Exactly HOW is Catholic not Christian?

[mommaduck]

ahhh I see.

yes, that woudl be more correct.

I thought you were going down the road of saying the bread and wine nothing more than a community sharing of crackers and juice theory.

 

a resounding no to that view.:D

Ditto!

[Peek a Boo]

as an offshoot, are there Jewish sects that aren't recognized as "real Jews" or Muslim sects that aren't recognized as "real Muslims"?

 

and ftr, I do regard every sect of Christianity as "Christian." I do believe that one can have a misunderstanding of a portion of scripture and still be a saved Christian. many Christian denominations consider agreement in matters of doctrine to be vital tho.

[Spy Car]

as an offshoot, are there Jewish sects that aren't recognized as "real Jews" or Muslim sects that aren't recognized as "real Muslims"?

 

 

Troublemaker :glare::D

 

Short answer? You bet!

[HRAAB]

as an offshoot, are there Jewish sects that aren't recognized as "real Jews" or Muslim sects that aren't recognized as "real Muslims"?

 

and ftr, I do regard every sect of Christianity as "Christian." I do believe that one can have a misunderstanding of a portion of scripture and still be a saved Christian. many Christian denominations consider agreement in matters of doctrine to be vital tho.

 

This ties in with a question I asked previously, but didn't follow through on - or I didn't understand the answer. Who gets to decide whether a person misunderstands a portion of Scripture? Or do you believe that is something we won't know until the hereafter? Then we'll find out, "Oh, I had that wrong all along." Is there a standard here on earth to measure our understanding of Scripture against?

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

This ties in with a question I asked previously, but didn't follow through on - or I didn't understand the answer. Who gets to decide whether a person misunderstands a portion of Scripture? Or do you believe that is something we won't know until the hereafter? Then we'll find out, "Oh, I had that wrong all along." Is there a standard here on earth to measure our understanding of Scripture against?

 

Janet

 

who gets to decide? um, God?

 

I believe it's something we won't know till the hereafter, cuz, well, we aren't God :).

 

I think the "standard" here on earth is the Holy Spirit. Nobody has a monopoly on that either ;)

 

But i don't think that EVERY person in every sect of Christianity is automatically saved either.

 

and Bill-

no, not to do some trouble maker post [i'll do that later ;)] but to point back to the big picture: everyone has different standards for worship, not just Christians :).

 

It kinda goes back to something i said earlier about most complicated problems really only having a few basic principals at their core: people WILL disagree w/ each other, so why do we continue to be shocked about disagreement??

 

I do, however, like how Audrey phrased it: discussing the HOW and WHY. We had a pretty good HOW and WHY thread going w/ the Muslim discussion too. :)

 

But many of these kinds of questions can be answered on a wiki search.

[Michele B]

Catholics measure against what is catholic: what has been believed in all places, in all times, by all people. If your interpretation of scripture conflicts with what appears to be the consistent interpretation of 2000 years, you need to rethink your position. The faith was "once delivered." The Faith does not change. Languages may change, practices may change, points may be further defined or clarified, but the essentials of the Faith do not change. You have 2000 years of Holy Tradition to measure up against. It is not necessary for Christians to re-invent the wheel. The idea that your faith and worship must be relevant and contemporary are in opposition to the One you are worshipping Who is outside of time. Catholics, both Eastern and Western, believe that at mass we are entering into the timeless worship of heaven.

I mentioned earlier that St Augustine's writings do not always measure up to Holy Tradition and therefore are not revelation. People get things wrong. And those things stand out like a sore thumb against the tapestry of 2000 years. If Polycarp learned the Faith from the Disciple John and then Polycarp passed it on to I forget the name, I think what is revealed in those writings carry more authority than someone writing 1500 years later. I want to worship God. I don't have the brains or time to re-invent Christianity. I need absolutes.

[KarenNC]

as an offshoot, are there Jewish sects that aren't recognized as "real Jews" or Muslim sects that aren't recognized as "real Muslims"?

 

For Jews specifically it is complicated because it is not just about religion, it is also about ethnicity and tied up with who is entitled to aliyah (immigration to Israel) and who is not. First you have to clarify "Jewish in what sense" then get down to the factions. Lots of questions: can the child of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother be considered a Jew without the child going through a conversion (for some groups, yes, for some, no it only comes through the mother), what constitutes a "legitimate" conversion (this varies among groups), what if you were born Jewish (of a Jewish mother) but don't practice the religion, etc.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Who_is_a_Jew/id/1995274 will give an idea.

 

I believe there is a difference of opinion on whether followers of the Nation of Islam (who I think refer to themselves as Muslim) are actually the same as other Muslims, but I don't know a lot about it. There's also the difference between Shi'ite and Sunni http://hnn.us/articles/934.html and other groups, but this is probably best discussed by someone more familiar with Islam than I am.

 

This sort of defining who is part of the "in-group" and who is not is common to all groups involving human beings and no religion that I know of is immune to it. Even tiny groups like Hellenic Paganism have factions---which is "true" Hellenism---reconstructionists or revivalists and what about those who do thus and so--can they *really* be "true" Hellenic Pagans?;)

[chaik76]

I guess you will have to have someone who is Orthodox weigh in on this. I do not know if, for example, the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches are ultimately the same or if there are differences beyond just language.

They're the same. (I'm Orthodox if that helps).

[chaik76]

Us, too. Unfortunately, happens to a lot of us for a lot of varied reasons. Have to say that Neopagan Unitarian Universalists aren't usually welcomed with wide open arms (much less understood) in many homeschooling circles in the South. As for folks having odd conceptions about what we do and believe.............;)

Ugh! Sorry about that. It drives me batty...sure it does you, too! And fwiw, I would be perfectly happy to welcome you with open arms!

[melissel]

None of this was ever widespread nor was it doctrinal, though it may have been the case where you lived.

 

I am totally butting in here, but really?! That's how it was when (and where, I suppose--New Jersey) I was raised as well, and 9 years ago when DH and I were getting married, we attempted to do so in the Catholic church. I was never confirmed, so we were given all sorts of lectures and there was no way they would marry us without my taking weeks worth of classes, etc.

 

I am amazed to find that was neither doctrine nor widespread. I always thought that was just how it was!

[cathmom]

I am totally butting in here, but really?! That's how it was when (and where, I suppose--New Jersey) I was raised as well, and 9 years ago when DH and I were getting married, we attempted to do so in the Catholic church. I was never confirmed, so we were given all sorts of lectures and there was no way they would marry us without my taking weeks worth of classes, etc.

 

I am amazed to find that was neither doctrine nor widespread. I always thought that was just how it was!

 

Nobody gets married in the Catholic Church without taking weeks worth of classes or doing a weekend retreat and meeting with their priest several times, whether they've been confirmed or not.

[melissel]

Nobody gets married in the Catholic Church without taking weeks worth of classes or doing a weekend retreat and meeting with their priest several times, whether they've been confirmed or not.

 

Really? See, now that's not the norm around here. The meeting with the priest is, at least once (probably more often), but I know Catholics who haven't had to do weeks of classes (though maybe a weekend thing, I'd never heard of that). Interesting. Thanks!

[Murphy101]

I am totally butting in here, but really?! That's how it was when (and where, I suppose--New Jersey) I was raised as well, and 9 years ago when DH and I were getting married, we attempted to do so in the Catholic church. I was never confirmed, so we were given all sorts of lectures and there was no way they would marry us without my taking weeks worth of classes, etc.

 

I am amazed to find that was neither doctrine nor widespread. I always thought that was just how it was!

 

yes. it makes perfect sense that if a priest was offering you a holy sacrament (i.e. marriage) he would require you to be confrimed in the church and to be aware of what it means to both be catholic and to have the sacrament of marriage.

 

Really? See, now that's not the norm around here. The meeting with the priest is, at least once (probably more often), but I know Catholics who haven't had to do weeks of classes (though maybe a weekend thing, I'd never heard of that). Interesting. Thanks!

 

yes. well it depends on their situation too.

for example, were they confirmed?

are they marrying a confirmed catholic?

are they an active member of the parish?

does the priest personally know of their situation and feel confident of their awareness of what this sacrament entails?

and of course...

did they go priest shopping until they found one that would tell them what they wanted to hear?:glare:

(I'd like to say they'd never find one or that they'd never do that, but unfortunately that isn't the case - there's some faulty apples in the barrel)

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

They're the same. (I'm Orthodox if that helps).

 

Thank you, I became a bit confused when the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches effectively excommunicated each other.

[Greta]

those who explained and clarified the Catholic faith. I learned a lot, and appreciate you taking the time to help educate the ignorant (speaking only of myself here, not accusing anyone else of ignorance!). Martha, I especially appreciate your explanation of Tradition. That made perfect sense to me.

 

(Should probably note that I'm saying all of this from the perspective of someone who was raised in a Protestant religion, and who is woefully ignorant of other Christian faiths, and other monotheistic faiths for that matter. As an adult, I've focused more on Eastern religions, so I've remained pretty uneducated on these matters. These boards have been quite eye-opening for me! I love that we can have these kinds of dialogs.)

[bkpan]

I also came from an evangelical background that had a great deal of ignorance in their understanding of Catholicism. Used to drive me nuts! My dh is a former Catholic and once his parents visited our evangelical church at the time. They attended Sunday School with us and one of our friends actually said out loud her belief that Catholics werent really Christians, and my in-laws were sitting right there!:crying: (I was so upset with her!)

 

I just wanted to say that the Catholics in this thread have done a wonderful job in defending their Church with humility and grace. I am a convert to Orthodoxy, and I hope that I can grow more articulate in expressing the depths of mystery to be found in the Church.

 

There is a fullness to the Faith that takes more than a lifetime to explore!

 

Kim

[calandalsmom]

Most catholioc couples do either Engaged Encounter or something like pre- Cana with a "test" called the PMI which is nothing more than an inventory of your values and ideals. My inlaws have been a teaching couple for years and have worked with hundreds of couples.

 

My sil and bil did the Engaged Encounter weekend and got a lot out of it.

[Academy of Jedi Arts]

I also came from an evangelical background that had a great deal of ignorance in their understanding of Catholicism. Used to drive me nuts! My dh is a former Catholic and once his parents visited our evangelical church at the time. They attended Sunday School with us and one of our friends actually said out loud her belief that Catholics werent really Christians, and my in-laws were sitting right there!:crying: (I was so upset with her!)

 

The very first time I ever went to my husband's church was on Easter, at which time the pastor made a comment from the pulpit about how Unitarians and others were not able to appreciate the beauty of Easter.

 

I never set foot back in that church until they got a new minister, who I asked about his feelings on other forms of religion before I would agree to attend again.

[Peek a Boo]

The very first time I ever went to my husband's church was on Easter, at which time the pastor made a comment from the pulpit about how Unitarians and others were not able to appreciate the beauty of Easter.

 

I never set foot back in that church until they got a new minister, who I asked about his feelings on other forms of religion before I would agree to attend again.

 

similar experience:

a converted Muslim pastor was announcing his ESL program and seeking volunteers at the Lutheran church we were attending His biggest point? That the seventh day Adventists down the road had one already, and people were going there, becoming members of THAT church, and would go to hell.

Not one person in the congregation called him on that.

I was speechless [for once], but once i got my jaw off the floor i figgered this church needed a bit more shaking up so I continued to attend and mention [several times] my displeasure w/ that. They haven't kicked me out yet. ;)

[Nestof3]

oh Laura :grouphug::grouphug:

It appears to me that you are having a rough time of it these days.

I can sympathize with that entirely having a few of my own.

 

I do see where you are comming from, but this conversation has been entirely unusually civil so far.

 

And as difficult as it is to presume charitibly of others at times, I feel compelled to answer honestly and candidly the thoughtful questions of these others. Not so much to defend my own faith. But for the sake of clarity and kindness towards their curiosity of my God and His Church. I harbor no delusions that they will read my posts and sudden come to enlightenment of mind or sentiment. But neither do I think most of these posters are reading my posts with the goal of changing my faith either. And maybe if they meet me they will see nothing more than a woman doing her best same as them rather than a non-believer on the fast track to idoltry driven hell. (said somewhat tongue in cheek)

 

 

 

awesome question! the answer is in every. single. part. of. it.

 

In all the sacraments The blessed Trinity and Christ are intergral both in the graces received, the symbolism, and the words used.

 

These things are not done outside of our belief in Jesus, they are done as a part of belief in Jesus.

 

 

 

the first part I agree with. anyone who doesn't believe in Tradition shouldn't believe in the bible. tradition came first.

 

the 2nd part is in error.

the bread and the wine become the blood and body of christ sacrified for our sakes.

when we partake of that sacrifice, we take in Christ

 

 

 

 

well now that is a can of worms LOL

 

from the RC perspectice, the Church did not split and cannot split.

some sects of the fold just aren't quite as attached as we'd prefer.

we still claim them even though they do not claim us.

 

 

 

again.. saved from what?! my oldest was in 1st grade when this came up. scared the poo out of him. he couldn't figure out what was comming but he figured if only Jesus coudl help him then it must be the biggest, badest monster ever. poor kids was picturing hundreds of people runnign for their lives hoping ot be "saved".:glare:

 

 

 

by that logic my children should just never read a history book or take anything from our family customs, because it's all a waste?

 

again, I say if you cannot find value in Traditions, then you cannot reasonably find value int he bible. The Traditions came before the bible and led up to it's creation. NOT the other way around.

 

 

 

those in leadership were highly likely the only ones that could read at all.

and the church was responsible for nearly all education advances in the middle ages. It was the Church that offerred medical care, schools, and much more.

 

 

 

We do pray directly to God.

someone else already noted the priest is a proxy in confession.

May was just some chick off the street eh?:001_huh:

No Jesus didn't worship her and neither do we.

However, I don't think God would pick just any random broad to give birth to and raise the messiah, the son of God, the 2nd person of the blessed trinity!

Mary is reverred because she was the mother of Christ.

Because she was someone special for God to chose her.

Because she could have said "no" and not carried that baby.

Because it took someone of amazing faith in God to not only say yes, but to even be chosen.

 

She's not a God to be worshiped.

But Jesus did listen to her, scripture does support that. (the wedding of Cana cmes to mind)

So we might ask Mary to take our plea to her Son and speak on our behalf.

 

 

 

no we're not.

a saint is simply someone who is in heaven.

none of us are in heaven, much less all of us.

 

 

 

such as?

 

 

 

that is not the same as saying it is wrong to do so either.

and the church doesn't say anyone has to pray to saints either

it's simply an acceptable option.

 

 

 

In the new testament, it is clear that there is a set system of heirachry already. It is not a free for all of everyone doing their own thing. No, the apostles take on leadership and appoint others to answer to them and so forth.

In fact, in more than one letter, an apostle chasitizes those who are not obeying him or another apostle or those they have sent to lead a church. And much of the letters deal with those lower in leadership asking the apostles how best to proceed rather than making their own decisions. Some of the letters are rather heated on these points even!

 

ug. must get house clean for exterminators tomorrow, and educate some kids!

 

interesting discussion folks!

 

Martha, honestly I just cannot reply to many of the things in this post because we clearly interpret Scripture very differently.

 

Regarding traditions, it's not that I see no value, it's just that I try to follow the traditions instituted by Christ and his apostles. An example is the remembrance with wine/bread.

 

In Canna, Mary was a mother asking her son to do something she knew he was capable of doing. I just don't stretch to seeing her as someone to bring my prayers to Jesus as if I would have a better chance of having my prayer answered because it was His mother asking. I pray to the Father, and yes, I ask those in my life to pray for me.

 

The word translated as saint in the New Testament is the word I refer to. I am not speaking of your tradition of assigning titles to special people. This is an example of tradition not based on Scripture.

 

There are many practices within Protestant faiths that I have come to question as well. I have no specific issue with the Catholic Church. I honestly try to continue to read and apply Biblical truths. And, just because a group of people cannonized books and letters into Scripture doesn't mean they had their practice all right. I think for all Christians, there should be a pressing in, a reading and rereading of the Bible. I certainly do not have all of the answers -- I don't think any person on this other than Christ Himself has ever had all of the answers. But, I continue to seek, to question, to ask God to open my eyes to His truths.

[Carol in Cal.]

I can never quite wrap my head around it.

 

Yes, I am aware that officially Catholics do not pray to the saints, but merely ask the saints to pray for them. OTOH, at any Catholic bookstore I have ever seen (probably about 8 or so), there are prayers to saints on little cards, and they are either 'thank you for doing this for me'-type prayers or 'please do this other thing for me'-type prayers. Every cradle Catholic I know (many, many people!) has specific saints to ask for specific things, and they are most emphatically not asking them to ask God. They are asking them to take care of things themselves. I can think of many, many examples.

 

Then Catholics who are aware of their church's official teaching get mad when someone says that Catholics pray to saints, because they are not really supposed to do that. But why isn't the church teaching this, clearly and plainly, to its parishioners, if that distinction is so clear and plain in their doctrine? It just doesn't make any sense. I would have a lot more respect for that argument if Catholics would either concede that their church historically has not done a good job of teaching consistently, or concede that their official teaching has changed with modern times. Seems like one or both of those must be true, and denying this really throws overall credibility into question.

[Michele B]

I'm not quite sure. I know we don't worship saints. And I know we ask for intercession, but I am not sure about the other things you mention. I don't get mad if someone says I pray to a saint. Pray means ask. I just like to clarify that I know the difference between God and a saint and what is due each one. ;)

[mommaduck]

I do have to admit that the variation in the Catholic church is something that I cannot wrap my mind around fully either. Especially when there is a diocese that many in the Catholic church call it neigh unto heretical and yet there is no church discipline?

[Nestof3]

Quote:

The Catholic church has set up positions that are not Biblical according to the New Testament.

such as?

 

 

like Pope and Priest. If you've read many of my posts about Protestant denominations, you know I also question a ,lot of their titles -- Minister, Reverend, etc.

 

Please understand that I am not questioning your Christianity -- I just question much about Christianity -- Protestant or Catholic.

[Nestof3]

Yes Mary is the most often cited saint. And I am not saying that there are not and have never been people who worshipped Mary in either their ignorance or perversion. But it is forbidden by the Catholic Church.

 

Mary holds a special place in the life of the Church. She is seen as the Queen of the Angels and the Queen of Heaven. Yes, I can imagine your reaction to those titles!;) I have to plead Holy Tradition!:lol:

 

 

For Biblical support, one looks in several places. When Jesus looks down from the Cross at Saint john and says "Behold your mother," this has been read to mean that St John is the Church and Mary is the Mother of the Church (as well as, take care of her because there is no one else.) Also going back the old testament. The Queen mother (mother of the King) holds a special place in ancient times. Bathsheba goes before her son's throne with intercession. Mary is the mother of the true King. St. Augustine: "The New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old is unveiled in the New." She is also seen as the Ark of the Covenant, because she contained within her body the Word of God (10 command.) and the Bread of Life (manna/Jesus).

 

There is a biblical method to our madness!;)

 

1 Kings 2:19 So Bathsheba (queen mother) went to King Solomon (on the throne of david) to speak to him on behalf of Adonijah. (intercession) And the king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and had a seat brought for the king's mother; and she sat on his right." Here is a biblical example of how the one sitting on the throne of David treats his mother.

 

Thanks for sharing all of this. You're right -- I am bewildered by all of the traditional titles and understandings of things -- even down the the explanation of "Behold your mother."

[Peek a Boo]

May was just some chick off the street eh?:001_huh:

No Jesus didn't worship her and neither do we.

However, I don't think God would pick just any random broad to give birth to and raise the messiah, the son of God, the 2nd person of the blessed trinity!

Mary is reverred because she was the mother of Christ.

Because she was someone special for God to chose her.

Because she could have said "no" and not carried that baby.

Because it took someone of amazing faith in God to not only say yes, but to even be chosen.

 

She's not a God to be worshiped.

But Jesus did listen to her, scripture does support that. (the wedding of Cana cmes to mind)

So we might ask Mary to take our plea to her Son and speak on our behalf.

 

 

{{coming in late and i still haven't read the whole thread}}

 

well.....

God has a history of qualifying the called, not calling the qualified.

There's also ample history of God's chosen being fallible people and messing up in big ways. That does not detract from God's Calling tho - it only amplifies that He is Sufficient.

many people have said Yes to God and fulfilled important parts of God's Plan.

We have an entire chapter of heroes of amazing faith in Hebrews.

God listened to Joshua and manipulated the sun.

I don't find scriptural support for needing -or allowing- anyone other than Christ to speak on our behalf.

But i'll yak it up w/ chris later on... ;)

 

And i still stand behind my previous statement about Who is Christian. :)

[Michele B]

Carol,

 

Something like this?

 

 

Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And you, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

This prayer definitely shows where Michael gets his power (God). But it does begin with an invocation to defend us. That is one of his jobs. We see that clearly in the Old Testament (I think I am thinking of the Book of Daniel) where Michael is the defender of Israel.

 

 

Pope means "papa."

 

It is difficult to read the early church fathers and not find evidence and support for the priesthood. It may be unclear in the New Testament, but the early church takes the priesthood as a given.

[Peek a Boo]

For Biblical support, one looks in several places. .....

 

There is a biblical method to our madness!;)

 

 

and yes, i realize that the Catholic Church considers this Biblical support.

I simply disagree.

:D

[Michele B]

Please believe me when I tell you I converted to catholicism (I can't even spell it) kicking and screaming. :D I was raised Old School Southern Baptist - no drinking, no dancing, no Catholics! :D I have asked my fair share of "why in the @#$?? do catholics do that?" questions, and I was not as civil as the posters on this thread! I am not trying to gain converts, just clarify honest questions. (And I might answer them incorrectly :glare:)

[Nestof3]

Dawn, honey, I'm using your post as a springboard to share my own questions and confusions - and the impressions that I, as an ignorant outsider, have gotten from this and previous discussions. I chose your post, not to pick on you, but because you are, as always, so intelligent and articulate here - and so well grounded in your faith and your Bible.

 

Thank you, but I have to admit I feel somewhat shamed even hearing you say so because I still have so many things I don't even understand.

 

I know we are unlikely to agree on this - our theological perspectives are so radically different - but I would appreciate hearing more about how you see things.

 

 

 

I'm including this because I think it is an important context for the rest of your post - and because I think you are making an important distinction that gets to the heart of the most painful part of this disagreement. I think it is significant (and wonderful of you!) that you preface your explanation of the ways in which you feel Catholic practice/tradition is extra-Biblical (also significant phrasing as opposed to *un*-Biblical) with the clarification that that does not mean you are denying their status as fellow-Xtians. I think that changes the entire tenor of the discussion (in a very positive way). Kol hakavod (lit all honor) to you for your courtesy and grace.

 

 

 

 

Okay, this is the part that confuses me. As I understood it, every Xtian denomination has traditions of interpretation and observance. I thought than in the past when I've been confused about how y'all choose which Torah prohibitions you consider binding and which you do not that I'd been told that there are traditions about that - about why male-male intimacy is prohibited but wool-linen mixtures in your garments are not (and how y'all derive a prohibition for female-female relationships for that matter). About why the ten commandments seem relevant to you, but not the part about keeping Shabbos. In general about where the distinction I've heard about ritual versus moral laws (not a distinction I see in my Text) comes from and how y'all sort out which are which.

 

This is one of those issues I am not even totally settled on. Others include predestination/free will. I could go on. I can say that I do look at how Jesus applied the Law and how he elaborated on it. I don't have this all figured out, but if you will forgive the ambiguity, I will say it has something to do with the original purpose of the Law and Jesus' fulfillment of it. For example, Jesus told the Pharisees that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He also said that we were told not to commit adultery, but He says lusting IS committing it. There is also a distinction between Jews and Gentiles and law requirements -- an example would be circumcision. I'm probably not making much sense.

 

 

...and, again aiui, the source for the text you use is also a matter of human tradition (it was the Anshei Knesses Hagedola (lit. the Men of Great Assembly) who made the decisions about the final additions to Tanakh - which included Trei Asar (12 'minor' prophets), Esther, and Daniel - all of which are included, as far as I know, in Xtian Bibles as well. Aiui, the decisions about the composition of the "New" Testament were made based on human traditions as well... as none of those writings are contemporary with Jesus, as I understand the tradition, they were not chosen by him, but by men.)

 

I don't like discussing this much because again, I don't have this all figured out, but I did post some of this in another thread -- I cannot remember which one. I don't personally think when Paul referred to Scripture being God-breathed that he was referring to his own letters. I do find his letters to be true application of what Jesus taught and highly beneficial as they show how the church should function and such, but I am not sure I can say they are God-breathed. This is practically sacrilegious to the Protestant faith. Again, I am sorting these things out.

 

I figure that regardless of how many questions I have, there is enough I am convinced of to keep me busy in my walk on this earth. My life goal is to walk in a manner worthy of His calling -- in all things. I am not required to know all about the workings of my Father -- thankfully. :)

 

 

But surely we can agree that those who have deeply studied a text - sacred or secular - especially those who are steeped in the traditions of interpreting that text have a level of insight different than those who come at it with no background or experience? [To be clear: Jewish hashkafa (philosophy) doesn't fall clearly on to either end of the spectrum on this. We've always stressed the importance of Torah study for every individual, and that there are no intermediaries in our relationship with HaKadosh Baruch Hu*, but we also hold, very strongly, that individuals may not pasken (make Halachic rulings) without a certain level of knowledge/training/background - over simplifying here so I don't hijack my own post)]

 

Yes, I agree -- but I have also seen those in leadership positions who have done years of seminary very locked in traditions and refusing to consider/study alternate views of things. I think we are all called to a deep study of Scripture, and the Holy Spirit will guide us as well. Again, I have discussed the Protestant traditions of seminary and church organization as well many times on this forum -- particularly when people ask about house churches. My understanding of these issues comes from primarily Paul's letters to the various churches.

 

Since we don't have contemporary writings, perhaps it was mentioned... it seems to me that given the gap between your leader's death and the creation of the religion based on reports of his teachings, that if you throw out human tradition and passed on understandings/interpretations, that you are throwing out the religion itself... but, as you know (and can see from this post) I am woefully ignorant on this subject...

 

I think there may be things we do not know because they were not placed in the Cannon, and I don't intend to throw out traditions. I merely wish to separate the early writings from latter traditions -- I wish to make sure I do something because it's truth, not just because people do it. I hope that makes sense. Paul wrote his letters to the churches very soon after Jesus died, so I do tend to trust his instructions more than those which came into being hundreds of years later.

 

 

...but, aiui, they hold that those positions are based on recieved tradition - which is the source for the New Testament text itself, isn't it? ...and without sources to document the validity of either position, it seems a difference in belief/interpretation rather than the clear-cut distinction you are making above.

 

Yes, the Canonization did come through tradition, but the words in the volume are what I focus on. For example, when considering church leadership, I read what Jesus said and I read the letters giving instructions for how to set up the churches. I don't look at how the church was set up during the Canonization.

 

I am sure I have not adequately answered you, and I'm sorry for that.

[Nestof3]

Carol,

 

Something like this?

 

 

Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And you, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

This prayer definitely shows where Michael gets his power (God). But it does begin with an invocation to defend us. That is one of his jobs. We see that clearly in the Old Testament (I think I am thinking of the Book of Daniel) where Michael is the defender of Israel.

 

 

Pope means "papa."

 

It is difficult to read the early church fathers and not find evidence and support for the priesthood. It may be unclear in the New Testament, but the early church takes the priesthood as a given.

 

Paul's instructions come much sooner than the early church you refer to, and he does not mention it at all. I think these sorts of leadership positions are a natural inclination of man.

 

And, God the Father is the only father I have outside of my biological one.

[Carol in Cal.]

Carol,

 

Something like this?

 

 

Saint Michael, Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. And you, Prince of the heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into Hell Satan and the other evil spirits who prowl the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

 

 

 

Yes, maybe...or the ones to St. Jude asking him to help them find something. Or to Mary, asking her to let them right into heaven on the Saturday after they die.

 

To me, the prayer above to St. Michael is actually asking him to be our defense, when it's more appropriate to ask God Himself. And it kind of mixes the two in the third sentence in that we are then praying to St. Michael that God would rebuke the devil. I call this sycreticism, and it is forbidden, I think. It is NOT asking Michael to ask God to rebuke the devil, by any standard of grammer that I know.

 

There is, of course, a larger issue, which is whether the saints pay attention to or even are hear us. It seems to me that in Revelation the saints' attention is completely on God. I can't imagine then being able to concentrate to us. And there is no Biblical evidence that I can think of for them hearing us.

[mommaduck]

Paul's instructions come much sooner than the early church you refer to, and he does not mention it at all. I think these sorts of leadership positions are a natural inclination of man.

 

And, God the Father is the only father I have outside of my biological one.

So you believe that everything was wrong between the Apostles and the Reformation?

[Michele B]

We disagree on authority. I think we all would agree the Holy Spirit leads us to Truth, but we disagree on how the Spirit is discerned.

When I read the New Testament in the context of the early church which preserved those letter and teachings, I see priesthood. When Jesus breathed on them, gave them authority to bind and loose... But I know those of the Protestant faith interpret that differently.

 

I don't know if these links will work, but they should be links to the writings of Ignatius. He and Polycarp, I believe, were said to have heard the faith from the Beloved Disciple John. So if things went wrong, they must have done so very quickly. Click on the name of the letter.

 

 

• the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philadelphians 3)
  
• the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Introduction to Philadelphians; Ephesians 6)
  
• the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magnesians 6)
  
• *****the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magnesians 6 and 13; Smyrnæans 8; Trallians 3)
  
• the unity of the Church (Trallians 6; Philadelphians 3; Magnesians 13)
  
• the holiness of the Church (Smyrnæans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians and Romans)
  
• the catholicity of the Church (Smyrnæans 8); the infallibility of the Church (Philadelphians 3; Ephesians 16-17)
  
• ******the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrnæans 8), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrnæans 8, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians
  
• the Incarnation (Ephesians 18); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polycarp 5)
  
• the religious character of matrimony (Polycarp 5)
  
• the value of united prayer (Ephesians 13)
  
• the primacy of the See of Rome (Introduction to Romans 13)
  

 

Edited April 27, 2009 by Michele B
clarification

[HRAAB]

Can one of your more knowledgeable (Bible knowledge) ladies reference Scripture where it teaches 'Sola Scripture'. I know it won't say Sola Scriptura, but where that is implicitly stated.

 

Thank you.

 

Janet

[Murphy101]

Martha, honestly I just cannot reply to many of the things in this post because we clearly interpret Scripture very differently.

 

well if it helps - I am not interpreting scripture at all. I am telling you what my religion/faith says of that scripture. I happen to agree with it.

 

Regarding traditions, it's not that I see no value, it's just that I try to follow the traditions instituted by Christ and his apostles. An example is the remembrance with wine/bread.

 

A catholic would agree! Can you find one that is not instituted by Christ insome way?

 

In Canna, Mary was a mother asking her son to do something she knew he was capable of doing. I just don't stretch to seeing her as someone to bring my prayers to Jesus as if I would have a better chance of having my prayer answered because it was His mother asking. I pray to the Father, and yes, I ask those in my life to pray for me.

 

what is the difference? to us, the BVM is just as alive as you are. And far more likely to be in God's good graces than either of us. ;) So why wouldn't I sit here with a screaming baby and offer a plea to Mary to help me in whatever she can to raise my children as she raised christ?

 

The word translated as saint in the New Testament is the word I refer to. I am not speaking of your tradition of assigning titles to special people. This is an example of tradition not based on Scripture.

 

okay... have to take a phone a friend moment....

 

okay friend says we've got a couple issues going here...

 

#1 you previously said that all believers are saints? no so. even Satan is a believer. I wouldn't call him a saint though

 

#2 the particuliar use of the word you refer to is used for the holy ones, which meant those belonging to God - such as the apostles.

 

#3 yes, those in the body of christ are saints, and over time/Tradition has set aside that term to specificly refer to those of the body of Christ in heaven.

 

I continue to seek, to question, to ask God to open my eyes to His truths.

 

wonderful. as should we all.:)

 

Yes, I am aware that officially Catholics do not pray to the saints, but merely ask the saints to pray for them. OTOH, at any Catholic bookstore I have ever seen (probably about 8 or so), there are prayers to saints on little cards, and they are either 'thank you for doing this for me'-type prayers or 'please do this other thing for me'-type prayers. Every cradle Catholic I know (many, many people!) has specific saints to ask for specific things, and they are most emphatically not asking them to ask God. They are asking them to take care of things themselves.

 

again. prayer = conversation, not worship.

 

let me put it this way.

 

if you ask your sister to pray for you - are you asking her to do it for you? Or are you expecting that she will discuss it with God? if it works out, do you think she personally did it? Or at worst, do you simply think God used her to work His will for you?

 

Let's use St. Anthony as an example. He is often asked to interceed for lost items.

 

So I loose my keys.

and I offer up a quick, "St. Anthony help me find my keys please!"

and low and behold I find my keys in my pocket (quit laughing like it never happened to you!)

now. Even if St. Anthony's spirit did put those keys in my pocket, he only did it because God (who he and I answer to) allowed him to do that for me.

 

Then Catholics who are aware of their church's official teaching get mad when someone says that Catholics pray to saints, because they are not really supposed to do that. But why isn't the church teaching this, clearly and plainly, to its parishioners, if that distinction is so clear and plain in their doctrine? It just doesn't make any sense. I would have a lot more respect for that argument if Catholics would either concede that their church historically has not done a good job of teaching consistently, or concede that their official teaching has changed with modern times. Seems like one or both of those must be true, and denying this really throws overall credibility into question.

 

hmmm

how about a 3rd option?

historicly people tend to get lazy in their faith formation and they do not seek nor listen to what they are taught?

 

I am a convert. Was not particuliarly christian in upbringing or persuasion prior to my conversion.

 

Yet, there was so much readily available for me to learn my faith that I admit my biggest gripe are those of my own faith who make so little effort to know these things.

 

I can honestly say that at least in my area, the only reason someone doesn't know their Catholic faith is a lack of effort.

 

With internet access, I can't imagine how they can't find answers.

 

Especially when there is a diocese that many in the Catholic church call it neigh unto heretical and yet there is no church discipline?

 

yes. a thorny issue that.

how would you suggest they be disciplined?

it is public knowledge that they have been marked as in error and at risk of excommunication or actually in a state of excommunication

 

I too wish the Church would do more.

In the past, I'd say harsher discipline wasn't taken because of deep sorrow.

Honestly, it is no differrent than your child disowning you. How do you discilpine that?

 

like Pope and Priest. If you've read many of my posts about Protestant denominations, you know I also question a ,lot of their titles -- Minister, Reverend, etc.

 

Please understand that I am not questioning your Christianity -- I just question much about Christianity -- Protestant or Catholic.

 

do you question the use of any title?

or the notion of a hierarchy of leadership entirely?

 

Jesus said he would build his church on Peter, setting Peter aside to lead the other apostles...

[TXMomof4]

Martha, honestly I just cannot reply to many of the things in this post because we clearly interpret Scripture very differently.

 

Regarding traditions, it's not that I see no value, it's just that I try to follow the traditions instituted by Christ and his apostles. An example is the remembrance with wine/bread.

 

In Canna, Mary was a mother asking her son to do something she knew he was capable of doing. I just don't stretch to seeing her as someone to bring my prayers to Jesus as if I would have a better chance of having my prayer answered because it was His mother asking. I pray to the Father, and yes, I ask those in my life to pray for me.

 

The word translated as saint in the New Testament is the word I refer to. I am not speaking of your tradition of assigning titles to special people. This is an example of tradition not based on Scripture.

 

There are many practices within Protestant faiths that I have come to question as well. I have no specific issue with the Catholic Church. I honestly try to continue to read and apply Biblical truths. And, just because a group of people cannonized books and letters into Scripture doesn't mean they had their practice all right. I think for all Christians, there should be a pressing in, a reading and rereading of the Bible. I certainly do not have all of the answers -- I don't think any person on this other than Christ Himself has ever had all of the answers. But, I continue to seek, to question, to ask God to open my eyes to His truths.

 

The bulk of the NT was already being circulated and used before it was the official "canon". Compilations of the Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, etc. were being used by early Christians more than 100 years before the NT was cannonized.

 

If the 'traditions' were included in any of these inspired writings, I would be the first to say that we should absolutely be doing them. The Lord's Supper is observed by most denominations because it was commanded, Do this is remembrance of me. I believe in baptism for the forgiveness of sins and to receive the Holy Spirit because it is in these early writings of the apostles. Confession of my sins is necessary because it was commanded.

 

Nowhere do I see anyone saying there will be a single earthly representative of Christ who will continue to receive revelations that as binding as the gospel. Nowhere do I see Mary being set above others as someone I should give homage to. She isn't even mentioned outside of the gospels - and Jesus didn't set her apart from the other women, aside from telling his brother to take care of her.

 

I do see warnings against the traditions of men being enforced as part of the Christian faith. Christ alone is the gospel. The traditions we have are exactly that. Are they harmful? That is between the follower of the traditions and God. Paul didn't tell the Jews they had to stop being Jews. They were able to continue their traditions as long as it was recognized that salvation wasn't dependant on following those traditions (and those were originally the Law!). That's why I don't have a problem with Easter traditions, Christmas traditions, etc. My heart belongs to Christ Jesus. My salvation depends on him. My faith in him demands my obedience - my true religion is to love others as he loved me - caring for widows and orphans. Feeding the hungry. Loving the 'unlovable'. These are the "rules".

 

I think we desire a checklist of sorts. If I do a, b, and c - I'm good. If I don't - well, we'll pray for you. It's not that easy though! I'm called beyond that list. It would be easy to be at church every Sunday and mark that off my list, read my bible and mark that one, give money to a good charity and be finished for the day. But that is all meaningless if my heart isn't in what I'm doing.

1 John 3:16-20

16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 17If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? 18Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth. 19This then is how we know that we belong to the truth, and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence 20whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.

 

 

Alright, I"m going to get off my soapbox and go do laundry.

[Michele B]

Yes, the Canonization did come through tradition, but the words in the volume are what I focus on. For example, when considering church leadership, I read what Jesus said and I read the letters giving instructions for how to set up the churches. I don't look at how the church was set up during the Canonization.

 

 

What gaurantee do you have that those are Jesus' or Paul's words?

[Michele B]

"and Jesus didn't set her apart from the other women, aside from telling his brother to take care of her."

 

 

It was John the beloved disciple, not a brother. What an odd thing to do if there had been brothers.;)

 

Come on, this is more fun than laundry!:lol:

[Murphy101]

michele you're cracking me up in my sleep deprived caffine over-dosed state.:lol:

 

dh says my last previosu post didn't make any sense and that I need another cup of coffee and a protein hit before debating theology anymore.

 

no nap for me - dh is off to classes and I'm holding down the fort until he gets home at 11pm!

 

ETA:

this thread is starting to vear into the realm of you say - I say.

I say this is what we believe.

You say you don't believe the same.

Not much more to be said after that.

You're not going to convince me to not believe.

And I can only let your free will and the holy spirit guide you where you let it take you.

 

God bless you in your journey!

Edited April 27, 2009 by Martha

[Nestof3]

So you believe that everything was wrong between the Apostles and the Reformation?

 

No, definitely not -- but neither do I believe everything about a particular church or denomination. I weigh it all against what I read in the Bible.

[mommaduck]

No, definitely not -- but neither do I believe everything about a particular church or denomination. I weigh it all against what I read in the Bible.

okay...but you can read the early church fathers and see what they had to say compared to the MODERN Catholic church. You appeared to simply dismiss them as though they were worthless.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

"So why wouldn't I sit here with a screaming baby and offer a plea to Mary to help me in whatever she can to raise my children as she raised christ?"

 

Because there is no evidence that she can hear you. The only Biblical evidence about the saints in heaven is that they are focussing completely on God and what God is doing or about to do. Ask God instead--it is HIS grace that was given to Mary.

 

Let's use St. Anthony as an example. He is often asked to interceed for lost items.

 

"So I loose my keys.

and I offer up a quick, "St. Anthony help me find my keys please!"

and low and behold I find my keys in my pocket (quit laughing like it never happened to you!)

now. Even if St. Anthony's spirit did put those keys in my pocket, he only did it because God (who he and I answer to) allowed him to do that for me."

 

In this case, you are ascribing to him powers that he does not have, and therefore being distracted from praying to God. Not so great for your spiritual life, IMO. And also inconsistent with the stated teaching that Catholics are not supposed to ask the saints for anything but intercession. There is just no reason to think that St. Anthony's spirit could put the keys in your pocket, nor that God wouldn't be more capable of it.

 

"hmmm

how about a 3rd option?

historicly people tend to get lazy in their faith formation and they do not seek nor listen to what they are taught?

 

I am a convert. Was not particuliarly christian in upbringing or persuasion prior to my conversion."

 

Yes, RCIA is thorough and complete. But it tends to be ahistorical, where the history that is left out is the way that Catholics used to be taught, and very strongly, by their church here in the US (and probably other places, but I don't have personal knowledge of that.) And it is that history which has to be dealt with, I think.

QUOTE]

 

I think that maybe you don't realize how clearly some other denominations train their children and adults and pass on their view. It's really not that difficult. I think of the Orthodox, for instance. Orthodox children that I have known and cradle Orthodox as well as converts are all very clear on the praying to the saints question, and have been taught what you say is the RC position on it. I don't think that it's true that cradle Catholics are generally lazy in their faith formation, but rather that many of them were taught wrongly in Catholic schools as kids and even if their adult life corrects some of that, it's not right for the Catholics to teach so differently at different stages and not own that. And to the extent that this obscures the Gospel, it's really pretty shocking. (Just to be clear, I have a problem with unclear teaching from a number of Christian groups, it's just that we are talking about Catholic teaching here.)

 

We all teach children, and I'll bet your children understand Roman Catholic teachings better than the children of many cradle Catholics, because you're teaching them clearly.

[mommaduck]

yes. a thorny issue that.

how would you suggest they be disciplined?

it is public knowledge that they have been marked as in error and at risk of excommunication or actually in a state of excommunication

 

I too wish the Church would do more.

In the past, I'd say harsher discipline wasn't taken because of deep sorrow.

Honestly, it is no differrent than your child disowning you. How do you discilpine that?

 

 

I haven't seen where they have been excommunicated. In fact, I know people in it, that is how I first heard the outlandish things being taught, and brought my questions to the catholic forum. The thing is, why aren't these false teachers defrocked and tossed out? Put someone in that will teach what the Catholic church adheres to. Is it that difficult? (serious question, no snark)

[mommaduck]

We disagree on authority. I think we all would agree the Holy Spirit leads us to Truth, but we disagree on how the Spirit is discerned.

When I read the New Testament in the context of the early church which preserved those letter and teachings, I see priesthood. When Jesus breathed on them, gave them authority to bind and loose... But I know those of the Protestant faith interpret that differently.

 

I don't know if these links will work, but they should be links to the writings of Ignatius. He and Polycarp, I believe, were said to have heard the faith from the Beloved Disciple John. So if things went wrong, they must have done so very quickly. Click on the name of the letter.

 

 

• the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philadelphians 3)

• the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (Introduction to Philadelphians; Ephesians 6)

• the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magnesians 6)

• *****the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magnesians 6 and 13; Smyrnæans 8; Trallians 3)

• the unity of the Church (Trallians 6; Philadelphians 3; Magnesians 13)

• the holiness of the Church (Smyrnæans, Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians and Romans)

• the catholicity of the Church (Smyrnæans 8); the infallibility of the Church (Philadelphians 3; Ephesians 16-17)

• ******the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrnæans 8), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrnæans 8, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians

• the Incarnation (Ephesians 18); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polycarp 5)

• the religious character of matrimony (Polycarp 5)

• the value of united prayer (Ephesians 13)

• the primacy of the See of Rome (Introduction to Romans 13)

 

 

 

It would be helpful if you would use common Scripture that everyone recognises ;) Smyrnaeans, Philadelphians, Magnesians, and Trallians are not recognised, nor heard of, by those outside of your faith. Polycarp is a known church father, but if someone asks for a Scriptural reference :shrug:

 

(now off to see if e-sword has a catholic and orthodox version of the Scriptures for comparison and now I have to find time to read Polycarp)

[LMA]

 

"So why wouldn't I sit here with a screaming baby and offer a plea to Mary to help me in whatever she can to raise my children as she raised christ?"

 

Because there is no evidence that she can hear you. The only Biblical evidence about the saints in heaven is that they are focussing completely on God and what God is doing or about to do. Ask God instead--it is HIS grace that was given to Mary.

 

Let's use St. Anthony as an example. He is often asked to interceed for lost items.

 

"So I loose my keys.

and I offer up a quick, "St. Anthony help me find my keys please!"

and low and behold I find my keys in my pocket (quit laughing like it never happened to you!)

now. Even if St. Anthony's spirit did put those keys in my pocket, he only did it because God (who he and I answer to) allowed him to do that for me."

 

In this case, you are ascribing to him powers that he does not have, and therefore being distracted from praying to God. Not so great for your spiritual life, IMO. And also inconsistent with the stated teaching that Catholics are not supposed to ask the saints for anything but intercession. There is just no reason to think that St. Anthony's spirit could put the keys in your pocket, nor that God wouldn't be more capable of it.

 

"hmmm

how about a 3rd option?

historicly people tend to get lazy in their faith formation and they do not seek nor listen to what they are taught?

 

I am a convert. Was not particuliarly christian in upbringing or persuasion prior to my conversion."

 

Yes, RCIA is thorough and complete. But it tends to be ahistorical, where the history that is left out is the way that Catholics used to be taught, and very strongly, by their church here in the US (and probably other places, but I don't have personal knowledge of that.) And it is that history which has to be dealt with, I think.

QUOTE]

 

I think that maybe you don't realize how clearly some other denominations train their children and adults and pass on their view. It's really not that difficult. I think of the Orthodox, for instance. Orthodox children that I have known and cradle Orthodox as well as converts are all very clear on the praying to the saints question, and have been taught what you say is the RC position on it. I don't think that it's true that cradle Catholics are generally lazy in their faith formation, but rather that many of them were taught wrongly in Catholic schools as kids and even if their adult life corrects some of that, it's not right for the Catholics to teach so differently at different stages and not own that. And to the extent that this obscures the Gospel, it's really pretty shocking. (Just to be clear, I have a problem with unclear teaching from a number of Christian groups, it's just that we are talking about Catholic teaching here.)

 

We all teach children, and I'll bet your children understand Roman Catholic teachings better than the children of many cradle Catholics, because you're teaching them clearly.

 

No one ever said that every belief of the Church came from the Bible. In order to understand the saints helping and the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one has to accept the authority of Tradition of the Church along with the Bible. But if one is not going to accept Tradition, then it is very difficult and impossible to understand some teachings in the context of just the Bible because the explanations involve Tradtion. The Church has documents, teachings of the Doctors of the Church, the Catechism, and other sources outside of the Bible. In fact, the sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are Biblical and many Protestants reject those two items, such as Jesus only meant for Holy Communion to be symbolic and not actually His Body and Blood.

 

In reference to the wrong teaching in the Catholic classes, could you give a concrete example of a teaching that was incorrectly taught to Catholics? I'm not sure what you are talking about.

 

(And I grew up as a fervent Southern Baptist so I know both sides of the fence well.)

 

You can PM me if you wish also.

 

Louise

[Michele B]

"It would be helpful if you would use common Scripture that everyone recognises ;) Smyrnaeans, Philadelphians, Magnesians, and Trallians are not recognised, nor heard of, by those outside of your faith. Polycarp is a known church father, but if someone asks for a Scriptural reference :shrug:"

 

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Those are not Scriptural references. They are the letters of Ignatius who was taught by the Beloved Disciple John. although not included in the canon of Holy Scripture they are Early Church commentary on the scriptures and show the continuance of of pastoral care.

 

Actually they are heard of and known outside of the Catholic faith. Calvin knew of them and dismissed all references to the clergy. They are part of our shared heritage of Christianity. These are the letters of the men taught by the disciples. Surely they are at least as relevant as modern commentaries?

Edited April 27, 2009 by Michele B

[mommaduck]

"It would be helpful if you would use common Scripture that everyone recognises ;) Smyrnaeans, Philadelphians, Magnesians, and Trallians are not recognised, nor heard of, by those outside of your faith. Polycarp is a known church father, but if someone asks for a Scriptural reference :shrug:"

 

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding! Those are not Scriptural references. They are the letters of Ignatius who was taught by the Beloved Disciple John. although not included in the canon of Holy Scripture they are Early Church commentary on the scriptures and show the continuance of of pastoral care.

 

Actually they are heard of and known outside of the Catholic faith. Calvin knew of them and dismissed all references to the clergy. They are part of our shared heritage of Christianity. These are the letters of the men taught by the disciples. Surely they are at least as relevant as modern commentaries?

 

I'm a Calvinist and recognise both names of Polycarp and Ignatius (just did not recognise the names of his letters). Yes, the clergy issue was one area where Calvin parted ways. I will have to look them up then and check the Scriptural proofs. Thank you for the links.

[Audrey]

Martha, I have to tell you that reading your posts here has been wonderfully informative for me. Although I married someone raised in the Catholic tradition, I have next to no real knowledge about it. I've attended weddings and funerals, and once I even attended a prayer session (yes, truly!) for a child in our community who was suffering from a brain tumour and its treatment.

 

There are many things I have always wondered about and you've answered many of them without even knowing it. So, I thank you for that.

 

FWIW, I have always had a fascination with religions and my desire to learn about differences is an honest one. I like to hear the hows and whys directly from people who are walk their path, no matter what that path may be. I truly appreciate the excellent dialogue here and the reasoned explanations from all sides on the issue(s).

[Michele B]

"The only Biblical evidence about the saints in heaven is that they are focussing completely on God and what God is doing or about to do."

 

I would argue any bible verse referring to the one-ness of the body of Christ and the concern for charity among the members would relate to the intercession of the saints. I don't know that the saints in Heaven are limited in their hearing. The saints in the Revelation seem to be doing a number of things; worshiping, praying and some appear to be crying for vengeance. Why could some of those prayers we are told are rising not be for the members of the Body of Christ on earth? The Body of Christ prays for each other. There are many scriptural references to that.

 

I don't know of any place in Scripture where the dead in Christ are relieved of their christian duties of intercession and charity. There is nothing in revelation that prevents those ascending prayers from being for other Christians.

 

And being focused on what God is doing or is about to do - well He is working on us.

 

:001_smile: