lost amidst a morass of moral relativism. The Faith is stripped of its beauty. Churches begin to look like halls and garages and the sense of reverence and worship is weakened as well.
Let's not forget that the cross is a plus sign and we should not be subtracting from the Truth. I could not imagine making it without the Eucharist and Confession. I thank God constantly for those additional graces to help me to overcome my pathetic weaknesses.
I would also like to surmise that they either knew or suspected that a Catholic was with them. That is what amazes me. The Church is regularly accused of being judgmental, yet I have NEVER heard any Protestant church being attacked or belittled from the pulpit in a Catholic church. I have also never heard the faith or salvation of a Protestant being questioned.
yet I have NEVER heard any Protestant
I can't say never - I heard it once from Fr. V., but he was very old school.
they either knew or suspected that a Catholic
I was trying to make up my mind about that. If you are right, then I can only surmise that they were bullying me with the things they said. I'd rather not think that about them because I'd like to return. After all, the sign said, "All are welcome." (Sorry, couldn't resist that bit of irony).
I knew we were missing a piece about Christ's bride, the Church. She can't be fallible (although her members can).
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant bride, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.
....If he is the King of Kings (sinless, unlike the kings of Israel), then wouldn't it stand to reason that his bride the Church would be the faithful (infallible)version of the unfaithful Israel?
Christine,
I don't think it makes sense to say 'the Church can't be fallible, but her members can.' The church IS the members and is always referred to that way in Scripture, as the congregation of the saints in various locations, or as the congregation of the saints as a whole. But it is never referred to as being yet perfect, but awaiting the perfection that will come when her trials of faith are over. If you do a search of the word church, you will see this:
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=church&version1=50&searchtype=all&limit=none&wholewordsonly=no&startnumber=26&startnumber=1
You will also see in scripture that the church is not perfect, but is being perfected:
Ephesians 4:11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.
In Revelation 2 and 3, you will see that Christ warns the churches of their faults and of coming judgment and trials, and that they must repent or lose their reward and place. In Revelation 21 you see the Bride finally completed, prepared for her Husband. In your passage of Eph. 5 the perfection of the Bride is yet to be finished as well, since everyone isn't saved yet who will be, and each believer is still being perfected.
The church is not the magisterium in scripture, it is always the body of believers, and God's plan is not yet complete.
And, by the way, Mary and the Saints are a gift from God and only serve to deepen our Faith in Him. It is impossible to turn to Mary without having her give us to her Son in a most powerful way. She just happens to be the ordinary means through which the Word chose to enter the world and us to return to Him. She magnifies the Lord and makes Him more real. I know it sounds goofy, but it's true.
Leo,
Scripture never tells us to turn to Mary, and neither do any of the early church Fathers before the idea of devotion to Mary began to develop.
As I have said before, Mary is a part of the church and represents her in foreshadowing, so therefore she is a picture of how the church is to magnify Christ and to lead people to Him. We are the church if we are redeemed by Christ, and we are to take that example as our own, but are never taught in scripture to lift ourselves up (as the church) or to lift Mary up. If we exalt her, we exalt ourselves.
I see that, and the Lord tells me and shows me that I need to remove the plank from my own eye before attempting to remove the splinter I see in another's eye. We all tend to lift up idols, and sometimes our own self is the worst one. Pride has always been my worst sin, and I continually need to repent of that.
I don't think it makes sense to say 'the Church can't be fallible, but her members can'.
It makes sense in the exact same way that the writers of scripture were fallible people who wrote infallible books and letters. That wouldn't make sense either, by your reasoning. And, again, an infallible authority must have determined the canon.
The Hebrews passage doesn't indicate a fallible ever-fracturing church, but rather ONE body whose members are growing in faith and love.
The Church is her people, yes, but not that alone. It is also the "pillar and foundation of truth" - hence the sure confidence we can have in her teaching. It is also the "spotless Bride, adorned for her husband".
Scripture never tells us to turn to Mary "Behold your mother". OUR mother as we are "beloved disciples" and adopted brothers and sisters of Jesus - we can turn to our mother, of course, and she in turn says "Do whatever He tells you".
You don't interpret the verses the same way, but that doesn't invalidate our interpretation.
No one who truly loves God can attack Mary or the Holy Father. Nor would they ever try to diminish them.
Leo, that's purely an RC opinion, and carries no weight. And I haven't 'attacked Mary' but expressed that the 'Mary' of Catholicism isn't the Mary of the Bible, and that Mary shouldn't be exalted the way the RCC exalts her.
There is no need to. If one has confidence in their faith and knows what they believe and why, they are in no way threatened by other forms of worship.
People who see a contradiction between RCC teaching and that of scripture, such as those who convert out of it or those like me whose family revert, have a reason to see a threat, not to themselves but to those they care about.
It is quite narrow minded to assume that even Hindus or Muslims cannot be saved. That is the work of Jesus to decide.
Certainly Hindus and Muslims can be saved, but they must turn to Christ, repent of their sins, and leave their false gods.
Can you think of a single instance of any satanists attacking your church? How about any pro-abortionists or homosexual activists? How about any liberals at all? If not, why not?
Leo,
my church consists of about 10 families. It's not a monolithic worldwide organization. What big enemy organization is going to come and attack a tiny church that quietly works in a small town?
I don't know what Satanists or liberals, etc. may be doing on a national level, or if they protest at Baptist seminaries and colleges or not. Maybe they do. Here, I looked it up:
http://www.baptistpillar.com/bd0204.htm
http://www.baptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=13592
http://www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-38855.html
http://www.bpnews.net/printerfriendly.asp?ID=5920
http://www.conservapedia.com/Hamilton_Square_Baptist_Church_Riot
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/111008dnmetprotest.1976e1397.html
Here's one of Christians, including Catholics and Baptists, protesting Satanists: http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9027172
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/3079/121/
what does it mean that people - albeit not prophets - can freely curse Catholics, Catholicism? Even Christ Himself?
Non-Christians of all kinds curse Christ and Christians all the time without any thought and without being prevented. Balaam couldn't do it because he was a prophet, as you said, and was therefore speaking for God, not for himself. He was not able to do it because God wouldn't let him.
I was in a Bible study at a PCUSA church for the first time and wasn't really asked to introduce myself. So, on two occasions during the 90 minutes, Catholicism was belittled very specifically.
Teresa,
I go to a Baptist church, as you know, and I hardly ever hear anything negative said about the Catholic church, nor anything said at all about it, actually. Most people come from different backgrounds, not all are lifelong Baptists, and some members have a rather ecumencal view.
I wonder that you continue to attend these classes, since I've several times seen you express a mild contempt for the attitudes of the people there.
Christine,
thanks for sharing the commenting guidelines from Denny Burke's blog. I think he gives very good advice on getting along with each other. I'll check out his blog some more.
That's a good sign, because it shows that they are speaking truths there...
"Leo, that's purely an RC opinion, and carries no weight. And I haven't 'attacked Mary"
Okay, you did not specifically attack her, but you did attack the Holy Fathers and the Church, so you did indirectly attack her. In fact, you attacked Christ when you attacked the Church.
And, I would hope that it weren't just a 'Roman Catholic opinion'. We would never think of attacking a congregation that had believers in membership. You also made Mary out to basically be no more special than say, you or any other woman.
The point is that you should consider getting off of your 'attack the Church' pedestal and realize that perhaps we really do worship and that we really are working towards the same goals.
Consider that, just perhaps, scripture alone was never intended by God. Consider also, that perhaps there really are Sacraments instituted by God. Certainly, I would guess that you would not bet your life or the lives of your children on the stance that the Catholic Church really is not the one founded by and protected by Jesus Christ.
There should be at least a fraction of a percent of doubt. If there is, then attacking the Church has at least a modicum of risk. We, like your brother, are not idiots and we are not simply deceived. That, I WILL stake my life on...In fact, when I say 'Amen' to the Eucharist, I am willing to give my life for the eternal Truth that it is Jesus Christ whom I am receiving.
since I've several times seen you express a mild contempt for the attitudes of the people there.
Well, that's why, I'm trying to learn to love them. I can't change them; I can only change myself.
But not every group has been a challenge - one I joined this fall, Community Bible Study (CBS), has been absolutely wonderful - I feel really blessed by them. But they have a written policy about not denigrating other groups.
Post a Comment