UNBELIEVABLE. ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE.
Can’t even get the facts straight.
How do I contact someone at CNN to see about writing a response editorial?
Ex-Catholic Anti-Catholic Bigot at CNN
“It’s telling to note the contemporary works that sparked Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church. He cites the “Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification” by Lutheran and Catholic scholars and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. He also refers generally to First Things magazine, the journal of religion, culture, and public life which is edited by Father Richard John Neuhaus, who was a Lutheran pastor before his own conversion.
Each of these works is concerned with promoting mutual understanding between Catholics and Protestants.”
Enough said.
Largest U.S. denomination
About 22 percent of the U.S. population identifies itself as Roman Catholic, the largest single denomination in the country. That figure is little changed from 1965…
One commenter says it all:
“The church is much bigger than any one parish or any one diocese. It’s not about the bishops. I attend because I believe,” said Mike, 41, as he left a lunchtime Mass at Saint Francis Xavier church in downtown Cincinnati Tuesday.
He is not an anomaly. According to figures put together in 2006 by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, a Catholic university in Washington, there was a slight dip in Mass attendance after the Boston scandals broke.
But it said an analysis of surveys and polls since shows little evidence Roman Catholics have left the church in significant numbers or cut back what they toss in the collection baskets.
Hopefully, all the blasted “Judas”es in the Church who committed such heinous crimes against both the innocent and God will be filtered out and a Renewal of the Catholic Church in America actually starts happening!
Largest U.S. denomination
About 22 percent of the U.S. population identifies itself as Roman Catholic, the largest single denomination in the country. That figure is little changed from 1965…
One commenter says it all:
“The church is much bigger than any one parish or any one diocese. It’s not about the bishops. I attend because I believe,” said Mike, 41, as he left a lunchtime Mass at Saint Francis Xavier church in downtown Cincinnati Tuesday.
He is not an anomaly. According to figures put together in 2006 by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University, a Catholic university in Washington, there was a slight dip in Mass attendance after the Boston scandals broke.
But it said an analysis of surveys and polls since shows little evidence Roman Catholics have left the church in significant numbers or cut back what they toss in the collection baskets.
Hopefully, all the blasted “Judas”es in the Church who committed such heinous crimes against both the innocent and God will be filtered out and a Renewal of the Catholic Church in America actually starts happening!
Here is his blog. I am sure you could leave an appropriate correction of this wayward son. Sad that someone allows their poor formation to foment even greater ignorance.
http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/index.php
Considering this is the MSM, your headline should read : Believable. Absolutely Believable.
*shrug* Standard ignorant snark. Not shocking– nothing so biased as a former Catholic. (If they’re all so happy, why do they keep kicking at the Church?)
I recall that it was a CNN indoctrinator–uh, reporter–who called Pope John Paul II “the first non-Catholic pope in 450 years”.
You’re right, Foxfier; he sure was putting his ignorance on parade.
Wow, what an idiot. But what else can one expect from the likes of CNN?
I eagerly await a similar column now from an angry ex-Muslim who bashes Islam, and a reformed homosexual who blasts the homosexual lifestyle. /sarcasm off
Everything you ever needed to know about CNN’s ability to get the facts straight.
http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/Pickover/pc/cnn_shuttle.jpg
… hilarious, and hilariously sad. Rather than get upset with him, personally, I’d say we turn his candid and angry reflections as a mirror upon our Post Conciliar Church. His experience, his views, are FAR from extreme and FAR from controversial. For all you ‘modern’ and ‘progressive’ Catholics, here’s your man, your son, your fruit. There are MILLIONS more like him sitting next to you on Sunday. Pax tecum, +Craig Kelso
Flip-side of the same coin.
Disregard my above. I mis-read Craig’s post. My bad. (Think before posting, dummy!)
Jimmy,
Would you explain to why you consider this guy a “bigot”? Maybe he is in error on some things, but he seems sinceere in what he believes.
If I read a Catholic apologist who denounces Martin Luther or John Calvin as evil, do you consider this person a “bigot”?
I was taught by my Catholic priest that anyone who disbelieves in evolution is an ignorant rube. Was my priest an anti-fundamentalist bigot?
Quick scan of why he’s a bigot:
Pope is an “old man trying to get attention”
For 25 years the author didn’t know the Bible because he was Catholic.
Despite studying the catechism and going to Church often, he never studied scriptures. (was he sleeping through Mass, or were his altar boy service much more intense than mine?)
Frankly, by the time you get down to the logic of “I feel I wasted my time, therefore whatever the Pope says is meaningless” …. Well, this isn’t an unbiased person, eh?
big·ot (bĭg’ət)
n. One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
So as long as a Klu Klux Klansman is sincere in his belief that a white person having relations with a black person, he is not a bigot?
Well, at least he isn’t one of those “former seminarian seriously considering the priesthood” types.
Many of us who were raised Catholic can testify that we were never encouraged to study the Bible.
Jeb– I ask again, were you sleeping through Mass?
There is a difference between having some Bible readings at mass and encouraging people to study the Bible.
There’s a difference between studying the Bible and encouraging folks to read it and come up with their own ideas.
One takes a college-type approach to study– here is the information, here’s what we know about it; the other is trying to teach yourself from a single source book, by your own knowledge.
Which is going to be more effective?
The contact information for CNN can be found here:
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/cnntv/
Good luck.
Go Jimmy Go! I cannot wait to read your response….if they have the guts to publish it. In the event they don’t, please post it here for us anyway.
Well, Jeb, I was raised Baptist and was taught to use the Bible as a way of bashing Catholics and such. We were dissuaded from studying ‘troublesome passages’ like John 6, I Corithians 11, all of the Letter of James…and well pretty much everything that wasn’t written by St. Paul or was in the Apocolypse.
Maybe you can answer me this as well, for a guy who things that the Bible can just picked up by anybody and read: How is it that there are 25,000+ strains of protestantism, all of whom claim to be reading the Scriptures correctly? Do we have such a low opinion of the Sacred Scriptures that we think anyone can pick it up and understand as if it were written by Dr. Suess? THe Bible is not a piece of literature to through personal biases and prooftexted to death. It wasn’t written in English. Why say that?
Some time ago, a person came here spouting off about how Catholics are wrong about the papacy and proceded to dress us down for not understanding our Greek (the original language of the NT) and cited the word Cephas as an example. Except Cephas is Aramiac, not Greek, and the arguemnt for ‘you are rock (Cephas/Petros) and on this rock (Cephas/petra) I build my church. An english speaker doesn’t understand the concpet of words having gender (believe me, I have taught spanish!) You wouldn’t nickname a male (Petros)by using a feminine word (Petra)even if the words had a slightly different ending. IN aramaic, both are the same which only solidifies what Catholics believe. And, does your average reader know the significance of the Gospel placing the story in Ceseraea Philipi…where there is a large hill that essntially in a solid rock? Or does your average reader know the connection between this scripture passage and the one in Isaiah, and the historical significance of the keeper of the keys? NO, probably not. But it is OK for an average reader to look at this Scripture and get out of it whatever they think? The Scriptures need to be taken far more seriously and reverently than that! Maybe, just maybe, that is why the Catholic Church has not encouraged people to just pick a Bible and start reading without some serious study. The Sacred Scriptures are not some amorphous words that don’t have any centralized meaning…they are the self-communication of God with His people.
Is this commentator a bigot? You’re damned straight he is! Catholic bashing is still the one true acceptable bias left. Considering that many protestant groups don’t even consider Catholics to be Christians, at least Catholic teaching will recognize that protestants are Christians.
“Maybe he is in error on some things, but he seems sinceere in what he believes.”
He may be sincere in his beliefs, but he’s also sincerely incorrect.
How telling that he expressed admiration for Fr. Pfleger of Chicago, a self-aggrandizing liberal activist who cozies up to Jesse Jackson and has been reported in the media to have made death threats against a legitimate gunshop owner.
6/25/2007
Personal Views: Reverend Jackson, Father Pfleger and the Famous “Chokehold”…And What is the Only Way to Get Jackson to Call off the Demonstration?
Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. and Father Michael Pfleger, the Gold Dust twins of Chicago radicalism, were arrested and detained for about an hour after another media event in front of Chuck’s Gun Shop in south suburban Riverdale.
This followed a minor scuff-up and confrontation on charges of criminal trespass involving the Big Two of the city’s ace self-publicists at a store which has, no one doubts, been obeying the law on gun sales. After being released, Reverend Jackson aka “The Pout” charged before the whirring cameras of the electronic media that the gun shop owner has a “chokehold” on the Riverdale police. As for the blond pinwheel of excitability, Fr. Pfleger, he vowed to go to the gun shop with Jackson every Saturday.
If anyone has a chokehold on events, it’s Jackson & Pfleger…both profiting brilliantly with the compliant media (the “Tribune” has yet to even report that the priest, an apparent student of another Catholic cleric, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, threatened to murder the shop owner and those legislators who dare oppose his variant of gun control). Jackson has long held a chokehold on the media and Pfleger has long held a chokehold on the Catholic archdiocese because of his pivotal position as gleaner of Democratic votes which may spell the difference to the layman chancellor, Jimmy Lago, who was one of the best precinct captains the Cook county Democratic party ever had.
http://www.tomroeser.com/sectionlist.asp?s=&month=6&year=2007
One suspects that this author, a bitter ex-Catholic, could not serve two gods – his liberal faith and the faith of the apostles – and so chose the former.
The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven:
“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257
In the United States, that means 25 percent of the population, or over 60 million people, are headed for heaven.
In many other countries, ninety percent or more of the population is Catholic, meaning nine out of every ten people will pass through the pearly gates. Worldwide, Catholicism claims nearly one billion members.
You may not believe that nearly a billion people could be wrong, but look what Jesus said:
“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:13-14
According to Jesus, the masses willingly accept false religious systems that lead to destruction, while few find true salvation that leads to heaven. Could 60 million Americans be considered “few?” Would anyone say that one billion people world-wide is a “few?”
When Jesus walked the earth, a small minority followed Him. Most rejected his teachings and remained in the well established, socially accepted religions. In other words, they rejected the truth so they could keep their religious traditions. Jesus spoke the following words to those who did this:
“…Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:9
While Jesus was preaching, one listener who began to comprehend this truth asked Jesus:
“Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:23-24
When Jesus taught his disciples to go out and preach the gospel, he said:
“The harvest truly is plenteous, but the labourers are few;” Matthew 9:37
In other words, most people are lost and need a Savior, but few have the truth to go and tell them.
Conclusion
Throughout this book, every Catholic doctrine has violated God’s Word. Yet millions of Catholics ignore God’s instructions and continue following the traditions of men, claiming to be right because they are in a religious majority. Jesus warns:
“…whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man… And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man…” Matthew 7:24, 26
Does God consider you a wise or foolish person? If you believe you can ignore God’s commands because you are in a religious majority, you need to read Matthew 7:24-26 again.
Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God’s Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:22-23
How is it that so many Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46
You can ignore this question now, but what will you say when Jesus asks you the same question in person when you die and stand before Him for judgment?
Jeb:
Q: What is the Bible? Why do you read the particular Bible that you speak of?
A: Because the Catholic Church decided that your Bible is THE Bible.
There are dozens of Gospels. The Gospels that you read were identified by the One True Church as the word of God.
Holy Scripture and the Church are inseparable.
Nicki said:
“Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God’s Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:22-23
How is it that so many Christians (of any stripe) can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46
Nicki:
You unwittingly proved Catholic doctrine in your anti-Catholic rant using Scripture. Many will say “I have accepted Jesus as my Lord and personal savior” but will not have done the things He commanded and will thus be cast into eternal punishment. Faith without works is dead. Please try to see the irony in what you posted.
God grant you the ability to see it.
I submitted a complaint to CNN. Among other things, Mr Martin’s rant is just incoherent: if it “doesn’t matter” what any religious leader has to say, why does he address himself three paragraphs later to “Protestant leaders”? The man isn’t thinking straight.
Jeb,
It’s unfortunate that Catholic catechesis hasn’t been better; I grew up Protestant, so I won’t attempt to diagnose the problem, but none of that takes away from the necessity of the Church to show us the proper interpretation of scripture. “How,” asks the Ethiopian eunuch, “can I [understand what I am reading], unless someone guides me” (Acts 8:31). And the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).
Alternate Conclusion
Throughout this post, Nicki has engaged in intellectual dishonesty, knowingly misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches.
Nicki — Is that really how you think God wants to spread His Word — The Truth — through dishonesty and deliberate falsehoods? Do you really think His Word is not sufficient, that it must really be His Word + your falsehoods?
What is that you are afraid of Nicki? The Truth?
It is hard to draw a different conclusion, because you claim to have read the Catechism, yet willfully (if your claim is true) misrepresent what it teaches.
May the Truth one day set you free.
Another sign that Roland Martin is an anti-Catholic bigot is that he obviously did not read the new CDF document that he is mocking and derisively dismissing. Either that, or he read it and has chosen to deliberately lie about what it says. Take your pick — but either way, he’s a bigot, and lacking in intellectual honesty.
Nicki,
You write, “Throughout this book, every Catholic doctrine has violated God’s Word.”
Would that include paragraphs 103 and 104?
I’m always amazed by ex-Catholics’ comments that they were never “encouraged” to read the Bible. When you’re hungry, do you have to be “encouraged” to eat? I want to ask these people, who was assigned to them in the Catholic Church to make sure they DIDN’T read the Bible?
Yes, in my former non-denom community, I was “encouraged” to read the Bible, where I found that Jesus really wanted me to be rich and that if I was sick, it was because I didn’t have enough faith. I had a cousin who fell for this garbage too. He had an infection in the sac around his heart that eventually reduced his heart function to 20%. He was “encouraged” to “claim his healing” and tell his doctors that he was “healed by the stripes of Jesus” and that he didn’t need their advice. Unfortunately, by the time he wised up, he went into kidney failure and spent the last few years of his life on dialysis. After he died, I didn’t go to church anywhere for many years, unwilling to begin the dreaded Protestant “church search.” I found the Catholic Church and sanity, thanks be to God.
I predict now that if Protestants respond, they will say, “That’s not my church’s belief! We condemn that teaching! I say, yes, that may not be your particular church’s teaching, but that’s the fruit of “studying” the scriptures without a guide to look to–a Church that’s been around a couple of millenia and fought off a heresy or two–dangerous ones, like the one my cousin and I experienced.
That’s my ex-Protestant story.
It doesn’t matter what the speaker says, what matters is how it is received. An example – one must ensure that instructions passed are understood by the receiver. It doesn’t make a difference the person passing the instructions thinks he did a fantastic job if the people receiving it doesn’t get his message.
In this case – It doesn’t matter what B16 says, he is spot on, of course; but the message is lost if he is perceived/interpreted incorrectly. And that seems to have happened now. (Even if it was due to negligence on the part of the reader)
If the reporter thinks B16 is totally off and irrelevant – that’s probably how the message is generally received. Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only? Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?
I think it’s a bit of both.
Reality – the CNN reporter won’t be the only one to interpret the proclamation this way.
People interpret things the way they WANT to far too often. One of my Lutheran pastors apparently found nothing in the Bible to keep him from leaving his wife and job to pursue happiness in his true calling as a gay man. I think that’s about verbatim what the announcement was. I can’t imagine the damage this did to his wife, yet supposedly nobody can say this is wrong.
After that, even though I didn’t WANT to believe a faith could claim to have authority given by Jesus over me, or that abortion was wrong, or about a half dozen other things, I knew I had to look and see that the truth was. Holiest layperson I ever knew was a good friend that was Catholic. Stayed up to 3-4 AM some nights having theological arguments. He won, thank God.
Ex-Protestant story #2 here. Maybe we can make this a trend. 🙂
JPII had both a political agenda and a pastoral agenda. His pastoral agenda and now BXVI’s agenda is the re-christianization of Europe and the re-evangelization of Roman Cathlic countries (i.e., France, Spain, Germany, Brazil, etc.). He’s puting emphasis on what you and I were taught since childhood – “There is no salvation outside of the Church of Jesus Christ that subsides in the Roman Catholic Church.” We alone have the fullness of truth, the deposit of faith, and we transmit that faith from one generation to the next through the teaching of the Magisterium whose head is the Roman Pontiff. Mr. Martin’s mistake is not knowing enough history to understand the pastoral agenda of JPII and BXVI. But by reaffirming our beliefs will that be enough to keep our poorly catechized Roman Catholics from leaving the Church for baptist and evagelical groups?
Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only? Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?
I think it’s a bit of both.
Lasalle, just out of curiosity, what parts of the document do you think could be worded better?
Also, it seemed to me that the document was primarily written for Catholics as well as non-Catholics involved with ecumenical discussion with the Church. How do you think the document could be changed to make it easier for the media to understand? Could this be done without making the document less effective for the primary audience?
Jeb, I was encouraged to read the Bible as a young Protestant. Unfortunately, I had no tools to help me understand what I was reading. From what I could see, no one else did, either.
I WAS given a lot of opinions, often conflicting. Each teacher had his/her own logic and approach and reasons for their beliefs. These were explained in great detail, all supported with copious scripture references.
By the time I hit my twenties, I had heard so many wildly differing versions of “Bible Only” Christianity that I had very little confidence in my own – or anyone’s – ability to understand and interpret scripture with any authority.
Invoking the guidance of the Holy Spirit didn’t provide any assurance, either, because ALL these folks did the same. The last thing I could accept was that the Holy Spirit was actually orchestrating this mess.
The final straw was when the preacher at our church began to trot out his favorite bits of liberal theology… the miracles of the Bible were only symbolic, they were just “faith stories”, blah, blah… I snapped inside.
Long and short of it… I basically said “You just can’t TEACH that and call it Christianity. You’re off the reservation…”, to which he more or less replied “who says so?”.
Who, indeed. That is THE question.
Does anyone have the authority – not just the right, but the authority – to say “This is Christian, and this is not”? If no one has such authority, I’m afraid we are in a desperate way. If you say that EVERYONE has this authority, then we are completely undone, because the fruit of this “authority” has been chaos and confusion, and God is not the author of confusion.
I have believed now, for some years, that this authority is vested in the Church and especially in the Pope. If I call some teaching “out of bounds”, well, that doesn’t mean much… if the Pope says the same, it really MEANS something. In this way, He is the servant and protector of the word of God in a way you and I can never be.
Well, unless one of us ends up being Pope.
Here’s a question for everyone to tackle.
Does the main stream media just reflect the same level of ignorance that’s present in the general public when it comes to the Catholic Church? Or does the media purposely fuel the flames of anti-Catholicism?
“Yes”.
Has anyone else attempted to post on his blog? My comment is up now, but I’m the only one? I hardly think that’s possible. Maybe he’s deleting comments, or maybe no one else has decided to confront him on his on turf. If the latter is true, then there are surely more knowledgeable people than I who may read this – so go 🙂
Mr. Walden, I tend to agree with Lasalle in that JPII stated that “we rejoice with the truth where ever it is found” in that some ecclesial communities proclaim Jesus Christ and the Roman Catholic Church accepts their baptism that makes us sons and daughters of God in Jesus Christ. What we share with other churches who suffer from a “deffect” is salvation through baptism. To call out other Christian churches by saying they’r deffective (that maybe calls into question their salvation) is as we say in Texas to say: them’s fightin’ words. I can understand the strong response can you?
Uhm, nevermind. I just noticed, the “awaiting moderation” notice. After looking through his approved comments, it’s plain that the guy only let’s favorable stuff through. Oh well. I tried.
“The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven:
“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257″
Interesting false conclusion here on the part of Nicki or his/her Pope/Minister/Indoctrinator. The only Christians that I know of that teach “assurance of salvation or OSAS” are not Catholic.
But further down we see a rant against works righteousness. Which is it that you think the Catholic Church teaches, Nicki? Or is this just the shot-gun approach; blast away hoping something hits a target?
Here’s the entire 1257,
“1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.”
To say that you cannot get into China without your passport does not guarantee that you will get in to China with it. That determination is out of your hands.
And in the case of baptism we see that Jesus requires it, but that is our requirement. Note that 1257 also says God is not bound by his sacraments, meaning that He can do as He wishes because He is God and if He chooses to save someone without Baptism, that is His choice. Ours is to do as Christ tells us.
You will note as well that the #60 in the quote is a footnote to John 3:5, #61 to Matthew 28:19-20, #62 to Mark 16:16.
Check those out.
Interesting as well, 1257 also refers to the Great Commission given to the Apostles (the first Catholics).
Nicki says, “When Jesus walked the earth, a small minority followed Him. Most rejected his teachings and remained in the well established, socially accepted religions.” That is interesting because it sounds like a description of the circumstances of John 6 when many of his disciples left (the first Protestants?) because they couldn’t accept his teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist. We know that Peter (the first Pope) stayed with Jesus as well as the rest of the twelve.
Joey, did you read the document or just newspaper articles about it? The document stresses all that we share with our separated brothers and sisters. Their only defects are not having apostolic succession and not being in communion with Rome. Which I think most will admit to (although they obviously don’t consider them defects).
I can certainly understand, and even expect, a strong response. A strong, intelligent, well-thought-out one. I don’t expect non-Catholics to agree with what we believe. But I expect them recognize our right to publicly express our faith. I also hope they expect the same from us. That makes a solid foundation for ecumenism. The Catholic Church issued a short, easy-to-read document clearly explaining responses to questions She had been routinely receiving regarding Her doctrine on the Church. If everyone who’s upset with it would write the same type of document about what their church believes instead of whining about how Catholics aren’t nice, we might actually start to understand each other a little better. But someone can’t get to know who you really are if don’t have the guts to be honest with them.
And just to clear up a possible misinterpretation of my original post, I wasn’t trying to judge Lasalle’s comment either way. I am sincerely curious and would like to know what Lasalle is thinking.
Jesus never encouraged us to read the bible, mainly because it hadn’t yet been written but also because most of the people were illiterate. His apostles didn’t tell people to read the bible either. Instead, they told them about the gospel and they sent letters to churches and one another. These letters would have been read aloud at the churches during their gatherings, just as the psalms and other Old Testament passages would have been read aloud. The Early Church didn’t encourage Christians to read the bible. They read the bible to them!
Now, which church does that sound like today? Which church spends the majority of its time together on a Sunday reading from scripture or praying using words directly from scripture? Catholics don’t come to hear a mere person sermonize, or even homilize. We come to hear the Word of God and consume the Word of God. We don’t need to hear someone talk about scripture for an hour when we have heard the Good News proclaimed and have Christ in us!
I also love how he says that we shouldn’t listen to religious leaders (like the Pope) but that we should listen to him, a religious leader.
Q: Does the main stream media just reflect the same level of ignorance that’s present in the general public when it comes to the Catholic Church? Or does the media purposely fuel the flames of anti-Catholicism?
A: “Yes”.
So, it’s like a never ending cycle. That’s no fun (unless you like to be anti-Catholic).
So why can’t major newspapers get one person who knows how to cover religion. I don’t expect anyone to be an expert in every religion, but I would think they could find someone who knows how to cover religion in general.
And why doesn’t the Vatican get John Allen to write a commentary for English-speaking journalists to be released with all major documents. (Apparently short, succinct documents are too challenging for the press.) Even then, I suppose the old saying will still apply: you can lead a horse to water…
Poor catechesis combined with an obvious lack of understanding of the teachings of the Church/of the Sacraments he (Mr. Martin) received/and a glaring immaturity of faith-development can do that to a person…especially when you throw willful ignorance into the equation.
As a Brit living across the pond from you all I don’t know what impact his vile speil will have on anyone, but I sincerely hope that someone (maybe Jimmy) will publically set the record straight and correct the many errors in Mr. Martin’s ‘commentary’.
God Bless!
Oh Gosh this is hilarious! I just copied ‘n’ pasted the link to Mr. Martin’s blog and on the left side of the page is an advertisement for his book entitled,
“Listening to the Spirit Within”
Now THAT is funny!
Since this nutcase (Martin) is moderating his blog, people should complain directly to CNN.
He may be a bigot for bashing the Pope, but is he not correct that the sermons today are nothing more than a love fest, no talk of hell and scripture warning us not to sin and a catechism that has been changed leading to speculation that it has been changed to suit modern times and offered by laypersons instead of clergy?
Once you start showing chinks in your armor, as the church stood unwavering in her teachings for centuries but then started introducing vague and confusing documents to be more modern, you leave yourself open to question
Jimmy, you can contact Roland here: roland@rolandsmartin.com
Thank you , Nicki, for so nicely proving my point. It is a beautiful lesson in anti-catholic prooftexting. Take apassage from here and there, string them together, ignore their context, and make it reach a pre-selected conclusion. OK, Ms. Fewer- is- more- a -sign- of- true- Christianity; praytell…what do you with the entire Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John? What do you do with statements such as “may they be one, Father, as you and I are one”? What do you do with al of St. Paul’s eachings on the Body of Christ? While your at it, can you cite where it says that only Scripture can be used for matters of teaching authority? Careful though, anything in the NT only knew of what we consider the OT. Perhaps you can also tell me where is the table of contents in the NT hat tell what books are to be in the NT. Perhaps you can tell me what beliefs that the Church holds are not in Scripture.
There are a lot of ignorant and hate-filled ex-Catholics out there, in every walk of life. We just hear mostly about the media ones because they are in the MEDIA.
Note the contrast between:
Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God’s Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:
and
How is it that so many Catholics can call Jesus their Lord, yet totally disregard His instructions? Jesus asked that very same question in His Word:
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46
Catholics are wrong for both regarding what they do as important and for not regarding it. Simultaneously, one presumes.
I left some feedback, and also gave links on many facebook forums encouraging feedback. this is absolutely ridiculous
I went to Catholic school for 12 years, and we were issued Bibles from 6th grade on, and studied them in Religion Classes
You know, that sums up my education about the Church and it wasn’t until recently (homeschooling and catholic radio) that I discovered differently. I hope all responses are in charity.
Make it stop.
Just responding to the comment about Catholics and the lack of training/urging to Bible-reading. I think the diverse experiences just show that trouble can start right at home or in school. We can have priests and nuns pouring their hearts out in training us up from the Bible (we had one Jesuit who gave excellent and truly inspiring homilies). But if we had indifferent parents, or schools whose religious education was not at all serious, then we have a problem.
I am blessed (thanks be to God) to have had support in both fronts. My mom read the Bible and we had two Bibles at home. She also had a number of rosaries, and we had crucifixes, icons and statuettes. The nuns who taught us did so from Bible stories, as well as the catechism and other texts, and they also encouraged us in the Rosary.
Gotta keep both fronts faithful and true..
Went to the Catholic school from kindergarten-through-senior year of high school. We were instructed from the Bible from the very beginning. But I guess these ex-Catholics went to the schools headed by mysterious albino, Opus Dei monks, seeking to suppress the truth.
John: not all sermons are as soft as you have (sadly) witnessed or heard about. I’ve had priests from different orders, including Jesuits, Redemptorists, Opus Dei (not a religious order but..) — and they were not soft on temptation, sin, mortification and the daily cross. That wasn’t the only topic they covered, of course, but when the Gospel reading required it, they would faithfully deliver the challenge during the homily. We just have to continue praying for those who never do.
I have enjoyed this comments section. I read Martin’s article, and although I don’t know a whole lot about the Catholic church, I sensed his reaction was emotional and silly. I admit that I don’t understand the Vatican’s purpose in releasing this new document, but I know so little about the context that I wouldn’t want to look foolish criticizing it.
One thing that has interested and surprised me has been the preoccupation with anti-Catholicism. I think the reason I find it fascinating is that I have only recently begun to notice how many groups believe that they hold the title of Last-Group-Socially-Acceptable-To-Criticize. Many Americans say the same thing about anti-Americanism. Protestants say the same sorts of things about Christianity in general (or perhaps in rare cases about their specific denomination, but not about Protestantism since Protestants don’t really have a strong cohesive identity as Protestants, except when labeled that way by other groups). Many homosexuals (gasp!) feel the same way. And, speaking again from an American perspective, many non-Black racial minorities here (Hispanics, Native Americans, Arabs) also believe they are the last group people don’t have to respect. Undoubtedly, Jews and Muslims feel this way in many parts of the world.
I was once friends with a devout Catholic who had an incredible fear of Shriners, claiming they held bizarre Satanic ceremonies in the name of the destruction of the Church. I always found this very peculiar, as I had never even heard of Shriners before meeting her and she took them as evidence of some vast evil conspiracy against Catholics. But I had to chuckle the other day when I read something about Shriners getting fed up with all the unfounded fear and prejudice against them. Anit-Shrinerism, I suppose. Doesn’t this all seem quite silly?
This is anecdotal, and certainly not proof of anything, but perhaps it is why I have such a difficult time seeing rampant anti-Catholicism: I grew up in large, mainstream, not-very-evangelical Presbyterian and United Methodist churches. I experienced not a shred of anti-Catholicism in those churches (my Mom came from a Catholic family, and I guarantee she wouldn’t have put up with it had it existed). Am I missing something?
John– I think folks are just reacting a little over-strongly to the way that CNN would NOT have done this sort of a hit piece about Islam, homosexuality, etc.
For your mother, she may have simply not hit the point where it really shows up– my mom didn’t realize how ignorant our local “Christian book store” was until she went in to get me a little travel Bible for graduation. She couldn’t find a Catholic version, and asked at the counter. The poor fool had the bad judgment to sniff and inform my mother that they didn’t carry Catholic items because they were a *Christian* bookstore.
My mother, the former teacher, gave her a quick history of Christianity and the Bible. ;^)
If the reporter thinks B16 is totally off and irrelevant – that’s probably how the message is generally received. Is the problem with the reporter and his ilk only?
Yes. When such bias and prejudice shape perception of a message, it is the fault of the biased reporters and biased audience that they didn’t hear the message correctly.
Was the way the proclamation was worded contribute to the confusion?
Probably, in that it said something the reporter and the audience didn’t believe and didn’t want to hear.
Yes, the reverend’s post fails the tests of logic and coherence, but I think his primary assertion is worth thinking about: if one does not accept papal authority, one shouldn’t worry about his statement. Of course, while Protestantism was historically an important and a valuable movement–and one that in many of its incarnations made no claims to authority of its own–its evolving ideas about authority are as illogical and incoherent as the reverend represents them to be.
Now, I’m not a catholic, and I do not accept the claims of apostolic authority made by the papacy–too many holes, too much corruption. That said, I appreciate Benedict’s candor, and I think it’s important that a catholic believe what he has claimed, else what’s the point? Christ invested his disciples (first the 11, then through them a 12th) with priesthood authority, and commissioned them to lead and teach. The conferral of that authority is tied in the NT to the authority to baptize, to introduce believing persons into the fold of Christ. One may be baptized otherwise, but only as a sign of willingness to follow Christ, not as a legitimate entry into his kingdom.
If this authority is central, then the only two churches with any sort of reasonable claim to legitimacy are the catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which argues the loss of authority through an apostasy which had taken hold by the 3rd c, and which was restored by the ministration of, subsequently, John the Baptist and Peter, James, and John.
I favour the second, obviously, but regardless of my persuasion, I like Benedict. And I like to see him drawing definite lines. Too long have we wandered as relativists and populists.
Does it strike anyone as odd that nobody outside the orthodox Catholics recognizes that this is about the only reasonable position for the leader of any religion to hold? That their way is the true way? Doesn’t anybody realize that at least some portion of every religion’s belief is incompatible with every other religion and their for one of them must be in error on those points? Do we live in a world were believing someone to be in error is disrespectful???
God Bless,
Matt
Wow! After 2000 years and we had it all wrong! LMAO! That is truly sad. Just because someone is Catholic and leaves the Church, doesn’t mean they understand what she is. They leave due to ignorance or not liking the rules God has laid down. I do hope we see a response and soon. Truly amazing!
In general, the state of Catholic catechesis in this country has been terrible for at least 40 years. In this connection it is not surprising that this ex-Catholic reporter is largely ignorant of genuine Catholic teaching; and it would not be surprising that his Catholic experience with Scripture study and emphasis was inadequate. But the inferences and conclusions he draws from his experiences are neither warranted nor rational. Normally one reads and investigates before opining, but not in this case. It is not unfair to assume that some type of anti-Catholic animus explains his impulsively enthusiastic criticism.
It’s simple to prove that that God intended the church to be an assistant, but not The Path to salvation, as the Catholic Church seems to believe. God is perfect and flawless, man is sinful and flawed. You only have to look at the history of the Catholic church (and the popes) to see endless amounts of sin — as is true of every church.
God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation. When the church elevates itself to the same level as God (e.g., papal infallibility), it has embraced sin and arrogance.
The relationship with God is a personal one. The church can assist us with understanding the bible, but one should always keep in mind that any church is run by fallible and sinful humans. God and the Bible are the only perfect entities.
This is very true. So how does that pertain to the Church? And for the +1,000,000th time with feeling:
Last time I check God granted the authority, and not only that promised to make sure that it wouldn’t be lost.
And who was is that decided which books make up the Bible and which don’t?
Heh heh, he labeled himself. He was talking about the pope just being a little old man trying to drum up attention, thats all that this chap is trying to do. Unfortunately, his thoughts about the church are echoed by many others.
Just keep praying,
Dave
Hi Jimmy,
I hope I didn’t overstep my boundaries here but I shot Mr. Martin a challenge on his blog (awaiting moderatin so who knows if it will make it to the page). My challenge was stated as follows:
—
Mr. Martin,
I wonder if you would be open to discussing this topic publicly via a podcast or webcast with someone like Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, or Karl Keating? They work for a Catholic apostolate called Catholic Answers.
I am sure they would be happy to discuss this topic with you in a civil manner. Please email me if you are interested. If you are interested I will reach out to the guys at Catholic Answers to see if they are also interested. I can almost guarantee they would be.
If I don’t hear from you I will assume you are not interested in publicly defending your position.
Finally, in case anyone is interested in reading the actual Vatican document Mr. Martin is referencing you can find it here:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html
—
Again, hope I didn’t overstep my boundaries. I would be happy to host the dialogue on my blog or just as happy to sit back and watch/listen.
Personally, I think this would make for an excellent hour of Catholic Answers Live. Somehow I doubt Mr. Martin is brave enough to take the challenge though.
Pax Christi,
Ron Pereira
Catholic Reply dot Com
When will some learn that the Church created the Bible, not the other way around?
Ron, I have no idea whether you overstepped, but not to worry. He’ll never respond. He doesn’t want a dialog with the purpose of discovering truth; he wants a soapbox for the purpose of airing his opinions.
I’ve heard it said numerous times that “Jesus did not come to write a book”….he came to bring us through His love, the salvation that mankind does not deserve. To show us the the path of life, the Way.
I’d be interested to know from you all, that given what the pope has said, or written that is, who believes that Protestants will not be saved? Did this new information change your minds in any direction?
God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation.
The Bible itself warns us that no part of it is subject to private interpretation.
(Some translations render that verse that no “prophecy” is so subject, but since prophecy is inspired speech, and all Scripture is inspired — QED)
I’d be interested to know from you all, that given what the pope has said, or written that is, who believes that Protestants will not be saved?
Did he say anything that means an objective state of schism is damnable, regardless of any circumstances or conditions? If not, what’s to change?
To answer a few comments, yes, the Bible was assembled by the early church, but was given to us by men inspired by God. This has nothing to do with the church, and everything to do with God.
Everyone, including those of high station, learns on the path to God. No one can claim infallible knowledge — that’s why trust *must* be put in God, and not in the church. The Catholic church (and all churches) have proven over and over and over again to be very fallible and very sinful. That is the nature of man, pope -or- pauper.
Anyone who puts their trust in the church over God commits sin. “Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me.” Truth belongs to God, and only God. Putting ultimate trust in man or any institution created by man elevates man above God.
Mary, Some Catholics are so swayed by the word of the Pope, it been my experience that they like the media can misinterpret his words. Also if the Bible is not open to private interpretation, who is the “group” to interpret the scriptures. A church, the Catholic church, the Pope. It just all seems so silly. The Protestants all have their beliefs, just as the Catholics do. And each have their own explanations as to why their belief is correct. Obviously no one will be swayed on this blog, just as no one on a Protestant blog will be swayed either. Doesn’t it really all come down to our Holy Spirit, and God at work in us. First, if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the if we are doing what the Holy Spirit is telling us is right, and God, or Jesus does not convict us that what we are doing is wrong, who’s to tell me that my faith is not the true faith. I am not a bible scholar or theologist by any stretch. But this bantering about what scriptural interpretation is correct is meaningless. If the issues we’re discussing will determine our salvation, don’t you think God would have made it more clear in the Bible. God is merciful!! Amen!!
An otherwise pretty good conservative journal, the Patriot Post (by Mark Alexander), has also weighed in with his anti-catholicism…
http://patriotpost.us/
Tim says, “No one can claim infallible knowledge”.
Weren’t the human authors of Sacred Scriptures infallible? Did the Church act infallibly when it defined the canon of Scripture (which books to include and which to exclude). Was the Church infallible when it defined the doctrine of the Trinity or the two natures of Christ? What about the Apostles creed or the Nicene creed?
Didn’t Christ promise not to leave us “orphaned” and to “be with you always” and to “lead you into all truth”? Fallibly or infallibly?
Tim,
I realize that to point this out is likely futile, but since I have nothing better to do at the moment…
You contradict yourself. In the first paragraph of your comment (at 11:40 am) you accept that the church was indeed infallibly inspired by God when she compiled the biblical cannon – then in subsequent paragraphs you say that the church is not infallible.
Please pick one side or the other…
Mark — the bible was created by men inspired by God. In this special case, man’s hand was guided by God to give us the scripture. That is very different than claiming the church is infallible. Look at the history of the king James bible, and all the problems they had with sinful men attempting to change the text. That’s the church at work, not God.
Christ did indeed make us many promises, but they were personal promises to each man and woman to lead us to salvation. He did *not* make promises that we can put perfect trust in church leaders, only in God.
Do you sincerely believe the Catholic church (or any church) is free from sin? Do you believe in papal infallibility? Do you believe all popes since the beginning of the Catholic church have been free of sin and have been infallible? The idea is historically absurd. Yet, the Catholic church claims their leadership is equivalent to God. That is clear sin.
No, Jesus did not die on the cross for the church, he did it for each and every one of us, as individuals. All men are sinners in the eyes of God, including the pope.
I would like to add that infallibility is only with faith and morals, we are not saying the pope doesn’t sin or everything he says is true, so it does not “prove the Church fallible” because in the past the Church was corrupt. I ask, did any of those corrupt men actually TEACH what they were doing, the answer is no, to paraphrase Peter Kreeft (or at least I think it went something like this) they may not have raised their action to their teaching, but neither did they lower their teaching to their acion.
Also, yes, the writers were inspired, but the stuff was being taught before it was written, and it was the Church that decided what was true or not, and what went into the Bible, so it has everything to do with the Church and it has everything to do with God. Of course, since we are all siful, perhaps the Bible is also false.
Finally, the Church was instituited by Jesus, not man, he is the invisible head of the Church, so we are putting our trust in him, and the Church he created and leads.
Steve,
You are right, of course. But Tim’s response will be that God worked a miracle through the Church when She compiled the Biblical canon, but not afterward, at least not in any consistent way. This strange exceptionalism makes sense to Tim because he sees everything through the lens of sola scriptura. Since we had to have the Bible, God used the Church to work a miracle to give it to us. That’s all. The fact that the Bible does not endorse sola scriptura is just a mystery he’s willing to live with.
O and it is exactly the same thing as infallibilty that the Bible was inspired, the writers wrote the truth free of error, and when the Church compiled it they were free from error in doing so, this is infallibility.
(O and note that part about the bible being sinful is sarcasm)
This is a transcript of what I entered into their “Feedback” dialog box:
Re: Roland S. Martin’s commentary on Pope Benedict XVI (07-13-07):
I am at a loss to understand how you could permit this to be published under your banner. “…an old man trying to get a little attention.” ??? That “old man” gets all the attention that anyone could handle; he has no need to simper.
He also shows, for one who was supposedly a “die-hard Catholic” who was a “dedicated student of Catechism,” a remarkable inability or unwillingness to *understand* this instruction.
First, Benedict did not issue it. A department of his Curia did.
Second, it taught nothing new. Really, absolutely nothing new. Everything that the instruction contained was to be found in Church documents dating back to Vatican II, and even earlier, including the distinction between “Churches” on the one hand, and “ecclesial communities” on the other.
Do you have editors? Do your editors exercise due discretion? Do they have experts they can consult with? Or does CNN stand behind this, disclaimer and all?
I only had a thousand characters to work with. I would have liked to have written more.
Oh, those pesky Catholics!
If only they’d go away and never come back. Or better yet, if only they’d never come around at all!
Yeah, that’s the ticket. No Catholics! Then us Protestants wouldn’t have …. wouldn’t have …
Oh. I guess we wouldn’t have Christianity. Damn. I hate it when the Catholics are right.
People who aren’t in the church care inordinately what we think, which is mighty peculiar, it’s true.
Also, I am a convert to the Catholic Church, but I am well aware that it is possible for people to fall out of the Church, and have opinions like this. We don’t educate our members worth a darn, and many Catholics are functionally illiterate about religion. So when they leave, what should we expect them to say???
Why doesn’t the catholic church encourage home bible studies? Or do they, and I just miss it? I understand they would not want it mis interpretted but Christ said to meditate on it day and night?
It gets a little old refuting the same misconceptions over and over again, especially when they have already been refuted in the same thread. The Catholic Church encourages the reading and study of the Bible. I wish that non-Catholics would find out what the Church really teaches, rather than relying on what non-Catholics say the Church teaches.
To answer a few comments, yes, the Bible was assembled by the early church, but was given to us by men inspired by God. This has nothing to do with the church, and everything to do with God.
Everyone, including those of high station, learns on the path to God. No one can claim infallible knowledge — that’s why trust *must* be put in God, and not in the church
Nonsense. If people inspired by God can write the Bible and know what the canon is, they can claim infallible knowledge.
Also if the Bible is not open to private interpretation, who is the “group” to interpret the scriptures. A church, the Catholic church, the Pope. It just all seems so silly.
Tim, it is clear that you do not believe that “God gave us the Bible to show us the way to salvation.” You have just declared that the explicit teaching of the Bible “silly”.
Doesn’t it really all come down to our Holy Spirit, and God at work in us. First, if we believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and the if we are doing what the Holy Spirit is telling us is right, and God, or Jesus does not convict us that what we are doing is wrong, who’s to tell me that my faith is not the true faith.
Except that here you are assuming that it is the Holy Spirit working in you. “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God;”
Look at the history of the king James bible, and all the problems they had with sinful men attempting to change the text. That’s the church at work, not God
That’s schismatics at work. They had separated themselves, deliberately and willfully, from the Church which Jesus founded on Peter, and to say their sins rebound against the Church they revolted against is — silly, at best.
If people inspired by God can write the Bible and know what the canon is, they can claim infallible knowledge.
Anyone can claim anything.
It gets a little old refuting the same misconceptions over and over again, especially when they have already been refuted in the same thread.
Love is patient, bill.
Also, “the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.”
0:)
Unbelievable.
I just wrote a parody, taking the perspective of an early Christian objecting to the arrogance of the Apostles to claim that theirs was the true faith.
http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/post/index/391/Those-arrogant-Apostles
Stephen’s parady is a well-crafted hoot. Take a look.
“To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn’t compromise on this issue either.”
Well done, Stephen. Well done.
You very eloquently stated what I have tried to communicate to non-catholics in the past. The apostles were human just like us. Open to temptation and ego. They could have easily splintered and started their own versions of a Christian church. Instead, they martyred themselves rather than allow their faith to be compromised.
“To acknowledge those who have gone their own way as part of the same Church would be to deny the Apostles who didn’t compromise on this issue either.”
Well done, Stephen. Well done.
You very eloquently stated what I have tried to communicate to non-catholics. The apostles were mere men, subject to temptation and ego like any modern day man. They could have easily splintered and headed up their own version of the church, yet instead, they were each martyred as they stood fast and strong, uncompromised and TOGETHER for the one, true faith.
What’s unbelievable is that CNN allows this type of bigoted commentary. Anti-Catholicism is rampant in the media but they get a free pass. My homily was on the CDF document this weekend and how much outcry it caused. The media does cartwheels to explain away the motives and actions of radical Islamists and trys to re-interpret what the word jihad means. Nice of CNN and the secular media to try to help us understand those who hate us while taking a bigoted narrow unexamined view of a faith that is primarily responsible for building this Western Civilization. God speed, Jimmy. Hope they publish your rebuttal.
“The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the writer. This is part of an occasional series of commentaries on CNN.com that offers a broad range of perspectives, thoughts and points of view.”
Catholic “Bible Study” is not just on Sundays–in many parishes it is 365 days a year (including daily Mass and a sermon on the readings.) Is there a Protestant parish anywhere that can match that??? And we Catholics have been doing this in the vernacular since long before Vatican II. The trouble is we Catholics –and Protestants– have been brainwashed to the academic mold–that only classroom style lectures are “Bible Study.” I am 64 years old and as long as I can remember I have heard that we should get to “Bible Study” in church whenever possible, preferably every day at Daily Mass.
Hi,
During a recent Sunday evening service while watching Focus on the Family’s “Truth Project” video, an atheist said that, if there were a God, he’d rather go to hell than be in heaven with preachers.
The reaction of the evangelical Protestants was predictable. They dismissed the comment with a click of their tongues. I, on the other hand, was heart-broken. What was it about preachers (and we evangelicals in general) that has turned this man against God to the point he’d prefer hell? If it were the offense of the cross, that’d be one thing. My suspicion is that many are turned off from God because of the offense of Christians.
I would encourage Roman Catholics to look beyond the anti-Catholic (and anti-loving) comments in the CNN editorial. See if there might be some (however small) truth to be concerned about. What can the church do to help people have the experience the editorialist felt was lacking?
I know it’s tough to focus on all that is wrong with our critics. If we approach their comments humbly, we might learn something.
Love your blog, Jimmy.
God bless you all.
-Rod
Is there a forum where Catholics can discuss text and issues in the Bible. How about fellowship. Or is it just told to them at Mass everyday of the week.
In the writer’s experience, “we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily.”
I don’t think that’s an isolated experience.
Wes, by your own account, you have been to one Catholic “service” (BTW, we don’t have a service, we have the Mass). If you were a regular at many Catholic parishes, you would find many Bible studies and a family-based study of the faith. IOW, yes, we do have Bible studies, (I really don’t know what “fellowship” is–sorry) But, I do know that my Catholic parish supports a health care clinic for those who falls through the cracks(no government money–just donations), has a prison ministry, and a Lord’s diner to feed the hungry. Is that fellowship?
Mary Margaret- most Masses I’ve been to on Sunday morning are followed by coffee and companionship; I’ve been told that’s one of the forms of “fellowship.”
Wes, at my small home church– a “satellite parish,” which means we share a priest with several other small towns– we had CCD, a youth group that met regularly with Father for Bible study (and every year meets with other youth groups and the Bishop), a Bible Study, womens’ Bible study and Prayer group (which did most of the organizing for CCD), and I know there was a Knights of Columbus within decent driving distance. (At the main Parish that our Fathers are based out of, actually.)
All this in a very small church.
Foxfier, I actually grew up in a “mission” parish. Sounds very similar–we also had a priest who rode the circuit, so to speak. They still do, BTW. Oh, yes, at my current parish, we do the coffee (really bad coffee!) and doughnut thing after Mass. We also have a parish picnic, many youth groups, etc. Small parishes sometimes do these things better, I think. Maybe just because we all really know one another. My current parish is a pretty big one (for Kansas), and a pretty wealthy one (ditto), but I have never met with less than true kindness and love from my fellow parishoners or my (overworked) priest. God is so very good!
*giggles* I confused the heck out of my Husband To Be when I referred to a day being so long that I needed “Church coffee”– which, for me, means that I pour enough creamer and sugar into the black sludge to make it drinkable, and it’s far better than an energy drink.
I like “mission” parish a lot more! Mind if I borrow it?
In the writer’s experience, “we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily.”
I don’t think that’s an isolated experience.
Very likely, but it’s not avoidable. We are warned that we will “grow together until the harvest.”
Foxfier, Congratulations on your upcoming marriage! Ad multos annos! I really don’t know the definition of a mission parish, but that is what a priest told me that my old hometown parish was. This could be a good question for Jimmy. But, by all means, borrow it if you like, at least until we know what it is.
BTW, Jimmy, sorry to have gotten off topic here. I was so angry when I read Mr. Martin’s diatribe, that I had to think about the good in order to avoid the near occasion of sin. I do hope that you are allowed to rebut, and that CNN gives you the same forum–but I’m not holding my breath.
I can’t help but e-mailing Mr. Roland Martin. This poor man is the casualty of poor faith formation, weak faith. Here is a copy of my e-mail to him. He and his family need our prayers.
From: T.V.
Sent:Sat 7/14/07 10:01 PM
To: roland@rolandsmartin.com
Dear Mr. Martin:
Shame on you! You are what we called fallen-away Catholic. The kind of ex-catholics that betray us, the faith-filled Catholics in a worse way. You have no one to blame but your poor education of Catholic
Faith.
Tell me that you really read the Catholic Catechism from page to page, that you learned the real meaning of a Catholic Mass, that you participate whole-heartedly in each Sunday Mass and heard with your heart the readings from old testament, new testament, book of psalms. You were SLEEPING all those 15 years when you were a Catholic because you did not participate at all and you did not respond to the call of Holy Spirit yourself when you committed schism, became a heretic. I do not have a journalistic degree and may not be good at playing with words like you. But Lord Jesus does not care because I believe in the TRUTH. I do not twist the TRUTH the way you did!
To point you the way, please do the following: 1) look up the CD, DVD, books of Dr. Scott Hahn (well known protestant theologian turned Catholic) 2) watch Journey Home Program Monday 7 PM CT at EWTN TV among other means of going HOME. Google has Marcus Grodi’s Journey Home website (He was a Protestant Minister before finding the Truth in Catholic Church) 3) Look up other well-known stories of Protestant
converts to Catholicsm – Dr. Alex Jones (Black Minister), and more recently the protestant theologian Francis Beckwith. Since your wife is a Protestant Minister you should have easy access to these and many other reliable witness stories.
For the sake of your salvation please make an effort to get rid of your ignorance. Seek the Truth. Ask the
grace of Holy Spirit to remove the plunk in your eyes. Do not blame the Catholic Religion for your ignorance of scripture. After all it was St. Jerome (a Catholic Saint in case you do not know him) who said “Ignorant of scripture is ignorant of Christ”.
I believe that I am doing a spiritual act of charity. Pope Benedict XVI says God is Love. I pray you respond to the Triune God like Dr. Alex Jones and the others. Let me know if you would like me to provide you with CD, DVD, books in your quest of the TRUTH.
I will be including you, your wife and your family in my daily prayer. May God bless you abundantly and may the Holy Spirit leads you home to the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church. You will always be welcome home. The One True Church can make good use of the gifts and talents you and your wife have to bring many people home to Jesus Christ, our Lord. On that beautiful day, please remember me and let me share your joy.
Sincerely your,
Terry Vaidya
(gitavaidya@hotmail.com)
YES!
When we are exposed to this sort of vitriol in the mainstream public media, it can only mean we are unto something.
Now let’s say a decade for Roland S. Martin.
His grandparents, who were co-founders the Catholic parish he so long ago attended, would do no less.
Many in the world do not understand what it means to be Catholic. The word Catholic means to be Universal. To be Catholic means you are under The One Universal Almighty God. As is what is written from the Book of Genesis and through out the Books of Ages, or what we call The Holy Bible. God reveals words and symbols to his children. Not in The Holy book alone but in our very human hearts. The Holy Bible is only one of many references we can relate to Our Father and in whole the Holy Trinity. Why do we forget the most important of everything we write down? We all as a world even twist Our Lords own words to benefit our arguments. Yet we should never forget that even Our Lord, The Son, Jesus Christ warned us about what we may say. For even in our words, in our hearts will not only shed Good but may also create Evil and that will tear us away from Our Father. Read and contemplate this passage and truly listen to your own heart, for only their will you hear and hope to listen to Our Father teaching you how to live.
Mathew Chapter 12
12:10. And behold there was a man who had a withered hand, and they asked him, saying: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days? that they might accuse him.
12:11. But he said to them: What man shall there be among you, that hath one sheep: and if the same fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not take hold on it and lift it up?
12:12. How much better is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do a good deed on the Sabbath days.
12:13. Then he saith to the man: Stretch forth thy hand; and he stretched it forth, and it was restored to health even as the other.
12:14. And the Pharisees going out made a consultation against him, how they might destroy him.
(Even here the priests and all of those who thought they were doing God’s work tested Jesus and tried to have Our Lord disgraced and humiliated. Continuing on…)
12:15. But Jesus knowing it, retired from thence: and many followed him, and he healed them all.
12:16. And he charged them that they should not make him known.
12:17. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying:
12:18. Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soul hath been well pleased. I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles.
12:19. He shall not contend, nor cry out, neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets.
12:20. The bruised reed he shall not break: and smoking flax he shall not extinguish: till he send forth judgment unto victory.
12:21. And in his name the Gentiles shall hope.
(As Roman Catholics and as Good Christians we shall continue to do what is right and allow the Word of God to be heard, whether we are The Pope, priests, teachers, rich, or poor, we must follow because we are one body with Christ. Such has Christ Our Lord has done in the past; we must be God’s people.)
12:22. Then was offered to him one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb: and he healed him, so that he spoke and saw.
12:23. And all the multitudes were amazed, and said: Is not this the son of David?
12:24. But the Pharisees hearing it, said: This man casteth not out devils but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
(Here Jesus Our Lord is acknowledged for doing God’s work, and so too the Pope and many people in the world are acknowledged for doing God’s work. Why should you condemn someone for doing God’s work? And Our Lord still tries to teach the Pharisee’s in his time and to those who read and bash the Bible on everyone else is doing wrong.)
12:25. And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand.
12:26. And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself: how then shall his kingdom stand?
12:27. And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.
12:28. But if I by the Spirit of God cast out devils, then is the kingdom of God come upon you.
12:29. Or how can any one enter into the house of the strong, and rifle his goods, unless he first bind the strong? and then he will rifle his house.
12:30. He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.
(Here Jesus, Our Lord, makes a statement. God tells you what he thinks about what you are doing. Do you not listen?)
12:31. Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
(read this)
(The blasphemy of the Spirit… The sin here spoken of is that blasphemy, by which the Pharisees attributed the miracles of Christ, wrought by the Spirit of God, to Beelzebub the prince of devils. Now this kind of sin is usually accompanied with so much obstinacy, and such willful opposing the Spirit of God, and the known truth, that men who are guilty of it, are seldom or never converted: and therefore are never forgiven, because they will not repent. Otherwise there is no sin, which God cannot or will not forgive to such as sincerely repent, and have recourse to the keys of the church. )
12:32. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
(Nor in the world to come… From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog. 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place. )
12:33. Either make the tree good and its fruit good: or make the tree evil, and its fruit evil. For by the fruit the tree is known.
(Here God in the form of Jesus Christ is making judgment already about what we may say or do, and warns us to make sure they are Good. For we will all be judged by our hearts.)
12:34. O generation of vipers, how can you speak good things, whereas you are evil? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
(Again Jesus warns us all but mainly to those who will use the Bible to twist every word to tear the Church apart, and to those say they Christian and yet don’t live it. Many people fall into this category and they are people who were raised Catholic, protestant, etc. It is the Catholic Church that is bringing these errors to light and the only Body of Christ that wants to save God’s people.)
12:35. A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.
12:36. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the Day of Judgment.
(Every idle word… This shows there must be a place of temporal punishment hereafter where these slighter faults shall be punished. )
12:37. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
12:38. Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee.
(A sign… That is, a miracle from heaven. [Luke 11:16] Could this sign be also something that an evil doer wants proof that they are better than everyone else? And the only true people of God, could these be the ones who believe in the rapture? Jesus the Son of God tells us all what happens when we expect a sign saying…)
12:39. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.
12:40. For as Jonas was in the whale’s belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.
(Three days, etc… Not complete days and nights; but part of three days, and three nights taken according to the way that the Hebrews counted their days and nights, viz., from evening to evening. )
12:41. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here.
12:42. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here.
12:43. And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none.
12:44. Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
12:45. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation.
12:46. As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him.
12:47. And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee.
12:48. But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
(Who is my mother?… This was not spoken by way of slighting his mother, but to show that we are never to suffer ourselves to be taken from the service of God, by any inordinate affection to our earthly parents: and that which our Lord chiefly regarded in his mother, was her doing the will of his Father in heaven. It may also further allude to the reprobation of the Jews, his carnal kindred, and the election of the Gentiles. Could this also be a reason why priests must not be married? Why would Jesus Son of God want us to not be caught up in worldly affairs when we are doing God’s work? Could it be that God’s work is more important that your own immediate family?)
12:49. And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren.
12:50. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.
(Here God, The Son of Man, Jesus Christ tells us that it is those who follow his words and continue to never persuade from it the people of God. Did you know that the Catholic Church’s Teachings have not been changed in the slightest for 2,000 years since Jesus? Did you know that maybe the reason the pope and the Catholic Church wont change certain things like women priests or priests being married because that is how Jesus Christ the Son of God wanted it? If Jesus Christ taught to his disciples to teach everyone what the Catholic Church is teaching us today then why do you want to persecute it? Why do you hate it so? As Christians we must follow Jesus Christ’s teachings and live them. As Roman Catholics we must never silence our voice for we are following what Our Lord, Jesus Christ wants us to do. To do God’s work. Amen.)
Wow.. I have read many things over the years from “Ex-Catholics.” But this guy takes the cake.
I honestly doubt you would see someone from CNN attacking another religious group at all. Because the backlash from said groups would overwhelm them.
Perhaps we need to be more vocal about our sadness over the clearly misdirected Mr. Martin.
I also read Stephen Korsman’s parody that he did. Good stuff.
-The One Called Zorron
Ok this is a response to Jim way way towards the begging of this blog posting. WARP 18! Wow, better tell Star Fleet. CNN is the most pathetic anti catholic news organization I ever seen. There former president and founder insulted several staffers a few years ago when he asked them why the heck they had a smudge on their forehead, of course it was about 40 days till Easter Sunday but hey he’s a moron who thinks the shuttle can go wrap 18!
Mr. Esau,
Where are you ? didn’t reply for this article ,why?
Would the above be a Rule 22 violation?
CONTACT CNN.COM
Type of error: (Wrong information, editorial slant, information left out, etc.)
http://www.cnn.com/feedback/forms/form6.html?1
The Decline of Controversy – By Most Rev. Fulton Sheen
I believe people need to ask more questions with an open heart then attempt to attack something they know nothing about. What happens to an army that attacks a target they think they know about, but find out they were wrong. They all die.
Many comments ago, someone asked if orthodox Catholics were the only ones to get what the document said correct.
Actually, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, understands it pretty well. He, however, still thinks that it says that loyalty to the Pope makes a body of believers, a Church, rather than Apostolic Sucession (and therefore a valid Eucharist.)
DocP,
“…the only two churches with any sort of reasonable claim to legitimacy are the catholics and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which argues the loss of authority through an apostasy which had taken hold by the 3rd c….”
The loss of authority through such an apostasy is not possible because Jesus promised to be with the Church founded on Peter (the first Pope, though that title would appear later) forever and that the gates of hell would NEVER prevail against it. Such an apostasy would clearly be a victory for hell. Also, if this loss of validity happened in the third century then that would mean that God basically just ditched the Church and all Christians for 1500 years since Mormonism wasn’t known until the 1800s. Like many here I am a convert to the Catholic Church and this same sort of issue was an important one in my own conversion – I realized that if the Catholic Church were illegitimate then there must not have been any true Christians from Biblical times until the Protestant Deformation, a notion that I cannot accept. Thank you for speaking charitably of our Papa by the way. Would that more non-Catholics would try to understand what’s being asserted, like you have, instead of just reacting in knee-jerk fashion. Careful though, I know from experience that once one begins to try to understand Catholic teaching, from Catholic sources, his objections may be thoroughly answered. You may or may not be interested to know that Catholic Answers (catholic.com) has several articles concerning Mormonism.
May God bless you.
By the way, here are some examples of what happens when one doesn’t bother to find out what Church teachings are, but prefers jumping to conclusions:
Tim wrote:
“Do you believe all popes since the beginning of the Catholic church have been free of sin and have been infallible? The idea is historically absurd.”
Even though no Catholic has ever made such a claim (that of sinlessness of popes). Pope John Paul II went to confession either weekly or daily (I can’t remember which), so likely the Pope himself would be the first to admit his sinfullness.
And Wes wrote:
“Did this new information [in the document] change your minds in any direction?”
Even though no new information is contained in the document, a fact that has been stated in this very thread.
And,
“…who believes that Protestants will not be saved?”
Even though the document says nothing of the sort.
I’m not trying to be harsh, because I was guilty of the same sort of assumptions when I was a Protestant. I’m just pointing these examples out because I think they show the importance of finding out what Catholic teaching actually is, from Catholics, realizing that there is a need to understand what Catholics actually mean when they say certain things rather than getting upset and leaping to false conclusions over what one assumes them to mean.
And Wes wrote: “Did this new information [in the document] change your minds in any direction?” Even though no new information is contained in the document, a fact that has been stated in this very thread.
Wes himself didn’t write the words “[in the document]”. The “new information” Wes spoke of may be the newly published document itself. In that light, I find Wes’s questions to be relevant and interesting.
Watch Protestant Bible “Study on” Tv– in the end it is just the same as much Bible “Study” in Protestant Churches. The minister opens the Bible, says to turn to a passage, then he pontificates to the assembled– who say nothing and accept what he says as avidly as if he were pope. In Protestant parishes I have visited it is the same in “Bible Study Classes.” Although there may be more discussion or questions than at Daily Mass, in the end it is the minister-scholars’ expertise and information (and his doctrines) which carry the day.
Edith,
Brackets such as these [ ] are used to indicate that the person quoting is inserting something of his own in order to place a quote in context without having to quote an excessively long passage.
Regarding the formation of the canon. I may have posted this comment on another thread but it needs repeating –
The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times
were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.
The formation of the canon was due to a growing grass-roots consensus rather than a decision that was handed down by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon was not imposed by church leaders or by councils. They stand at the end of the process rather than at the beginning.
No action of a council or a synod was early enough to have had a decisive influence on the course of events. The council decrees have the form: “This council declares that these are the books which have always been held to be canonical”.
And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Roman church as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople. At these Councils, where the ‘Nature of God’ was defined and determined for all generations, Latin bishops made an insignificant contribution. For instance, out of a total attendance of 318 at the Council of Nicea, the Latins could boast of only 7 representatives.
The order of church development was conditioned by the availability of scriptures in the common tongue. The Bible passed from Hebrew to Greek and thence into Latin, and the churches developed in similar order. The Latin churches, in the centuries when they were without the authoritative word, relied a great deal upon unauthoritative and wholly unreliable tradition.
The earliest churches in Jerusalem, Samaria, Lydda, Caesarea, Antioch etc. were all separate entities and from the earliest times
were in possession of the various letters and ‘gospels’ which form our present canon.
And plentiful other letters and gospels that do not.
And even if it had been a “church” that selected the canon, it would certainly not have been the Roman church as all ecumenical Councils before 900 AD were held in the Greek East and all were convoked by the Emperor from Constantinople. At these Councils, where the ‘Nature of God’ was defined and determined for all generations, Latin bishops made an insignificant contribution. For instance, out of a total attendance of 318 at the Council of Nicea, the Latins could boast of only 7 representatives.
ROFLOL.
I suggest that you cease to cite things that are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. The claim of Rome to be the seat of the Papacy, and the Pope to be the head of the Church, has nothing to do with where the councils were held, or who attended them.
Unless — humm — unless you are imagining that the Catholic church is like your church — not catholic, not universal.
What matters is that all the bishops at those councils were in communion with the Pope.
Mary, I think you nailed it with the word “imagining”.
Mary said:
The Bible itself warns us that no part of it is subject to private interpretation.
I would love to see some documentation on that point.
And:
I suggest that you cease to cite things that are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. The claim of Rome to be the seat of the Papacy, and the Pope to be the head of the Church, has nothing to do with where the councils were held, or who attended them.
Of course, Vynette’s point was that the establishment of the canon was not decreed by any church or council. The council merely affirmed what most had already tested and discerned as true (Rom 12:2, 1Jn 4:1). The issue is not who was in communion with whom, but the comment was meant to show that the typical argument repeated time and again on this blog, that the Catholic Church established the canon of Scripture, simply isn’t true.
If you can refute Vynette from that perspective rather than throwing out strawmen, then please do so.
Cory,
Documentation for Mary’s scripture passage is 2nd Peter 1:20:
(21) Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (21) for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Prophecy, as you may know already, does not refer simply to predictions of the future, but usually means speaking for God. The scriptures themselves, because they are written under inspiration or the Holy Spirit, are a form of prophecy and are not subject to private interpretation.
With all due charity, it is hard to reason with those who have come in here to merely attack. They have been steeped in a religious bigotry that occasionally masks itself as scholarship. They mean no ill will; they believe that through their argumentation, they will lead us to Christ and away from the’man-made’ abberation that is Roman Catholicism. But to do such means there must be a selective use of history, scripture, theology, and apologetics. The great thing with our faith is we need not be selective; truth is its own guarantee. While a lesson in apologetics may be appropriate, prayer for those who hate us or hate what they think Catholicism is would be more appopriate and in line with Scriptural teaching.
I notice they do not ask reasonable questions we pose and obscure the truth with ahistorical rubbish. The one who cited the Latin Rite’s lack of participation in huge numbers at the Council of Nicea shows a disturbing lack of understanding of the history of the 4th Century Mediterrenean world. If the early churches were independent, why did St. Paul, St. Peter, St. John, or St. Jude bother to write their epistles, often correcting false teachings to churches clearly not in their pervue? That some churches saw themselves as separate was cause of problems, and certainly was openly chastized by the early apostles. How is it that St. Clement of Rome took it upon himself to write Corinth, as Paul did, to correct them for their harboring of divisions?
I could go on and on, but it is late. AS to the church not having set a canon of the NT…OK…from whence did it come? There were many other Gospels and epistles claiming to be of apostolic origin. Who decided that the Gospel of Luke was inspired and the Gospel of Thomas was not? What authoritative body made that decision? Why is it that St. Paul consults with (argues with) the apostles in Jerusalem and meets with them over the neceesity to follow Jewish ritual Law to consider oneself Christian?
I would suggest to any honest person who comes in here to tell us how we are wrong to doa thorough reading of the documents of the first three centuries after Christ. Read Ireneus, Justin Martyr, the Apostolic Tradition, the Didache, Athansius, Clement of Rome, then move into the Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostom, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose…and do it without prooftexting the way that is done to the Sacred Scriptures.
GK Chesterton once said that hundreds hate Roman Catholicism and millions hate what they think it is. Learn the truth! Learn the history! Learn the Scriptures! Then see what you think.
Elijah,
I looked up the passage you referenced, 1 Peter 1:20-21. As I had suspected, I found that scholars are divided over its translation.
What you give is the majority opinion, and the traditional Catholic point of view. The NET Bible renders verse 20 as “Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination.” This, the translator argues, is the best way to understand the author’s intent. Unfortunately, I have to concede that it is not, in fact, the literal translation of the verse.
However, even my Catholic Bible notes that, while this verse is usually cited to defeat sola scriptura arguments, in context it refers to the false teachers of chapter 2 and the “clever myths” of verse 16. This means that interpretation of Scripture is a matter of what the Spirit and the author intended, and not what the false teachers want it to mean.
Given that we who practice sola scriptura take great care to ensure that we are reading the plain meaning of the Scripture (exegesis) and not seeding our own ideas into the mix (eisegesis), I don’t believe that this passage refutes or contradicts sola scriptura. In fact, it places a greater burden of responsibility on us who feel called to teach God’s word to the next generation.
By the way, Fr. Bill, I believe that a good debate like this can strengthen the faith of people on either side of the fence. Provided that the debate is done in love, and we don’t sling mud at each other. If I have done that, then I’m very sorry. I am not one of those Protestants who tries to evangelize Catholics. No, I don’t agree with the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church–for documentation check my website (click on my name, check under “Articles”). I, like everyone here I hope seek the truth of God’s word. I don’t think that the Catholic Church has the full truth, but neither do I think any Protestant denomination does, either.
I should add to my above post that I know I don’t have have the full truth either. That is why I seek it, and I try to discern it by testing (Rom 12:2, 1Jn 4:1).
Brackets such as these [ ] are used to indicate that the person quoting is inserting something of his own in order to place a quote in context without having to quote an excessively long passage.
By inserting your own words amongst Wes’s words, you turned Wes’s words into your personal interpretation of what he wrote. But as I said, there is also another possible interpretation, such that “new information” was referring to the recently published document itself, and not simply what may have been new in the document when compared to prior documents. As such, Wes’s question could be “Did this new [document] change your minds in any direction?”
As you wrote, “there is a need to understand what [people] actually mean when they say certain things rather than getting upset and leaping to false conclusions over what one assumes them to mean.”
A recent Catholic convert here. I could make a lot of comments about what has been said here, but it’s really late and I should be in bed, but I wanted to discuss the bit about Protestant Bible Studies, since I have been in many of them.
Many Protestants really do seriously study the Bible, because that’s all they’ve got! I’ve been to some wonderful Bible Studies in years past that really sought to get to the true meaning of the text. A lot of them, such as ones by Beth Moore, use workbooks and videos, definitely written from a Protestant perspective but -trying-, though this is really impossible, to interpret the Scriptures without bias. The study usually either goes through a specific portion of scripture or resolves around a certain theme, with scripture readings chosen from throughout the Bible.
I know some Catholic churches do have Bible studies, and I think more could use them, because sadly, I do agree that a 15-minute sometimes watered-down homily a week is not enough. I feel very blessed to have the fullness of the faith now, but the Biblical background I acquired as a Protestant did prepare me well to understand all that I have now.
no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God
That explains how Scripture came about. Then there are translations and interpretations of that, such as Church documents. And then again there are translations and interpretations of those, such as by each person who reads or hears them, and then even according to the mood, moment or life experience of the person at the time.
I have to admit, that in the way I understand that passage, it doesn’t seem to argue against Sola Scriptura very strongly, if at all. But then I realized–if words were written down straight from inspiration and not from private interpretation–i.e. the prophet didn’t interpret them–then it doesn’t make sense for me to privately interpret them, either. And I’m nowhere near as great as one of the prophets. So it only makes sense to me, that sooner or later, where there’s question concerning a teaching, it’s a necessity to have someone on Earth who is given the charism of being able to speak authoritatively for God. The alternative is, disregarding a potentially important theme and saying “We can’t know,” but that doesn’t work for me because it’s too obvious that some points are made very strongly as important points with the intention of them being understood.
Just my 2 cents for now, as a fellow truth-seeker.
Sola Scriptura refutes itself: it’s unbiblical.
The Councils that determined which books were divinely inspired and which were not were the Councils of Hippo and Carthage(AD 394 and 397, if memory serves me), presided over by St. Augustine in the name of the pope.
The Councils that determined which books were divinely inspired and which were not were the Councils of Hippo and Carthage(AD 394 and 397, if memory serves me), presided over by St. Augustine in the name of the pope.
That’s basically correct. As for church councils and the biblical canon, it actually began with Pope Damasus about 382 A.D., who presided over a synod in Rome that issued a biblical canon: the same canon that the Catholic Church has reiterated ever since. Damasus asked St. Jerome to revise the Old Latin Bible and/or freshly translate the Bible into Latin, and to do that the church needed to be clear which books are in the Bible and which books aren’t. So it was naturaly that, in conjunction with his request to St. Jerome, Pope Damasus would also issue a statement on the biblical canon.
A few years later came the local councils in Carthage and Hippo, which endorsed the same biblical canon that previously had been endorsed at Rome. The biblical canon of those North African councils was approved by Rome. Then in the early 400s, Pope Innocent again endorsed that same biblical canon.
That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t still some question about the status of the deuterocanonical books among Bible scholars and theologians for some time to come, but every time the Church formally had anything to say on the subject, it was always the same biblical canon that was endorsed, most notably at the Oecumenical Councils of Florence and Trent in the 1400s and 1500s.
“GK Chesterton once said that hundreds hate Roman Catholicism and millions hate what they think it is.”
I though that statement was attested to Archbishop Fulton Sheen, where he said there are hundreds who hate the Church for what she truly teaches, but millions who hate her for what they think she teaches. But then again, he could have been quoting Chesterton.
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church….As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do.” ARCHBISHOP FULTON J. SHEEN — preface to RADIO REPLIES
Given that we who practice sola scriptura take great care to ensure that we are reading the plain meaning of the Scripture (exegesis) and not seeding our own ideas into the mix (eisegesis),
Cory,
If only that were true; however, this is not always the case. I have often met people who deliberately misinterpret various passages in Scripture in order to promote their Protestant leanings.
For example, when Pauls speaks of works of the Law in Galatians:
Gal 2:16:
16 But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, we also believe in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by the faith of Christ and not by the works of the law: because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.
How many times have I met Protestants who deliberately place their own gloss on this verse in order to make it mean that Jesus do not consider our works.
However, the truth of the matter is that “works of the law” here speaks of “the law” being the Torah. In these verses, Paul was making a point against the Judaizers.
This makes sense since prior to this verse, Paul had said:
14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Protestants often use the Gal 2:16 to make it mean what they want it to mean and not what it actually meant — that is, Paul was speaking against the Judaizers.
Certainly, the Catholic Church teaches the centrality of Jesus Christ, both Scripture AND Tradition, just as it was passed down by the Apostles unto those who would succeed them, who were the Fathers of the Chuch.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the message of the Gospel, the message of the Church, centers on the person of Jesus Christ who has revealed to us God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in an unheard of way.
We agree with you when it comes to the centrality of Jesus Christ who is found in Scripture; however, what I think you need to consider is that Jesus also gives us some definitive teachings concerning His Church and He commands us to submit ourselves to His Church.
He gave authority to His Church to continue his work by the power of the Holy Spirit and in Matthew 18 verses 15 through 17, he tells us that if we have a problem or disagreement, he says, “If you go to your brother and try to settle and can’t settle it, you take 2 or 3 with you; if you still can’t settle it, Jesus commands us to take it to the Church and the one who fails to hear the Church, is to be as a heathen and a publican.”
Jesus there gives us explicit teaching that the Church was to be a visible hierarchical institution that people can know and say, “Hey, there’s the Church! We need to go and get the definitive answer!”
Jesus never taught Sola Scriptura; Jesus never taught, “Just gather together anywhere and get your bibles out and, you know, whoever wins the argument, you kinda go with him.” But, Jesus taught about a definitive Church that’s hierarchical and so that’s what I think you might want to consider, looking into the Catholic Church that has been teaching this for 2000 years.
vynette (and others)
If you are even vaguely aware of any history at all, you know that the councils that set the canon were full of argument and controversy.
To say that the councils merely rubber-stamped a canon that everyone already approved is exactly the opposite of the truth. Before the councils there was great disagreement regarding the canon. Afterward, the controversy was settled.
The fact that the books chosen were all previously “held to be canonical” is obvious. What else would you expect? The point is that many OTHER books were erroneously held to be canonical in various places and by various people. The councils settled that.
Once again: before the councils, controversy – after the councils, agreement.
As I once told a “born again” former Catholic co-worker who was ragging on the Catholic Church, “just because YOU couldn’t find Christ in the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean others can’t”
Tim J.,
Precisely right, but for those who are dismayed by the turmoil following the Second Vatican Council, I would also point out that the agreement after the councils is almost never immediate, and takes a few decades to be absorbed.
If only that were true; however, this is not always the case. I have often met people who deliberately misinterpret various passages in Scripture in order to promote their Protestant leanings.
The NAB renders Matthew 19:9 as, “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” Other Catholic translations and all Protestant translations follow the M-text reading: “And I say to you, that whoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marrying a divorcee commits adultery.” So, in response to your assertion, how is the Catholic Church different? The only reason I can think of for the variant translation is to support the idea of an annulment.
Protestants often use the Gal 2:16 to make it mean what they want it to mean and not what it actually meant — that is, Paul was speaking against the Judaizers.
I agree. I teach that works are very important to one’s salvation–not necessary to it. Good works and obedience to Christ are a necessary fruit of salvation, not the reason for it. Therefore, if the Lord commands us to do something, we should do it.
I simply ascribe no authority to Catholic Tradition, and therefore do not believe that the sacraments are necessary for the reception of God’s grace. But that’s another argument.
You are decrying the people who preach “easy-believism,” the ones who say it is only necessary to believe in Christ and not allow Him to be your Lord. That is a serious issue today, and more and more people are being won to this false gospel.
Jesus never taught Sola Scriptura; Jesus never taught, “Just gather together anywhere and get your bibles out and, you know, whoever wins the argument, you kinda go with him.”
I hope that we are in agreement that homosexuality is a sin and that the people who try to say it isn’t are reading into Scripture what they want to be there. That said, I’m reminded of the aberrant pro-gay theology when I read this, since they use the exact same argument: “Jesus never taught that homosexuality was wrong.” Lack of an explicit teaching isn’t evidence that something is wrong.
However, the answer to the pro-gay argument is that Jesus did reaffirm the Genesis account of marriage between a man and a woman. Likewise, each time Jesus corrected a false teaching of the day, He did it from Scripture, without using oral traditions.
Not only did this guy apparenty never read Scripture while he was a Catholic, he apparently never read the Catechism of the Catholic Church either.
he tells us that if we have a problem or disagreement, he says, “If you go to your brother and try to settle and can’t settle it, you take 2 or 3 with you; if you still can’t settle it, Jesus commands us to take it to the Church and the one who fails to hear the Church, is to be as a heathen and a publican.”
Not quite. The passage speaks of how to work it out “if your brother sins (against you)”. It doesn’t say take all questions and disagreements about interpretation to the church. Furthermore, it says to first “go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.” In that, it expressly says to sit down with someone in private and work it out with him alone without taking the matter to the church. If that doesn’t work, it goes on to say you can gather one or two others and see if your sinning brother listens to them. Only then, if he refuses to listen to them, “tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”
To tell the church means to tell the religious community (a group of humans with ears and tongues, not Church documents) to which both you and your sinning brother both belong. Telling the church and listening to the church means actual conversations with living human beings, not pointing to a pre-written document.
The councils settled that.
Is that taking it to the Church?
As I once told a “born again” former Catholic co-worker who was ragging on the Catholic Church, “just because YOU couldn’t find Christ in the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean others can’t”
I must’ve been crazy to miss reading these combox discussions.
Andrew– If I read what you’re saying correctly, I can’t tell you that 2+2=4 unless I tell it to you directly?
Truth is truth, if it’s told you directly or told the world at large by writing.
The entire Protestant movement since the 16th century is based on the idea that the Catholic Church is defective. Where can I file my complaint about that? 😉
Once I realized how ludicrous and biased their movement was, I filed my complaint by leaving the Lutheran Church and being fully joined into the Catholic Church.
Works for me.
Cory,
I agree. I teach that works are very important to one’s salvation–not necessary to it. Good works and obedience to Christ are a necessary fruit of salvation, not the reason for it. Therefore, if the Lord commands us to do something, we should do it.
and
You are decrying the people who preach “easy-believism,” the ones who say it is only necessary to believe in Christ and not allow Him to be your Lord. That is a serious issue today, and more and more people are being won to this false gospel.
Now you’re the type of Protestant I have great respect for and would love to engage in dialogue with regarding these matters.
AMEN, brutha!
However, I do need to take issue with what you said here:
I simply ascribe no authority to Catholic Tradition, and therefore do not believe that the sacraments are necessary for the reception of God’s grace.
Remember, Mt 28:19:
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.
Even Luther did not deny the sacramental circumstances of the scriptural promise laid here.
Christ here speaks of the baptismal formula which is nothing less than the Word of Christ that’s spoken through the minister, the priest, when he baptizes somebody in the Name of Christ.
Remember Mark 16:16:
Mk 16:16:
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.
Most Protestants forget the “and is baptized” part of this Promise of the Gospel.
As for the other sacraments, instead of going through each and every one, let’s take into consideration the very sacrament that was found prominent in the early Church that the Church Fathers and even St. Paul spoke tremendously of:
It was St. Paul who even remarked:
1 Cor 11:27
27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Cor 11:26
26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
As many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st and 6th centuries, all proclaim the Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist.
St Ignatius in the 1st century was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said: “They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:
“We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”
Origen in the 3rd century wrote:
“If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:
“He Himself having declared, ‘This is My Body’, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, ‘This is My Blood’, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?”
He did it from Scripture, without using oral traditions.
Really?
Jesus spoke of Moses’ seat in Matthew 23:2-3. Could you kindly show me where the mention of “Moses’ seat” is in the Old Testament?
It was oral tradition that Jesus was, in fact, drawing from in his remarks here concerning the teaching office in Israel.
There are other examples, but this post of mine is already getting too lengthy, I’ll just stop here.
Andrew– If I read what you’re saying correctly, I can’t tell you that 2+2=4 unless I tell it to you directly?
When it says, “tell the church”, I ask you, are you writing a letter to the church? Handing your brother a Church document is not telling the church. And when it speaks of your brother “listening to the church,” is handing your brother or having your brother read a pre-written Church document what the verse intended? Maybe you think the church is a piece of paper. But you could have handed a document or cited Scripture to your brother in step #1. So that would not seem to be what the verse is saying.
Andrew,
There were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, for example. I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews as part of Scripture and said that they were not, in fact, inspired.
Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
The fact of the matter is that the Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided which books were to be included as part of Scripture, as part of the Bible, as part of the New Testament!
FF Bruce during his lifetime was known as the Dean of Evangelical Christians. He was very well respected as a Scholar and he has a book that I believe is called “The Canon of the New Testament” or it might be “The Canon of the Bible”.
Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
That is a matter of historical fact.
You cannot go to the individual books of the bible to determine just which books actually belong to the bible.
Martin Luther is an ally on this question.
In his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
The fact of the matter is that the Church preceded Scripture and, in fact, it’s the Church that decided which books were to be included as part of Scripture, as part of the Bible, as part of the New Testament!
Scripture existed prior to Jesus handing keys to Peter.
Andrew,
Think about it this way, in terms of our current system in America, would it have been better, as Scott Hahn has said in the past, that instead of having a judicial system, we just give folks the Constitution to rely on and tell them “May the Spirit of Washington be with you!”.
No, you need a teaching office that actively guides the people, just as the Catholic Church has done through the centuries with its teachings on abortion, stem cell research, etc.
If Scripture was all that was needed, Christ would’ve written Scriptures Himself and told folks to refer to it rather than what the Apostles were teaching them regarding His Teachings.
Also, if Scripture was alone sufficient, remember the Baptists who at one time regarded abortion as being acceptable based on their gloss on Scripture?
There has been so many differing opinions on present-day matters, each according to one’s interpretation of Scripture.
Clearly, what Martin Luther wrote in 1525 was quite prophetic regarding Protestantism today:
“There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet.”
you need a teaching office that actively guides the people
The office is made up of people. Whatever guides the people in the office can guide those not in the office as well. And indeed, people not in the office can guide those in the office too.
Scripture existed prior to Jesus handing keys to Peter.
Really?
Need I remind you that what you’re deferring to here is the “Old Testament” and, actually, the canon of the Old Testament itself wasn’t finally decided until the Council of Jamnia around AD 90?
the canon of the Old Testament itself wasn’t finally decided until the Council of Jamnia around AD 90?
Yet it existed prior to AD 90.
The office is made up of people. Whatever guides the people in the office can guide those not in the office as well. And indeed, people not in the office can guide those in the office too.
Sure, I’ll make sure to get a memo out to Ricky Gervais.
Sure, I’ll make sure to get a memo out to Ricky Gervais.
Why not CC it to the Pope while you’re at it.
I check CNN everyday for news and this article that this blog is about just seemed so out of place on their website. All these stories about homicides and terrorists and then they throw in this guy’s unfortunate experience of Catholicism.
Anyways, CNN does have a way to give feedback on its articles and I think I was probably the first one to do so because I read it just a few minutes after it was posted. However, they only give you 1000 characters to work with which is not nearly enough to respond to this man’s ignorance.
Andrew,
Actually, the office is not made up of people, it is occupied by people.
Absolutely. But since Christ created the office (the keys he gave to Peter are for an office, not a person), it makes sense to listen to the person in that office.
And since Christ also told us that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church, which is led on earth by the person occupying the office He created, it again stands to reason that listening to the person occupying that office is a wee bit safer than listening to someone outside that office who may or may not be correct, may or may not be guided by the Holy Spirit.
And you might say that you don’t need to listen to anybody whether they’re in an office or not, you can just read God’s Word for yourself. One might question, then, why Christ went through the trouble of (a) creating a Church, (b) creating an office to lead the Church and handing Peter the keys, (c) endowing Peter and the apostles with authority to bind and loose.
Why didn’t He just write a book and tell everyone to read it? Is it really wise to ignore something that Christ gave you for your benefit and the benefit of others?
LOL!! Yeah, “Don’t be angry,” just be EXTREMELY passive aggresive =D
When it says, “tell the church”, I ask you, are you writing a letter to the church? Handing your brother a Church document is not telling the church. And when it speaks of your brother “listening to the church,” is handing your brother or having your brother read a pre-written Church document what the verse intended? Maybe you think the church is a piece of paper. But you could have handed a document or cited Scripture to your brother in step #1. So that would not seem to be what the verse is saying.
*sigh* Let me elaborate, since I didn’t seem to convey the point I was trying for the first time….
My brother and I are arguing. He says 2+2=5, I say it is four.
I talk to him, no go.
I get a couple of my friends to talk to him, no go.
I go to the official Math Questions book, look it up and it says 2+2=4, and show that to him. If there is no entry, you physically go and ask person to person of the Math Authority, “What is 2+2?”
The act of researching a question is a form of asking– you are trying to get the information; when a disagreement has been had many times before, it would be sheer foolishness *not* to have a list of stuff that’s already been gone over.
So, I ask you– if an answer has already been given, and there is record of the response, why must you hear it from their own physical lips?
When you type out here, don’t you want folks to “listen” to you, even though there are no words spoken?
If your brother STILL will not agree, then telling the good folks would be a protection to them, but….
Martin Luther and the reformation and sola scriptura, that is relying strictly on the bible was due to the mistrust of man here on earth whether within or without of the Catholic Church for that matter.
From the time of Luther and the selling of indulgences by the Vatican to may for the misdeeds taking place at that time up until todays announced settlment of $660M by the Archdiocese of LA for abuse by clergy whose trust the lay person put in them to protect their children only to be let down and now whose money put into the basket each week will go to abuse victims
The alternative the Protestans, of whom there are countless denominations is by no means the right answer-but to not acknowledge the cause for the statement made by this CNN announcer, a former Catholic himself, and as I have come across here many times on this blog this constant denial that the clergy are perfect and have a halo over their head will only lead to further deterioration
Until the house is cleaned and faith, morals, tradition and reverence is restored with Christ and our Lady once again put at the forefront and ecumenism acknowledged as an error as B16 and the Vatican has commenced with his latest document stating these church’s are indeed wounded will then these kinds of statements cease
John,
I’m sure you’ve got some good points, but a little attention to punctuation and grammar (seriously, you’ve got a single period and who knows how many dependent clauses and dangling participles over umpteen lines of text) might make it readable.
All these arguments over translations are just another reason that I love being a Catholic. If every Christian has to be a scholar in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic just to find the meaning of each and every last verse in the Bible, then to hell with that! (Literally) If one isn’t such a scholar, one still ends up trusting some authority for the truth of whatever matter is under discussion. Usually, the person doing the ‘research’ just picks the translation that best suits his preconceived notions. After all, the author couldn’t mean THAT because it contradicts what I’ve been taught! I could be suspected of being lazy, I suppose, for not learning all those languages, not spending every moment of my life studying the historical context of each passage, but when I consider that those who do so still disagree amongst themselves endlessly, I think I’ve got a pretty good deal relying on the constant teaching of the Church that Christ himself founded and invested with the authority make binding interpretations.
What do you know about Wlodimir Ledochowski?
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/
http://continuingcounterreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/wlodimir-vladimir-ledochowski-mission.html
DW’s post would be your basic let-me-see-if-i-can-hijack-this-thread post.
John,
When genuine Catholics submit to the Authority of the Pope, they don’t do so because they believe the Pope is “perfect” or has a “halo”; no, they do so because they are placing their trust in Christ’s Promise which was made evident in Matthew 16:18, that “the Gates of Hell would not prevail”.
Also, when the priest peforms a Sacrament, he need not be perfect or have a “halo”; for what minister or priest exactly here on earth is actually “perfect”? All are sinners.
Thus, the sacraments he performs is ex opere operato and, hence, the efficacy of the Sacraments.
I would advise that you read of Saint Augustine and the conflict with the Donatists.
It’s truly a tragedy when the history of the early Christian Church are forgotten in this manner.
The reason why these arguments occur time and again is due to the amnesia that has taken hold of most Christians today.
This is why when Protestant converts read of the early Church Fathers, they feel the urge to convert to the Catholic Faith since they have re-captured what once was lost, re-gaining the very knowledge of the past that was once lost to them, seeing evidence that the early Christian Church, those to whom the Apostles passed along the Faith, had actually submitted to doctrines that were indeed Catholic.
I believe you should also read of the early Church just as well since you are falling deep into the same heresies as then.
Dr. Marcellino was indeed right when he said that most of the heresies that existed in the past often show up again but only that they show up in a different form.
Nil nove sub sole
My letter to CNN:
“An author with no credentials, who is ignorant & arrogant, harms CNN. Why do I say Roland S. Martin is ignorant? He seems to know as little about the Bible as he does of Catholicism. He reveals this when he lauds the Bible & slams the Catholic Church. His attitude is oxymoronic since it is that same Church that gave him his “Bible” (Google “Council of Carthage 397”). He doesn’t understand the history of his primary source. Why do I say he is arrogant? He has no credentials & yet he attacks the credibility of one of the most influential theologians of the 20th & 21st centuries–who also is the leader of a billion Christians. What is worse is that he presumes to make proclamations about what in scripture really counts. While he emphatically rejects the idea that God & the Pope might have a unique relationship, Martin, a “talk show host,” eagerly embraces the idea that God talks especially to him. That quality of hubris, not Papal teaching, shattered & continues to divide Christendom.
Esau,
“Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
That is a matter of historical fact.”
Since you quoted FF Bruce, let me give you another of his statements:
” What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.” [F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1950), p. 111.]
Hippo and Carthage were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church. They merely decided which books would appear in the “Catholic” Bible. As the CE article “Canon of New Testament” admits:
“The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles.”
Esau,
“Anyway, in that book FF Bruce goes through how the bible and, particularly, how the New Testament was put together and how it was Catholic Bishops who began to write letters back and forth and encourage the inclusion of certain books and the rejection of other books, culminating in a series of Catholic Councils right around the year 400 AD that put together the New Testament, the 27 books of the New Testament as we know it.
That is a matter of historical fact.”
Since you quoted FF Bruce, let me give you another of his statements:
” What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.” [F. F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis, 1950), p. 111.]
Hippo and Carthage were regional synods. They were not universal or ecumenical councils. About 50 bishops from the provinces of Africa attended each. These councils did not have authority to speak for the whole fourth-century church. They merely decided which books would appear in the “Catholic” Bible. As the CE article “Canon of New Testament” admits:
“The West began to realize that the ancient Apostolic Churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, indeed the whole Orient, for more than two centuries had acknowledged Hebrews and James as inspired writings of Apostles, while the venerable Alexandrian Church, supported by the prestige of Athanasius, and the powerful Patriarchate of Constantinople, with the scholarship of Eusebius behind its judgment, had canonized all the disputed Epistles.”
Apologies for the double post.
vynette,
If you are citing FF Bruce for the previously-held canonicity of the NT books, you might want to take a gander at Tim J.’s early post of Jul 16, 2007 11:00:22 AM.
Vynette,
You didn’t address the actual disagreements that took place amongst the various local churches in early Christian history.
As I mentioned, there were huge disagreements in the Early Church between St. Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, for example.
I’ve read, especially in ecclesiastical history, where many rejected Revelations, Jude, 2nd and 3rd John, Hebrews as part of Scripture and said that they were not, in fact, inspired.
Many in the early church actually accepted the Epistle of Clement as Scripture — it was read in Corinth for over a hundred years as Sacred Scripture after Clement died. There were disagreements as well over the Old Testament Canon. Whether books like Baruch was inspired and others. So there were disagreements.
It was at the Council of Rome (382 AD) where the Canon was ultimately decided and subsequently reaffirmed at the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD).
Time for Super Bill and the Catholic League!!
The reporter got everything right! What are you talking about?
It’s easy for you to just say that people don’t know what Catholics REALLY believe in. YOU YOURSELVES don’t seem to know what you believe in!
Catholicism believes that the CAtholic church is the only one offering salvation. Of course, you OWN Jesus who is the one who offers salvation! The Pope can dictate who Jesus can or can’t save!! How absurd! How blasphemous!
Catholicism believes that Mary is superior to Jesus, that she can save, that you have to pray to her and she is QUEEN of Heaven when she is actually a non-entity for the Apostolic church! She did her part and that’s it!
Catholicism believes that the Bible is just a book of myths and tales, you don’t accept the authority of the Bible at all, you prefer to believe in the tradition of corrupt popes. You say that Sola Scriptura is not BIBLICAL. How crazy is that!! If tradition is so important, why don’t you follow in the tradition of the medieval Catholic church of murdering and burning the heretics who didn’t believe in paying the church for their salvation!!
“Mat 15:3 But JEsus answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?”
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men.”
This episode seems to fit Catholicism’s extra-biblical beliefs pretty well…
Catholicism believes that the Pope is God’s representative on earth. Huum… interesting: I didn’t know Jesus allowed his disciples to go raping small kids in Judea or Samaria and did nothing about it!!
Catholicism is NOT the only way to salvation, its doctrines and practices actually go AGAINST the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Jesus rejected the traditions of the pharisees that CONTRADICTED SCriptures and that should mean something to sincere catholics reading this blog. Your tradition CONTRADICT the Scriptures and Jesus said STOP!!
This is not at all an attack on catholics. There are many catholics that will be saved, not because they’re catholics, but because they will someday see the errors of this False system and will go back to the Scriptures and find the true Jesus! Or they will be saved because God is all merciful and may not consider the DAYS OF IGNORANCE under corrupt priests and prelates.
“Come out of her my people.” Rev. 18
Andres,
I know that is you posing as “Martin”.
ANDRES, YOU HAD BEEN BANNED BY JIMMY AKIN ON THIS BLOG!
As I’ve told you before, if you’re really interested in discussing Catholicism, first know what Catholicism actually teaches instead of re-introducing your distortions and claiming it as Catholicism!
bill912,
Why hasn’t anybody prevented Andres from posting on Jimmy’s blog?
This has been the nth time he has been able to post.
Why are you saying that I’m someone else? BEcause you can’t disprove what I said??? Also, how can somebody that is banned from the blog be allowed to post hcomments?? I’m puzzled…
“When at last a Church Council, the Synod of Carthage in A.D. 397, listed the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, it did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess…”
This is absolutely correct from a Catholic perspective. The scriptures did not gain their authority through the recognition of the Church, they gained it by the planary inspiration of the Holy Spirit… but there was no authoritative LIST – canon – of books, and the debate over the proper contents of such a list was VERY heated.
There simply WAS no agreed upon exclusive list of books before the councils.
Yes, the books of the Bible are inspired and authoritative ON THEIR OWN. They always have been, and the Catholic Church has always said so. But without the authoritative councils of Hippo and Carthage, you would not know what a “bible” is. We would not be discussing the canon of scripture, because there would BE no canon.
“it… simply recorded their previously established canonicity.”
This is in error. There was no canon, and no “established” canonicity. There were certainly books that were considered reliably apostolic, but there were many others making that claim. The contents of the canon was VERY controversial, and was not in any way settled before the time of the councils.
The same tired old verses!
Sound familiar, Andres?
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
“And I heard another voice from heaven saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, lest you share in her sins, and lest you receive of her plagues. For her sins have reached to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities'” (Revelation 18:4,5).
Posted by: andre | Jun 27, 2007 2:39:28 PM
If Christ founded the Catholic church, where’s the name ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IN THE BIBLE? Well, it’s not and yet for you that makes no difference, because the Pope is above the Bible and he can change it as he pleases! After all, THE LORD GOD THE POPE is your GOD on Earth. And MARY IS A SAVIOR WITH CHRIST FOR CATHOLICS, as approved by the POPE in his NO. Without MARY there’s no Salvation, according to the Pope.
_________________________
“This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with [their] lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt. 15:8-9
Posted by: andre | Jun 27, 2007 11:00:55 AM
Andres,
Go back to the previous post where you engaged us in this already.
You still have yet to refute what was said there.
Andre’s Distorted Views
Interesting… As if the certain verses belonged only to certain people to quote! It’s in the Bible people!! That makes no difference for you, you dont acept the bible!
James White already demolished your apologists with those verses above and all you can say is: THIS GUYS SOUNDS LIKE SOMEBODY WE BANNED AND WHE SHOULD BAN HIM TOO… Just like you banned the SCriptures in the Middle Ages…
Martin,
We know exactly what we believe and if you are really interested please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note the copious Bible quotations.
Why not read what the Catholic Church actually teaches?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Andres,
You’ve used the name “Martin” on other blogs as well.
I know, I traced your blogging record from your links.
Just like you banned the SCriptures in the Middle Ages…
Is that why it was the Church that was responsible for giving us the Bible in the first place?
Is that why even Martin Luther said in his commentary on St. John, in Ch 16, he says this:
“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (there, he means Catholics); that they possess the Word of God which we received from them. Otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it”
But since Christ created the office (the keys he gave to Peter are for an office, not a person), it makes sense to listen to the person in that office.
Keys are FOR a person to use. An office does not use keys. An office doesn’t do anything. An office is a concept.
You may see it as Christ creating an office as defined in some way. Someone else may see (interpret) it otherwise, perhaps as no office at all, or no office outside oneself, or that the office is not one person but all in Christ, etc.
One might question, then, why Christ went through the trouble of (a) creating a Church, (b) creating an office to lead the Church and handing Peter the keys, (c) endowing Peter and the apostles with authority to bind and loose.
And one might question, “Why are unicorn horns hollow?”, if that’s where your interpretation sends you.
Is it really wise to ignore something that Christ gave you for your benefit and the benefit of others?
If it’s your interpretation that someone is ignoring what Christ gave, that’s your interpretation.
why must you hear it from their own physical lips?
It’s not my point that you must hear a response from physical human lips. It’s my point that the Bible passage in question says to “tell the church”. Are you doing that when you point to a pre-written document?
if an answer has already been given
An “if” involves a decision. Documents do not decide.
Andrew,
You neglect Typology here.
I’ve mentioned this previously.
Look to the following where Christ had given authority to the Apostles and which later was passed on to their successors, the Bishops.
Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
What’s particularly significant with Peter is that in Matthew 16:18, Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys of the Kingdom!
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
What is the significance of this?
Let’s look at the passages in Isaiah:
Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Isaiah 22:22 is ‘KEY’ to the language and typology of the ‘Key’ that Peter received in Matthew 16:18!
Hence, Peter is Father (i.e., ‘Papa’ or ‘Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church — just as the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such authority on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.
No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church!
What is of great importance here is not WHERE the papacy was established but WHO the Successor of Peter was since it is he who carries on this same authority given to Peter by Christ Himself.
As the typology in the Isaiah passage concerning the Prime Minister tells us, amongst other scriptural passages, this office of Prime Minister doesn’t begin and end with the first Prime Minister, but it is an office where there is an order of succession, as we also see in Acts where we actually witness succession of the position formerly held by Judas.
And who exactly leads this act but Peter himself whereupon the others submit to him as leader of the Apostles.
Wow esua, you should work as a paranormal medium for the court chanel… you can tell who people are from the way they tyype!!
Martin,
So James White is your infallible authority and you believe his man-made traditions?
And you think we are the ones who don’t know what we believe?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Keys are FOR a person to use. An office does not use keys. An office doesn’t do anything. An office is a concept.
Actually, keys are a traditional symbol of office– most famously, that of the “Gatekeeper” or “Steward.” Jesus seems really big on symbols.
An “if” involves a decision. Documents do not decide.
I think you are being willfully obtuse, but I’ve been wrong before.
What part of the explanation do you object to? Please refer back to the story example I told– it’s a lot easier to work things out when you can make it less emotionally charged.
Wow esua, you should work as a paranormal medium for the court chanel… you can tell who people are from the way they tyype!!
I don’t have to.
Anyone can look at Andre’s comments and yours to see that it is you, Andre.
Plus, as I’ve mentioned, I’ve visited your blogs to see that you’ve posted under the name “Martin” as well.
Perhaps if you didn’t sell “genesis now” products under both names and didn’t post exact messages under the same style of writing, you might have eluded me.
As far as I know, JESUS is the ROck on which his real church was built, not a weak apostle who was used by Satan to discourage jesus from fulfilling his mission and who Denied him three times!!! Even Peter called Jesus the only fundation of the church. Can’t you catolics see that?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!
off course you cant, that would destroy your comfort zone, your beloved papacy and everything that the catolicism stand for! Tradition, tradition, tradittion…
It was posted:
“John,
I’m sure you’ve got some good points, but a little attention to punctuation and grammar (seriously, you’ve got a single period and who knows how many dependent clauses and dangling participles over umpteen lines of text) might make it readable.”
Agreed-I really botched up that post of mine, really not that bad of a speller!!
oops… i posted anoonymously without seeing that… sorry
TU ES PETRUS ET SUPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM
keep trying esayu… you haven’t answered, how can someon baned post blogs???
If I can make a suggestion with regards to Martins post, who I dont agree with -but dont go after him personally or even his sources (as I have experienced at times by the Jimmy Akin lynch mob) but after his posts and what the content is
Scripture has been interpreted, retranslated, edited for political correctness, books in and out on and on over the years that it can be a source of conflict and discussion
The only tried and true means of salvation has been the Catholic church and her unwavering teachings and handed down through the centuries, and not scripture, though of course it is to be read and understood by all Catholics.
thanks esau, jesus didnt’ say ET SUPER TE/TU
Look to the following where…
Esau, your case for the Pope or whatever is your interpretation. If you think I’m arguing against you or the Pope or whatever, that too is your interpretation.
What’s particularly significant with Peter is that in Matthew 16:18, Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys of the Kingdom!
Yet it does NOT say Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys.
thanks jon, you just confirm the heresy of the catolicism that say that the Bible is not a good source of Truth. Jesus cant save someone who is not a catholic… Jesus, forgive them, they know not what they say…
No name,
Of course Jesus is the only foundation of the Church. It is His Body after all, not Peter’s. But the fact remains, Christ ordained it that Peter should have an absolutely unique share in the foundation, a share of His Rock-ness, so to speak. That Christ allows Peter a share does not make the foundation any less Christ’s.
As for tradition, tradition, tradition, who was it that said “Hold fast to the traditions you have been given”?
(Hint: You have to look in a Catholic book, established by Catholic tradition, to find the answer.)
Yet it does NOT say Peter was the ONLY one given the Keys.
Andrew,
Where else in the Gospels were Keys given other than Peter?
Martin/Andres,
Virtually every dogma of the Christian Faith is not found explicitly in the bible, in Scripture. The word Trinity is not there. It was even a Catholic who coined the word, Theophilus of Antioch in 181 AD. Incarnation also is not explicitly found in Scripture. The point is, without the Catholic Church to expound on these thelogical aspects of the Christian Faith, you would have the chaos that’s clearly demonstrated in Protestantism when one goes by Sola Scriptura where you have people who, though they acknowledge the bible as their authority, do not acknowledge the divine nature of Jesus or even the Trinity.
Just who of these Protestant folks, from the hundreds of contradicting biblical interpretations, have the right interpretation and exactly the precise set of beliefs that go way back to the Early Christian Church, to the very time of the Apostles, all of which were originally transmitted orally?
I believe that’s exactly why God gave us the Church to begin with!
If you look at Scripture, there is a lively awareness of the Faith being passed down in a variety of means – sometimes in written form and sometimes not in written form. The original preaching of the Apostles was oral and Jesus’ teaching was oral (he didn’t write any books of Scripture) and so they lived in a largely oral culture back then and, as a result, there was a much heavier dependence on the spoken word and other elements of Tradition like liturgical action that were not written down.
That Tradition then – I should explain, ‘That which is handed on’ – and so if you have the body of Christian belief, it was something that was handed onto us from Jesus and the Apostles – part of it was handed on in written form but part of it went beyond writing, which is one of the reasons that there are some questions that Scripture doesn’t seem to answer clearly.
Like, for example, the question whether or not you should baptize babies or not; or whether you baptize by immersion or not.
We know people are supposed to be baptized but we don’t have the details of how it was supposed to work: whether you did it for babies as well, whether you could do it by pouring.
The reason for that is pretty clear:
Scripture doesn’t answer those questions because it expects for you to be an Early Christian, reading about the Church but looking to the practice of the Church to answer those questions for you.
In fact, that’s why the Church is said in 1 Timothy 3:15 to be the Pillar and Ground of the Truth:
1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
AND
Paul actually says:
2 Thess 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Even 1 Cor 11 which uses the same Greek word “Paradosis”: “I commend you brothers for holding fast to the Traditions” as well as in 2 Thess 3:6 says the same thing.
So, were called to hold fast to Tradition and, as Catholics, we actually draw from the Old Testament.
Jesus, forgive Martin, who apparently posts about what Catholics say without having the foggiest notion what Catholics say. (Of course, he could take a gander at the Catechism to get a true picture, but he obviously does not know any better.)
Where else in the Gospels were Keys given other than Peter?
Matthew 16:19 does NOT say, “I will give you PETER AND ONLY YOU PETER the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” If it’s your interpretation that that is what it’s saying, then that is your interpretation.
Matthew 16:19 does NOT say, “I will give you PETER AND ONLY YOU PETER the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” If it’s your interpretation that that is what it’s saying, then that is your interpretation.
Andrew,
That doesn’t answer the question — where else in the Gospels does it mention Jesus giving the Keys?
Andrew,
I want to make sure I get this straight. We can only rely on Scripture as the authentic source of God’s Word…except for where it confirms the authority given to the office held by Peter…and then we’re supposed to rely on un-scriptural conjecture to suppose that the keys might also have been given to someone else?
That’s good.
Andrew,
I mean, if that’s your interpretation and all, that’s your interpretation. But my interpretation of your interpretation is that I hope you don’t do interpretation for a living.
That doesn’t answer the question — where else in the Gospels does it mention Jesus giving the Keys?
Have you checked where it mentions Jesus going to the toilet or trimming his toe nails?
I want to make sure I get this straight…
What you offer is your interpretation. It comes straight from you.
I mean, if that’s your interpretation and all, that’s your interpretation. But my interpretation of your interpretation is that I hope you don’t do interpretation for a living.
ROFL!!!
Sorry, Andrew, but Esquire made me almost do the nose squirt as I was drinking my cup of water with that witty comment of his!
Esquire,
Curious, what Law do you practice?
If it’s personal, just disregard my asking.
But my interpretation of your interpretation is that I hope you don’t do interpretation for a living.
Your interpretation is limited only by yourself.
Of course, Vynette’s point was that the establishment of the canon was not decreed by any church or council. The council merely affirmed what most had already tested and discerned as true (Rom 12:2, 1Jn 4:1). The issue is not who was in communion with whom, but the comment was meant to show that the typical argument repeated time and again on this blog, that the Catholic Church established the canon of Scripture, simply isn’t true.
Even granting that the “most” established it — who were these “most”? They were not the books of the Bible; they were the Church.
Waste of time folks. Don’t feed the troll–it is clear that he is only interested in bashing the Church, and has no knowledge nor any desire for knowledge of what she teaches. No reason to interact here–I’m sure Jimmy will ban him soon.
it is clear that he is only interested in bashing the Church, and has no knowledge nor any desire for knowledge of what she teaches.
I suspect anyone who spends time “bashing the Church” has issues he’s trying to work out.
Even granting that the “most” established it — who were these “most”? They were not the books of the Bible; they were the Church.
Mary,
Excellent point!
I suspect anyone who spends time “bashing the Church” has issues he’s trying to work out.
As do most internet trolls, or MMO gankers, or little boys who yell obscene things from car windows.
/shrug
People.
As do most internet trolls, or MMO gankers, or little boys who yell obscene things from car windows.
“On her part the Church addresses people with full respect for their freedom. Her mission does not restrict freedom but rather promotes it… The inquiry is to be free, carried on with the aid of teaching or instruction, communication and dialogue, in the course of which men explain to one another the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered, in order thus to assist one another in the quest for truth.”
What you give is the majority opinion, and the traditional Catholic point of view. The NET Bible renders verse 20 as “Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination.” This, the translator argues, is the best way to understand the author’s intent. Unfortunately, I have to concede that it is not, in fact, the literal translation of the verse.
FOR SHAME
How dare you drag in a translation that is not a translation?
However, even my Catholic Bible notes that, while this verse is usually cited to defeat sola scriptura arguments, in context it refers to the false teachers of chapter 2 and the “clever myths” of verse 16. This means that interpretation of Scripture is a matter of what the Spirit and the author intended, and not what the false teachers want it to mean.
And how can you know you are not one of those false teachers? How do you know that you are not one of those whom Paul speaks of:
“And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures.”
Do not offer your own assurance. It is exactly the ignorant and the unstable who are most assured of their knowledge and their stability.
The way you can know is that “no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,” and therefore you can not rely on your personal interpretation.
Given that we who practice sola scriptura take great care to ensure that we are reading the plain meaning of the Scripture (exegesis) and not seeding our own ideas into the mix (eisegesis), I don’t believe that this passage refutes or contradicts sola scriptura.
Great care? Like, say, not trying corrupt discussion with translations that we know are wrong?
“whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall.”
What about Matthew 18:18?
Andrew’s postion seems to be that all interpretations are equally valid… except the Catholic ones.
He (she?)’s a gnostic. Evelynne?
Tim J.
That’s just your interpretation of Andrew’s interpretation. And whether or not they’re equally valid is just your interpretation.
(This is getting kind of easy. You sure don’t have to think much.)
Evelynne– like I said, people. /shrug
Esau,
Glad I was good for a laugh. Unfortunately, that’s what most judges do with my briefs too.
Andrew’s postion seems to be that all interpretations are equally valid… except the Catholic ones.
I could say that’s your position, as in your personal interpretation of what you think I’ve been saying. Does that make it my position? Perhaps in your eyes.
He (she?)’s a gnostic. Evelynne?
No, Vatican II.
Don’t feed the troll–it is clear that he is only interested in bashing the Church, and has no knowledge nor any desire for knowledge of what she teaches.
But, but, but. . . .
What about the lurkers?
What about the people who come to this thread later?
Will they believe that the troll went unrefuted because unrefutable?
The danger of feeding the trolls has to be balanced against that, and even the possibility of reaching the troll. We never know. Something we say may have long-reaching effects.
G.K. Chesterton on Andrew:
I do not feel any contempt for [Andrew], who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification.”
(from “Babies and Distributism” The Well and the Shallows)
Andrew to Esau: Esau, your case for the Pope or whatever is your interpretation. If you think I’m arguing against you or the Pope or whatever, that too is your interpretation.
Andrew to Tim J: I could say that’s your position, as in your personal interpretation of what you think I’ve been saying. Does that make it my position? Perhaps in your eyes.
Andrew,
I apologize for jumping in late, but your argument seems to be self defeating. If each person’s interpretation is merely there own, then yours is also merely your own interpretation. I respect you for coming to a Catholic blog to share your beliefs, but you may want to try a different line of reasoning. If you keep following this one you may paint yourself into a corner.
Good point, Brian. His line of reasoning would tend to say that anything he posts should be ignored because it’s “only his interpretation”. Such reasoning makes communication impossible.
Wait Andrew, let me get this one!
Brian — that’s just your opinion.
No, Esquire; that’s only your interpretation that that’s just Brian’s opinion.
And that’s only my interpretation that that’s only your interpretation that that’s just Brian’s opinion.
If you keep following this one you may paint yourself into a corner.
The corner of your interpretation does not frighten me.
If each person’s interpretation is merely there own, then yours is also merely your own interpretation.
I don’t expect it to be more.
bill912,
Just when I thought I had the hang of it!
(Are you sure your interpretation is right?)
That would be my interpretation of the situation.
Andrew,
So it’s your opinion that interpretations have corners? Hmmm. Fascinating. How many corners do you see?
So it’s your opinion that interpretations have corners?
I’m not the one concerned about corners.
Andrew,
I’m glad to see that you think you’re not concerned about corners. That’s real progress.
Nice quote from Chesterton above, Esquire, but now you’re going to have to face Edith for your use of brackets. ^^
I’m glad to see that you think you’re not concerned about corners. That’s real progress.
Some people see Jesus on a pancake.
What’s so unbelievable about it (other than the comment about ego, which I think was unnecessary — for all I know, B16 may be a very humble man)? What facts did he get wrong?
“[T]he general impression I got was that Catholics not only didn’t read the Bible, but that they weren’t allowed to. They didn’t go to church with their big black Bibles under their arm. They didn’t have long Bible sermons or home study groups or youth Bible camps. How could Catholics believe the Bible if they didn’t read it and study it like we did?”
“[M]any Evangelicals know their Bible upside down and backwards, and compared to them Catholics sometimes seem ignorant of the Bible.”
“The truth is simply that Catholics and Evangelicals use the Bible in different ways and therefore have different kinds of Bible knowledge.”
The truth about Catholics and the Bible according to Dwight.
Oh, and Dwight is an ordained married Cathoic priest.
“Some people see Jesus on a pancake.”
That’s your interpretation.
Andrew,
Does the pancake, as you interpret it, have corners?
John,
What facts did he get wrong?
First, that Pope Benedict XVI is just “an old man trying to get a little attention.”
Second, that the Holy Father “is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures.”
Third, that the statement “is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to ‘own’ Jesus.”
Fourth, that Pope Benedict refuses to acknowledge the “reality” that Jesus considered the Great Commission to be more important than the church (as if the two can be separated).
Fifth, that what the Holy Father, or any other religious leader, has to say doesn’t matter.
Sixth, that Pope Benedict is driven more by his ego than the work of Christ. (You already got that one.)
Seventh, the Holy Father’s “missives” like this one serve no purpose other than to divide the Church.
Eighth, that this document is “foolishness” and a “pointless declaration.”
The rest pretty much has to do with his personal experience, so I can’t much speak to the factual correctness of that (although you’ll forgive me if I question the veracity of his claim to have “constantly” recited the Holy Rosary growing up), but his mistake in that section is to generally assume that if he didn’t have a positive experience in the Catholic Church, it must not be true.
Other than that, I’d say he was spot on.
Oh, and Dwight is an ordained married Cathoic priest.
That’s the way that it should be.
“No More Pink Palaces! ! !”
“They didn’t go to church with their big black Bibles under their arm. They didn’t have long Bible sermons or home study groups or youth Bible camps. How could Catholics believe the Bible if they didn’t read it and study it like we did?”
Even Jeff Cavins (when he left Catholicism and became a Protestant minister) said similar things about the Catholic Church — things even similar to what this CNN person said; yet, he managed to return to the Church after so many years, having the same epiphany most Protestant converts have on their journey home to the Catholic Church.
I, myself, wished that bible studies were as prevalent in Catholic Churches as they are in some Protestant churches.
Although with the 3-year cycle in the Novus Ordo, most of the Bible is read at Mass, there’s not the same kind of in-depth study of the bible that I learned from Protestant churches.
The only thing wrong with the bible studies in certain Protestant churches is their slanted interpretation.
Cory is right in that it should be about exegesis; however, most bible study groups often fail in this regard, putting their own gloss on the interpretation of various texts.
Yet, there are certain Protestant biblical scholars who I continue to read their Scripture Commentaries as I believe they do reflect, interestingly enough, certain aspects of Catholic teaching.
All in all, I mostly rely on the commentaries of the Church Fathers in the Breviary or the Catena Aurea.
After all, who has the more reliable interpretation of just what Jesus taught in Scripture than those to whom the Apostles handed down the teachings of Christ to as well as their authority?
Does the pancake, as you interpret it, have corners?
Maybe in the corner of Jesus’ eye.
Mary, I would agree with you if it wasn’t obvious that this troll has no real points to make. No serious searcher would give credence to the idea that PBXVI doesn’t know scripture, or that he thinks that he somehow controls God! These points are laughable–to try to refute them is just silly. If a person wants to believe something that can be refuted by reading what the Holy Father has written in his own words, my guess is that none of us can persuade him otherwise. JMHO. I love debate, and even good honest arguments, but this is beyond the pale. One cannot argue with one who will not hear. I give up.
I give up.
What a fish the “troll” brought forth.
Oooh, now I’m hurt. I’m a fish–guess I can live with that, unless you have a real point to make.
John posted:
“What’s so unbelievable about it (other than the comment about ego, which I think was unnecessary — for all I know, B16 may be a very humble man)? What facts did he get wrong?”
Note this is not the “John” of jtnova fame, someone else using my name which of course is a common one
Just wanted to make that clear
Martin posted:
“thanks jon, you just confirm the heresy of the catolicism that say that the Bible is not a good source of Truth. Jesus cant save someone who is not a catholic… Jesus, forgive them, they know not what they say… ”
Martin I was trying to be charitable to you. It was always taught that the Catholic church was the only means for salvation, though after Vatican II and the decree on ecumenism along with Nostre Aetate and many of the other 16 books clearly muddy these waters as the Decree on Ecumenism basically instructs Protestants to stay within their places of worship and they can be saved, which is so contrary to the Catholic church and wacked out that it has caused such a deep divide that only a Pope even more strong than B16 and another council will this rift be healed
But that is not the topic at hand, though somehow this thread became a thread on scripture so why not add the Decree on Ecumenism which muddies these waters as it gives hope to Protestants to stay away from the church as they can be saved, but at the same time we want them to agree with our teachings
Does not work unfortunatly
Francis Beckwith And the Truth
Catholics should celebrate when anyone enters the Church. After all, we have it on good authority that the angels in heaven do.
BY The Editors
June 3-9, 2007 Issue | Posted 5/29/07 at 8:00 AM
Folks (Esau, Esquire etc.),
You’re dealing with theological anarchists-if you try to challenge them on their beliefs, they dodge the questions and say that everything you’re saying is your own interpretation of their words. They are dishonest. Find someone who wants to debate, and avoid those who want to waste time dodging controversy.
Late with a comment on this, haven’t read all these comments (good Lord!), but the article itself was just absurd.
Sir,
David.B is correctly put it the matter about Mr. Esau’s theological write ups.
I have seen so many persons writing is like that only. They are dodging.
May Our Lord Jesus Christ bless them,and guide them.
Uhhh, Mr. Benziger,
David B. was NOT saying that I was the theological anarchist; for your information, he was telling Esquire and I as well as others to not engage those who have come here not for a serious theological discussion but only to disrupt the discussion and cause havoc.
Mr. Benziger,
By the way, just what do you have against what I’ve said?
Because though they defend the Catholic Faith, they still give respect to our separated brethren?
Would you rather that I ignore the biblical commentaries of Protestants wholesale and look on them with such enmity and prejudice?
If you would only read the works of then Cardinal Ratzinger, even he reads the biblical scholarship of Protestants.
Proverbs 26:4-5 says: “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.” The trick, as it pertains to trolls on this (or any board), is knowing when to answer and when to keep your mouth shut.
I’ll try my hand at answering the fool. Andrew, with all of your talk about interpretation, you are in serious danger of accepting the lie that truth is relative to the situation. Truth is always truth, the situation doesn’t change that.
For example, one of my employees happens to be dating (and sleeping with) a married man. She doesn’t think that she is doing anything wrong because he’s unhappy with his wife. Besides that, she isn’t married, so she isn’t the one committing adultery, right?
Of course, after I refuted that biblically, she didn’t want to talk about it anymore. But my point is this: she thought that she wasn’t committing a clear sin because the circumstance warranted a different set of behaviors. Do you believe that, Andrew?
Second, do you really believe that everyone has the ability to interpret or to teach the Bible? Because I sure don’t. The Bible itself teaches that only some are called into teaching or preaching offices (1 Cor 12:28-29).
From reading this blog, especially when Jimmy answers questions about morality and ethics for anonymous readers, he does so in the same way I would practicing sola scriptura. Only difference is, he doesn’t quote the Bible, he quotes various dogmatically defined Church precepts. These are always consistent with the Bible.
The question never comes down to interpretation of the Bible, since we have such a rich history of orthodox writers from the advent of Christianity until now. The question comes down to authority to interpret.
Catholics like to vilify James White, so pardon me for using him as an example. Dr. White says that most people are completely ignorant of what their denomination historically believes. I’ve generally found that this is true, and I would even take it a step further: many cannot even articulate what their denomination currently believes. And that is sad, because I answer Mary’s question of how I know I’m not a false teacher with something that is unexpected: because I feel that I’m in line with what has been historically taught by people considered orthodox.
I find no inconsistency between that and sola scriptura because to do that would be missing what sola scriptura really is. It is the belief that the Bible is the only infallible source of faith and morals. Get it? “SOURCE.” This says nothing of interpretation. For that, we should defer to the great body of believers who have come before us, and the prolific teachers with us today, rather than rely upon our own fallible interpretations.
Finally, Esau, you got me. There can be no doubt that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist (note that this is not the same as transubstantiation). There is also no doubt that baptism is somehow part of the mystery of salvation. However, I’m a credobaptist, while the Catholic Church has been historically paedobaptist. It was an amazing feeling when I was baptized at my church, I felt renewed and regenerated, like I could (pardon the cliche) “take the town for Christ!” (Of course, the impetus to get out of the water and move could be because the water was about 40 degrees and it was the middle of winter, but that’s beside the point.)
As for Matthew 23:2-3, being keepers of tradition was the only positive thing Jesus gave them. That’s the beginning of the “woe” chapter. Jesus goes on to denounce the scribes and the Pharisees, including denigrating their traditions, providing an example in verses 16 to 22.
Tradition is not bad! But we need an objective source to check that tradition by, and for that we have the Bible (see Acts 17:10-12, cf. Romans 12:2 and 1Jn 4:1).
It was posted:
“It’s telling to note the contemporary works that sparked Beckwith’s return to the Catholic Church. He cites the “Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification” by Lutheran and Catholic scholars and Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norm Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. He also refers generally to First Things magazine, the journal of religion, culture, and public life which is edited by Father Richard John Neuhaus, who was a Lutheran pastor before his own conversion.
Each of these works is concerned with promoting mutual understanding between Catholics and Protestants.””
How then do you explain the countless number of Protestants who converted to Catholicism BEFORE there was Ecumenism and “Modern” works-those that espoused to be part of the great church, the One TRUE church that had unwavering teachings and moral discipline and fought all whether militarily or through her writings through the centuries
Try reading some early converts to the church from Protestanism, the beauty of the cathedrals, the mysteries of the mass, the splendor of it all
Now we have basically lowered our “standards” trying to reach a common denominator with these false sects instead of standing tall and proud for the world to admire
Time will only tell
“…we need a source to check that tradition by…”
No, we need an Authority. That Authority is “the Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth”. (1 Timothy 3:15).
It is only by that Authority that we have a Bible.
Andrew, with all of your talk about interpretation, you are in serious danger of accepting the lie that truth is relative to the situation.
Interpretations are a penny a dozen. Why should I accept that one over any other? Does God call you to believe in an interpretation?
she thought that she wasn’t committing a clear sin because the circumstance warranted a different set of behaviors. Do you believe that, Andrew?
Why should I believe you know what she thought? Are you her? She might tell you this or that, but it doesn’t put her brain in your head. You have an interpretation of an interpretation.
These are always consistent with the Bible.
In your interpretation.
The question comes down to authority to interpret.
If that’s your question.
I feel that I’m in line with what has been historically taught by people considered orthodox.
And your employee may “feel” she’s not committing adultery.
we should defer to the great body of believers who have come before us
In your interpretation.
John: The “Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification” with the Lutheran Church was the final key to letting me believe the Catholic faith. No matter how much I liked the traditions, architecture, incense, and ritual, I would never have gone to a church that was guilty of the old protestant standby of “believes they can buy their way into heaven.”
By reading that document, I saw that what the Lutherans and Catholics believed in the matter was largely similar with some difference in emphasis. After that, I was able to understand Catholic traditions by reading about why Catholics do believe this or that. In the end, every bit of Tradition I had heard bias and slander against in protestant circles had a biblical answer or one that could at least be derived from documents with biblical hints and no refutations. Sorry, that should be no CREDIBLE refutations, as I’ve seen people pull arguments out of their butts trying to deny the Church Jesus forged.
Andrew: Perfect job of illustrating exactly WHY we needed Christ to give us a visible Earthly authority and Church. Thank you!
Andrew: Perfect job of illustrating exactly WHY we needed Christ to give us a visible Earthly authority and Church. Thank you!
In your interpretation. So why thank someone else for it?
Cory: You seem rather sensible and have your moral radar tuned right. Good for you. I can only believe God to be well pleased.
Of course, I also think you may be closer to the banks of the Tiber than you realize. When I really started caring about what God wanted of me instead of what I wanted of God, that was the first step. You seem to be well along that. The second for me was when I figured out that when I was saying “men are sinners so God can’t be giving them authority” I was limiting God. If He can part seas, free a people from slavery, walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, and forgive us all for being sinners, who am I to say He cannot use sinful men for Holy deeds?
The third is to jump.
Oh, Andrew, you cheeky monkey you.
Cory:
Finally, Esau, you got me. There can be no doubt that the Real Presence of Christ is in the Eucharist (note that this is not the same as transubstantiation). There is also no doubt that baptism is somehow part of the mystery of salvation. However, I’m a credobaptist, while the Catholic Church has been historically paedobaptist. It was an amazing feeling when I was baptized at my church, I felt renewed and regenerated, like I could (pardon the cliche) “take the town for Christ!” (Of course, the impetus to get out of the water and move could be because the water was about 40 degrees and it was the middle of winter, but that’s beside the point.)
I appreciate the honesty of that remark from you.
Although we might not see eye-to-eye on several things, I do respect your comments there.
The question never comes down to interpretation of the Bible, since we have such a rich history of orthodox writers from the advent of Christianity until now. The question comes down to authority to interpret.
That is why as I began study on Patrology way back when, I just could not believe just how “Catholic” the early Church was and those Fathers of the Church who many were the disciples of the Apostles of our Lord to whom they passed down their Authority.
As I’ve said, who better to know just what the Teachings of Christ were than those to whom the Apostles handed down His Teachings?
I believe that may be why I have better dialogues with traditional Anglicans and Lutherans since many of them acknowlege the writings the Church Fathers and their teachings.
Tradition is not bad! But we need an objective source to check that tradition by, and for that we have the Bible (see Acts 17:10-12, cf. Romans 12:2 and 1Jn 4:1).
That’s just it; there hasn’t been just one objective interpretation of the bible from Protestants — there are several.
Thus, who’s to say which one of these is the correct interpretation?
Just as Martin Luther wrote then in 1525, it still applies today:
“There are as many sects and beliefs as there are heads. This fellow will have nothing to do with baptism; another denies the sacraments; a third believes that there is another world between this and the Last Day. Some teach that Christ is not God; some say this, some say that. There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet.”
That is why I believe Our Lord said in Matthew 18:17 to defer to the Church and why Paul said:
1Tm 3:15:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Cory,
God bless you on your walk with Our Lord!
I hope some day we might meet in our Father’s Kingdom, brutha!
Andrew,
Your interpretation of another’s interpretation is a poor attempt at intrepretation that fails to consider that the other’s interpretation is, although but an intrepretation, may actually be an intrepretation that is the objectively right interpretation and, therefore, your intepretation may, in the end, be based largely on a mis-interpretation.
Your interpretation of another’s interpretation is a poor attempt…
That’s your interpretation you’re judging.
I do find it simultaneously amusing and painful when observing a conversation between a clever troll and earnest believers. While the latter are no doubt better informed, correct, etc., their ability to see the troll for what he is is terribly impaired by their own virtue of earnestness.
Andrew, for the record, while I think you are a clever and amusing fellow, I wouldn’t be paid to have a beer with you. And I like beer. But I detest smugness more.
I like beer. But I detest smugness more.
If you remove smugness from your interpretation, you might be left holding only a beer.
…you might be left holding only a beer.
As I interpret things, Mike hit the nail on the head. Drinking alone would far surpass the alternative.
As I interpret things, Mike hit the nail on the head
His interpretation. His head. Your interpretation. Your head.
Two heads are better than none.
Three counting the one on my beer!
Reminds me of the quote, “Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder.”
Ok, so here’s a serious question:
Documentation for Mary’s scripture passage is 2nd Peter 1:20:
(21) Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, (21) for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
I’ve always been under the assumption that Catholics can interpret the Bible themselves so long as their interpretation doesn’t contradict the Magisterium. For example most parables have multiple levels of meaning. Aren’t Catholics allowed to interpret different meanings according to their particular situation. This is what I do when I read the Bible at home or even when I meditate on the Gospel while praying the rosary. Is this a different type of interpretation than what these scriptures speak against?
Brian,
Keep in mind what St. Peter said:
2Pt 3:16:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
This is why in Acts, we have the lesson of the Ethiopian who wanted to learn of Scripture and intrepret it accordingly:
Acts 8:27-31
27 And rising up, he went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch, of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge over all her treasures, had come to Jerusalem to adore.
28 And he was returning, sitting in his chariot and reading Isaias the prophet.
29 And the Spirit said to Philip: Go near and join thyself to this chariot.
30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest?
31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
Brian,
I think you are correct. That said, I think the point of Esau’s post is to remind us that we should be careful not to place too much weight on our private interpretations, even if they are, strictly speaking, compatible with the Magisterium. Such interpreations should be regarded, I think, as speculative and potentially instructive, but not essential or even important with respect to our Faith.
Just one serious but imperfect Catholic’s understanding.
Esau,
I’m not sure exactly what you’re saying.
Does reading the Bible yourself and making sure to keep your interpretation within the guidelines of the Magisterium fulfill St. Peter’s instruction?
For a concrete example, can’t Catholics interpret Genesis to mean the earth was literally created in six days or interpret the six days as more of a figurative description of creation so long as they understand what the creation story tells us about who God is and who man is and what the relationship between God and man is?
Mike Petrik:
Thank-you for that.
That was precisely what I was gunning for.
This is not the first time that you articulated what I was attempting to express in such an eloquent manner, better than I could ever have done so myself.
I still remember the Embryonic Stem Cell Research thread where you also did likewise.
Thanks again & God bless.
Nix that, I meant the Type 1 Diabetes Breakthrough thread.
Brian,
It’s all in the Catechism:
About Genesis, it’s clear Catholics do not accept its literal meaning:
Edward Daschbach, a Catholic priest: “The Church, then, does not accept…the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that would lead us to think that God, for example, actually made two grown adults suddenly from clay and rib….Catholics should beagainst creation-science.”
Jenna,
Who is Edward Daschbach, and why does him saying something make “clear” what the Church accepts or does not accept?
Jenna???
Is that the name this time???
Wow!
You again???
Let me say just one thing, the personal opinions of Fr. Daschbach do not constitute the official teaching of the Catholic Church!
Also, it’s funny that you should render a quote that reads:
“Catholics should beagainst creation-science.”
Do you know me Esau??
THe previous Pope warmed up to Evolution in 96 by declaring it’s a fact. Who do you follow the Pope or the Bible?
Oh please, we’ve discussed about this in the past.
Show me the evidence!
Here’s what Cory, who’s also a Protestant, had to say back then:
Okay, as another Protestant in the group, I’d just like to say that I think that this post was actually funny.
Jeb, there is no uniform agreement among Catholics or Protestants about how to read Genesis. I’m curious to know your sources, though, on who said those things. (“One member of the Pontifical Commission…” tells me nothing. “Billy Bob Jim Joe Roy Cardinal Timmins of Appalacia said to Us Magazine on December 8, 2004…” would tell me more.) To say that the Bible is infallible does not require an anally-retentivly close reading of the Creation account. If the earth is 4.6 billion years old as scientists estimate, would that shake your faith in God? Would that decimate the texts? Or could there be alternative interpretations of the words that would allow for that time frame to exist?
I agree with the Popes. We should study the Creation account closer and compare it with the science finds instead of just immediately jumping on the defensive the way things have happened in the past. Science is more prevalent than Christianity in society now and we should treat the situation according, “turning the other cheek” as Jesus commands and trying to be the bigger person here.
In summary, when you make a deliberately inflammatory comment like that, please cite your sources. I don’t recall the Catholic Church ever supporting evolution, just calling for additional study. I assume that they want to study the position in order to better refute it.
Posted by: Cory | Dec 23, 2006 5:37:53 PM
The Catechism explains that “Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day” (CCC 337), but “nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history is rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun” (CCC 338).
from http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam_Eve_and_Evolution.asp… Here’s your evidence Esau.
Symbolically is not literal
Back to the original CNN op-ed, I hope Jimmy does get the opportunity to answer Martin’s piece. My father the dyed-in-the-wool materialist sent it to me and my sister (both converts to Catholicism) asking for our thoughts. I’m working on my response to him, but I’d like to see a broader answer to the public by someone with more credibility and qualifications than me.
Jarnor posted”
“By reading that document, I saw that what the Lutherans and Catholics believed in the matter was largely similar with some difference in emphasis”
Please provide me with examples-at least pre 1962-1965 that Lutherans and Catholics belived in the matter (same I suppose)
Thank you
Thanks for the laugh, Esau… I forgot that I wrote that. My wife got a really big kick out of the imaginary Cardinal, having missed that the first time. 🙂
Andrew, I was wrong: you HAVE given into the lie of relativistic truth. Are you part of the New Age Movement? Sorry, that’s just my interpretation.
That said, I think the point of Esau’s post is to remind us that we should be careful not to place too much weight on our private interpretations, even if they are, strictly speaking, compatible with the Magisterium. Such interpreations should be regarded, I think, as speculative and potentially instructive, but not essential or even important with respect to our Faith.
“In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, diversity; in all things, charity.”
Catholics reading the Bible and studing the Tradition is how doctrine develops. They read, they interpret, they talk to each other, and matters become clearer when one interpretation is compared to another. Finally, when it becomes clear than other interpretations are not valid, are not consistent with Christianity, a definition of doctrine is handed down, so that one interpretation is clear.
If such work is your vocation, what is required of you, besides acting in good faith and praying that God guide you, is that when a definition is made, you accept it.
Andrew, I was wrong: you HAVE given into the lie of relativistic truth. Are you part of the New Age Movement? Sorry, that’s just my interpretation.
At least you see it’s just your interpretation. Maybe you won’t give in to it.
No need John, I live in the present, while appreciating the past.
“Mk 16:16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall he condemned.
Esau: “Most Protestants forget the “and is baptized” part….”
Esau, what on earth are you talking about? ALL Protestant churches I’ve ever encountered, perform baptism. Indeed this passage is usually cited in support of the Baptist/Pentecostal/nondenominational practice of credobaptism (“believeth and is baptized”), against the Anglican/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Catholic/Orthodox practice of pedobaptism. But pedo- or credo-, they all baptize.
Where did you get the crazy idea that “most Protestants” don’t baptize? Why wouldn’t we — it’s the only valid sacrament we’ve got! /sarcasm>
There are some good points about just picking up any Bible (to begin with, some versions are not even complete) and expect to start reading and understanding it. Is there any other area of endeavor where you are encouraged to just pick up a book and suddenly your an expert? Would you let a a guy off the street operate on you who just picked up so e random medical book and started reading it? Or design your airplane who just picked up a physics book (Physics for Dummies, no less)? Or how about represent you in a death penalty case after he “just read a couple cases on it”?
I didn’t think so.
Does the main stream media just reflect the same level of ignorance that’s present in the general public when it comes to the Catholic Church? Or does the media purposely fuel the flames of anti-Catholicism?
I’d say its a little of both. The document was not that long, and it really does not take much intelligence to read it correctly. But the media really don’t care, large swaths of the public aren’t going to take the time for the most part, and well, controversy sells advertising space, which is what the media is about first and foremost.
Since people have alluded to the scandals and such on this thread, here is some relevant news and data about the Catholic Church today in the U.S.:
U.S. Catholic Church steady despite scandals
“>Off
Sorry… Here it is (again):
Since people have alluded to the scandals and such on this thread, here is some relevant news and data about the Catholic Church today in the U.S.:
U.S. Catholic Church steady despite scandals
Putting ultimate trust in man or any institution created by man elevates man above God.
And therein lies the rub – is the Catholic Church an institution created by man, or by God?
It seems pretty clear that Protestant denominations are instituted by men – they themselves would (or should) be the first to admit it.
But the Catholic Church rests its claim upon Christ’s words, not Luther’s or Calvin’s or Zwingli’s or Smith’s.
“In things essential, unity; in things doubtful, diversity; in all things, charity.”
I believe that’s “… in things doubtful, LIBERTY…”
not, “diversity”. Uggh.
Or design your airplane who just picked up a physics book (Physics for Dummies, no less)?
On a lighter note… I don’t know about Physics for Dummies, but I highly recommend Catholicsm for Dummies. It’s the book that brought me back to the faith and it makes a good foundation for any Catholic.
It was an amazing feeling when I was baptized at my church, I felt renewed and regenerated, like I could (pardon the cliche) “take the town for Christ!”
Spiritual consolations like that are something of which is very wise to be very wary.
One must, at the very least, carefully consider whether they are of God or of the Devil.
Some, in fact, recommend simply not considering them. After all, you are after God, not an amazing feeling. You don’t want to feel renewed and regenerated; you want to be renewed and regenerated.
Cut it out.
Well since we are talking about the scandal, how about todays Boston Globe in their demand for Cardinal Mahoney, who knowingly covered up for many of the priests convicted, including one that he was in seminary with
Great article (excerpts only)
Lets see if Mahoney gets a job next to Cardinal Law!!
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/18/a_cardinals_shameless_struggle_for_survival/?p1=MEWell_Pos2
A cardinal’s shameless struggle for survival
By Jason Berry | July 18, 2007
THE RECORD $660 million settlement that the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has agreed to pay victims of clergy sex abuse marks the denouement of a strange legal drama. The litigation turned into a survival struggle for Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Mahony waged an expensive fight, which he lost at every rung of the ladder, to prevent release of clergy personnel files. The documents have still not been released. In 2002, church lawyers blocked the Los Angeles district attorney’s subpoenas for files of priests targeted for criminal investigation.
Mahony’s personal judgment has long been suspect. Consider Father Carl Sutphin, who shared living quarters with Mahony in two cathedrals over seven years until a 2002 Los Angeles police investigation of charges that Sutphin molested two sets of brothers. Only then did the cardinal force his retirement. In 1991, Mahony had sidelined Sutphin, a classmate of his in seminary, when a Phoenix man informed the cardinal that the priest had abused him and his twin brother years earlier. Sutphin went to St. Luke Institute in Suitland, Md., for treatment after which he became chaplain in a retirement home. At the time of his suspension, Sutphin was a resident with Mahony at Our Lady of Angels Cathedral.
Consider also Monsignor Richard A. Loomis, who was for several years Mahony’s vicar of clergy, responsible for the investigation of sexual abuse allegations. After Loomis was sued civilly as an abuser himself, Mahony stood by Loomis — until a second victim came forward. One could go on, and on, with accounts of the cardinal’s support of predators and callous disregard for victims. That pattern of governance was central to the litigation.
In contrast, Pope John Paul II lavished praise on the notorious Father Marcial Maciel — founder of the Legionaries of Christ, and one of the worst clergy perpetrators — even after Maciel stood charged in a Vatican court. In May 2006, Pope Benedict banished Maciel from ministry.
As Catholics, we have no power to remove a bishop who violates the trust. Cardinal Bernard Law resigned as archbishop of Boston after a sex abuse scandal only after a group of brave priests publicly called for his departure. Even then, the Vatican rewarded Law by appointing him pastor of a basilica in Rome.
By any logic of decency, Roger Mahony should stop apologizing, and take responsibility for his personal disgrace by resigning. He is unfit to be archbishop of anywhere.
Yesterday, Father Peter Lombardi, a Jesuit spokesman for the Vatican, said that the church had “decided to commit itself in every way to avoid a repetition of such wickedness” and now had a “a policy of prevention and creation of an ever more secure atmosphere for children and young people in all aspects of (its) pastoral programs.”
There can be no such policy until those who tolerate sexual crimes are themselves removed. By any logic of Catholic ethics, Roger Mahony should go.
If Pope Benedict XVI is serious about the church’s so-called policy of prevention, he should remove Mahony immediately — without a cushy post in Rome. Mahony’s ouster is years overdue.
Jason Berry is author of “Lead Us Not Into Temptation” and coauthor of “Vows of Silence,” an investigation of the Maciel case, and the subject of a forthcoming documentary film.
John,
Just curious. Should we all leave Peter because he allowed a Judas in the ranks?
Thanks for making us aware of this Jimmy. This is very sad to see someone so uninformed and displaying his own bigotry toward the Catholic Faith. A simple prayer to state, as Fr. Corapui states, ” Ask that we place him in the graden of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
Take care and God Bless.
Esquire: I don’t believe John is saying that at all.
I believe he’s saying that Peter should sack Judas’ sorry butt for what Judas has allowed to go on in the Church he had under his authority.
What is really say about this is that many people like my mother think that CNN is gospel. Not only that but the article is written in such a way that it could appeal to Evangelicals when in fact I would bet a 100 bucks that this fellow is not a conservative in the first place. But the secular progressives will say and do anything they can to grab the Evangelical support.
This sort of news story is always puzzling to me.
Okay, so the Pope thinks the Catholic Church is best, and that other Christian religions are defective.
Yawn. Whether a person hearing him agrees or not, just what were they expecting THE POPE to say?
If the Pope does not think the Catholic church is correct, then who should?
Speaking of CNN’s lack of knowledge, as a Ukrainian (Byzantine Rite) Catholic, I frequently encounter Roman Catholics who are woefully ignorant about us. For example, we have a married clergy, our own worship style (the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), and our own bishops, and yet we are in full communion with the Pope in Rome.
Yes, we are Catholic.
No, we are not Roman Catholic.
No, we are not Orthodox.
And, no, Ukrainians are not Russian!
ArizCalFla, I’ve got a great deal of sympathy for you! I love finding out more about the other Catholics. (Imagine how the folks in the even smaller rites must feel!)
Have you considered simply saying you’re in communion with Rome? It’ll either go over their head and trigger the “Eeek” button, so they’ll avoid the talk, or it’ll make perfect sense.
Considering the number of Roman Catholics that are woefully ignorant of Roman Catholicism, how can you be shocked? (I’ve got some huge gaps myself, and that’s despite finding it nifty.)
Jarnor posted:
“Esquire: I don’t believe John is saying that at all.
I believe he’s saying that Peter should sack Judas’ sorry butt for what Judas has allowed to go on in the Church he had under his authority.”
Jarnor-thank you
Is it that difficult for a Pope to fire someone or should he be “forgiving” of someone condoning pedophilia among our very own children?
If this was a “corporation” such as GM these priests would be in jail and the CEO fired and probably doing time as well
Only those like Esquire and others want to protect, hide, forgive, etc these sick men who are the clergy they so think have faults and speak as Jesus
Peter did not allow Judas in the ranks Christ did.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In case anyone is interested, here’s an article which discusses why we shouldn’t think of the church in terms of a corporation like GM. Basically, the relationship between the pope and the bishops is not at all equivelant to that of a ceo and his employees. (It didn’t change how I think of Mahoney, but it did correct how I think of the church heirarchy.)
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0602fea1.asp
Inocencio
From your post and past posts if I recall (Esau as well), your continued support and protection of the pedophile clergy from the Cardinals who either are themeselves or facilitated thereof down to the clergy themselves who did this acts can only lead me to believe that you believe in pedophila, are OK with the crime and the act of homosexuality, and under no circumstance short of murder would you ever concede that those ordained in the sacrament of Holy Orders could ever espouse such acts and even if convicted we should “forgive” them
Am I correct in my assumption here and if not please clarify exactly what you think should be done to the Cardinal Laws, Mahoneys and those who cover up for their friends preying on our innocent children
Thank you
John,
As I have clearly stated many times. Please read slowly.
Anyone who has committed these crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.
Your problem, John, is with Christ. You are angry because He has given you no authority whatsoever so you try to find ways to undermine the authority He did establish. If you are ever elected Pope I promise full obedience but until then you are a noisy gong.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
John:
From your post and past posts if I recall (Esau as well), your continued support and protection of the pedophile clergy
What’s your friggin’ obsession with me???
No matter how many times I try to avoid you, as happens again and again as in past threads, you never fail to try and provoke a confrontation with me with such lies.
For that’s exactly what they are!
How many times have I condemned those guilty of such actions in my posts???
Are you some sort of degenerate who gets off by deliberately demonizing people who do not subscribe to your twisted Protestant ideology just so that you advance your agenda of bringing down the Catholic Church???
Thanks for that article, Monica. It also did not change my mind concerning cover-uppers (I don’t think those are the kind of bishops that the author was writing about, judging by his examples) but was interesting.
Basically, the relationship between the pope and the bishops is not at all equivelant to that of a ceo and his employees.
How can anybody make an analogy between the Pope and the Church vs. a CEO and his employees?
For one, with respect to big corporations, CEOs are chosen through a very rigerous process (many times involving high-class recruitment agencies that the Board of Directors engages with) that screens them with respect to such criteria as educational background, various career achievements, strategic skills, operating know-how, amongst other things.
I find it a riscible notion that we can ever even begin to make such comparisons unless we do away with the theology behind Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 18:18 passages, disregard Christ’s commands and ignore the bulk of scriptural as well as historical Christian precedence, and instead of this whole notion of a “calling” and “vocations”, we merely start hiring folks for the job of clergy and operate as a corporation and replace papal authority with that of a world class executive.
At some level, every bishop is chosen by Christ. Since Judas was too dead to work out the ramifications of his actions afterwards, let’s look at another example.
So, a few years down the road, Jim-Bob is made the Bishop of Frostbite Falls. Peter finds out he’s been stealing Church funds, molesting sheep, and stampeding nuns. Is Peter not well within his rights as Pope to remove this bishop, especially given the great scandal Jim-Bob is causing? Is this not a prudent action?
John is arguing yes, and I’m agreeing with him.
Jarnor23:
There is more to what John is saying, but to preserve a rational discussion on the subject, I’ll not go into what’s between the lines, as is even maliciously reflected in the citation he featured.
To explain, let’s take one quote for instance from the subject citation:
“In contrast, Pope John Paul II lavished praise on the notorious Father Marcial Maciel — founder of the Legionaries of Christ, and one of the worst clergy perpetrators — even after Maciel stood charged in a Vatican court. In May 2006, Pope Benedict banished Maciel from ministry.”
Here, it almost seems to imply that Pope John Paul II was dismissive of any of the allegations and, even worse, seemingly endorsed Fr. Maciel.
However, when you read it, to get at the truth of the matter rather than the viscious calumny potentially levelled against JP II, a more prudent individual would:
1. Take into consideration what exactly Pope John Paul II was praising Fr. Maciel for.
(e.g., I can applaud an artist for his work, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that I applaud the artist himself for any of his other actions or even his own character. That would be a fallacy — no less, “halo” effect.)
2. Consider that during the time the Pope allegedly “lavished praise”, Maciel was still undergoing proceedings.
If you actually believe that all it takes for a person to be declared guilty is somebody’s suspicion, then perhaps we should be putting folks in jail based merely on a suspicion.
I hope it’s apparant to you that suspicions alone aren’t sufficient to declare people guilty.
To illustrate on a more local level, remember all those episodes on this blog wherein based merely on a suspicion, John had declared Ratzinger an apostate?
Obviously, this was wrong.
Furthermore, take note of what actually followed in the cited paragraph:
“In May 2006, Pope Benedict banished Maciel from ministry.”
Needless to say, of course Pope Benedict would have been in a much better position to act against Maciel since due process had concluded whereas it was only beginning during John Paul II’s time.
At any rate, as I’ve said many times before, those guilty of such evil will certainly be held accountable for their actions against the innocent, the Church and, above all, Christ Himself.
As Jesus said:
Mt 18:6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
This is indeed serious as this saying of Jesus is repeated across the Synoptic Gospels (Mt 18:6, Mk 9:42, Lk 17:2).
I completely agree that the facts of the matter should be looked into. I’d be shocked and disappointed if Rome wasn’t doing that to L.A. right now.
If the extremely serious allegations by many, many people are likely true, then this man has no business remaining as bishop there, and it would be scandal for the Vatican to leave him in. If not, I’d expect the Vatican to say why they are leaving him in, as the allegations have enough merit that it would cause scandal to just pretend the whole thing didn’t happen.
While in the end, Christ will have justice, that shouldn’t prevent his Church from trying to keep a just Church on Earth.
As far as Maciel goes though, it could well be the case of a very sinful man having done some good things. With any luck he will make right with God, but sadly it’s a shadow that will always be over the Legionaries. Unfair, but sadly that’s what sin does is taint and harm.
Jarnor23:
I am more in agreement with your thoughts here than those of your friend, John.
Personally, I wouldn’t mind so much if the guilty parties who took advantage of innocent children, betrayed their high calling, took advantage of our trust, made the Church into nothing but a playground for their perverse actions and, in so doing, not only betrayed but also mocked God, were all neutered without benefit of anesthesia in addition to serving time at prison.
But, that’s just me.
Well, I’d say I’m seeing John’s points somewhat on this issue. Being a converted protestant who, while intrigued by the extraordinary form, is fine and dandy with the ordinary form, I think we’d probably have a few differences as well. Oh, and I’m a EMHC. 🙂
At any rate, I’m very much in favor of cleaning up some of the slime imitating priests in a lot of these parishes. I’m very much not in favor of a witch hunt, or letting the secular world tell us what to do in our Church. I’m also very much against saying the Church is somehow not the Holy Church that Jesus Christ instituted due to some sinners in the Church. The Church is a hospital for the sick, not a country club for the few perfect elite to look down on others from. Of course we’ll have sin in the Church, we’re all sinners in it. But we should keep things as clean as we can and trust in Christ for the rest, not go looking for Christ elsewhere because you’ll find the same sin and you won’t find Him.
Jarnor23:
It’s not so much keeping things as clean as we can (I believe that’s how things went wrong in the first place), but that people should live up to their vocation, to their calling.
Yes, we live in an imperfect world filled with imperfect people. It’s no wonder that the people in the Church are imperfect as well.
However, this does not change the fact that those who have decided to take up the cross of a minister/priest should live up to even higher standards.
At the same time, we shouldn’t expect the clergy to be such perfect people given the fact that they are also human like us complete with human weaknesses.
Although I would hope that those who are actually guilty of these crimes suffer the most terrible consequences here on earth; even if they were to escape such physical punishment, there is no doubt in my mind that they would suffer, at the very least, from their conscience (at least, I would hope that even amidst their perversion and wickedness, some semblance of it survived).
Even so, there is no doubt in my mind that fitting punishment will be reserved for them in the after-life unless, of course, some incredible act of penance is performed by them as St. Paul had to similarly for his persecution of the Christians (he who had to labor more abundantly than even the Apostles for having persecuted the Church of God).
God bless and Good Weekend!
I agree, except that keeping things clean lead to this. Keeping things clean would mean not accepting pedophiles running around molesting kids. By “keeping things clean”, I mean to make sure things are above the board, honest, and that people are held accountable for their actions especially in light of their vocations.
Keeping things “pretty” or “nice” is what lead to this, hushing up things that shouldn’t have been.
Good weekend to you! God bless!
(Oh, and I’ll be off the Internet for a little while. I’m not chancing ANY idiot ruining Harry Potter VII for me until I get done reading it.)
Jarnor23:
Keeping things clean would mean not accepting pedophiles running around molesting kids. By “keeping things clean”, I mean to make sure things are above the board, honest, and that people are held accountable for their actions especially in light of their vocations.
Gotcha!
Except that I really don’t think the seminaries should be accepting pedophiles and homosexuals in the first place.
There should be a more rigerous process in place for accepting candidates even if it results in less vocations to the priesthood due to a stricter screening process.
Keeping things “pretty” or “nice” is what lead to this, hushing up things that shouldn’t have been.
Totally agree!
(Oh, and I’ll be off the Internet for a little while. I’m not chancing ANY idiot ruining Harry Potter VII for me until I get done reading it.)
I take it you hadn’t visited MSNBC’s website this week.
Unfortunately, the book was prematurely released by certain (online) retailers wherein those who had placed advanced orders already got their book way ahead of the official release schedule.
Some of those who did had even provided their reviews concerning the ending of the final book to MSNBC.
Although, to keep up your suspense, I’ll not speak of it.
Enjoy and God bless!
Inocencio-you post is so foolish and I am laughing so hard I cant even reply
Esau-all you are is a slandermonger (is that even a word?) but it fits you well
Be careful of Esau as he has protected Cardinal Law to the point of rage with me on past threads, possibly he has something to hide as well??
How can anybody make an analogy between the Pope and the Church vs. a CEO and his employees?
It’s done every day. Read the comments in cwnews.com. Constantly catholics post remarks like, “The pope should just yank Bishop X out of his office”.
John,
You are nothing but a broken noisy gong but if that makes you happy so be it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Esau-all you are is a slandermonger (is that even a word?) but it fits you well
Look who’s talking!
The one who continues to spread lies about me in spite of all my historical posts which say the contrary.
Your father must be very proud of you.
Doing his work who since the beginning of time, tried to bring down God. No wonder his faithful sons relentlessly wishes now to bring down the Church as well!
Satis! Satis!
Magna est veritas, et praevalebit!
Catholics are told by everyone that the Church does not encourage the study of the Bible. I am a very average Catholic. Yet when challenged on certain issues, such as the Biblical basis for our “praying to the saints” or “apostolic succession”, it is my experience that I have a more integrated understanding of the New Testament formed by the doctrines of the Church, than my in-laws who are devout Protestant Christians and can cite chapter and verse but who pick the verse they like to support their understanding and choose to ignore the other parts that they do not like or find inconsistent, on the basis that it is all interpretation. So we are agreed that the Bible has to be interpeted. But by whom-that is the real issue. It comes down to belief in authority-not to the study of Scripture. Rather ironic that Martins accurately diagnoses his own problem: he has issues with “the old man”, ie. with authority. Martins reminds me of a teenager strutting his stuff and trying to get attention. I will pray for him and pray for a limitation of his influence because I believe it is harmful. Btw, I stopped watching CNN a while ago, even Anderson Cooper, who is a good technical journalist. I think CNN has an anti-Christian bias, in the way they set limits on what can be said about every other religion but gives a pass to anyone with anti-Christian slur, and an anti-Catholic slur in particular. Rose
Martin
You spout from the completely unbiblical false Gospel of Jack Chick.
Anyhow I forgive you for bald faced lying about my Catholic faith and I encourage every Catholic on this thread to pray a Rosary for Martin: He will need it when he faces the Judgement of God.
Who is CNN? Now the reason I came to your site is that an important message has been sent down, just like a News Update. Please read and pass it along. I have a message to tell you about Revelation. The message is from God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost sent in the Spring of 2006. It is about the meaning of First is Last and Last is First. The message is this: In the morning I go to Heaven. In the afternoon I live my life. In the evening I die, death. What does this mean? In other words this means Birth is Last and Last is Birth. To understand this don’t think from point A to point B. Think of this as a continous circle of life. Birth, Life, Death, Birth. God also said that Judgment will be before Birth in Heaven. AS birth on Earth is painful so will birth in Heaven. It is possible that this message was delivered by one of God’s Angels. Yes, God has recently made contact and he sent a messenger. Spread this message along, just like a chain letter. Oh, one more thing of interest. Did you know that Mike Douglas died on his Birthday. Melanie Steffan
Melanie, Jesus warned us not to listen to people like you. (Matthew 24:23-27)
“Did you know that Mike Douglas died on his Birthday.”
Well that convinces me!
The Bible provides more support for Catholic doctrine than most Protestants care to admit. But to say that the Bible is the sole and all sufficient rule of faith is absurd on its face. Only someone who has never read the Bible could come to that conclusion.
The next time a Protestant Fundamentalist tells you he believes every word in the Bible, ask him this question:
“If a man rapes a virgin, should the woman be required to marry him?”
Presumably, he will say no. But if he does, ask him to explain Deuteronomy 2:28. Go ahead, look it up.
oops. That citation should be Deuteronomy 22:28. Sorry.
This is a bit like a ten people pointing at the moon and arguing whose finger is straighter.
By that you mean that one of the ten is the most accurate towards the moon out of the bunch, right?
I’ll further that analogy, the person with the best tools to help them get an accurate assessment will be able to guide others best to the true path with that finger. Magisterial infallibility through the Holy Spirit is a pretty great tool, IMHO.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6909589.stm
Woah, we’ve had sinners in the Church? Well stop the boat, I guess we all need to get off! Never heard or suspected that before!
Seriously, you don’t think we know some of the popes weren’t very good men? It’s kind of ironic how the worst of them were the least interested in defining any kind of Church teachings, and most interested in worldly things, such as wealth and having secret kids to give said wealth to.
Actually, I would believe not ironic at all, but inspired… fear not, God isn’t powerless to help the Church, and He’s promised to do just that. I can see how a protestant without that protection would be hopeless and fear unwisely.
As Archbishop Fulton Sheen put it: Jesus selected Peter, who denied Him, and not John, who stood at the foot of the Cross, to be the head of His Church so that we who are weak and sinful need never despair.
The idea that Jesus did not found a Church is absurd. Those who promote such a belief are not in the Church that Christ did found, therefore they must deny it exists.
And what about the Bible verse that says “Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church”? So you treat your wife as though she does not exist?
Actually, I beleive that you will find that most of the scholars of the Catholic Bibilical Society would say it was founded by the people we call Apostles (to include all Apostles, not just the 12), not Jesus Himself.
The Church was founded by Jesus THROUGH the Apostles. A Catholic need admit no “either/or” there.
“If a man rapes a virgin, should the woman be required to marry him?”
Not if she’s engaged and not if they are not discovered.
“…and upon this rock *I* will build *My Church*.”
Jesus seems pretty specific there.
Those of you who think that quoting Jesus proclaiming His Church is de facto proof that He’s talking about y’all to the exclusion of everyone else, well, you’ll have to do better than pointing your nice, straight fingers at words that beg the question. I believe Jesus did found “The Church.” I just happen to think He knows better than we do which bricks make up His Church and which make up man’s assorted counterfeits. We so-called “protestants” put our faith in the risen Christ and the triune God, who transforms us from those who hate to those who love, whether by thought or deed or word. The Scripture says that can’t happen apart from a work of the Holy Spirit.
Whereas I have heard it reported that some of your apologists are calling our apologists morons. Now Jesus didn’t think it reflected the divine personality to run around calling people morons. Rather, I seem to recall it indicated significant spiritual danger for the person who did it. Did the “Church” one day decide it could cancel that particular teaching? Will I find that in the Fathers? Did I miss the memo?
Speaking of missed memos (and I suspect no one is looking at this now old page, but anyway), I don’t quite get the question about the having to marry the girl under circumstances of probable rape. I, as a “protestant,” armed with nothing but my Bible to guide me, am inclined to believe it is probably a good principle of morality that a woman thus violated deserves a fair compensation for her humiliation, which certainly could include marriage. Shotgun weddings are not the monopoly of a particular religious group, but rather appeal to the innate sense of fair play we all come equipped with from birth (aka natural law). So I guess I missed the part of the above discussion where this has some role in differentiating Protestants from Catholics. If someone could clue me in, that would be much appreciated.
1Timothy 3:15
Great quote, bill912, and as a “protestant” I wholeheartedly agree with the truth it expresses: The Ecclesia, the people called out of lost humanity by God Himself, are indeed the focal point of truth in the world, as they are, collectively, the only valid ambassadors of the God of all truth. However, dropping that passage into the middle of the discussion does nothing by way of proving the allegations of Rome, for nothing in that passage or anywhere else in Scripture justifies identification of the Scriptural Ecclesia with any given modern institution. Prove what you will about the Biblical Ecclesia. You have proved nothing about Rome. There is a wall of history dividing the two entities, and you cannot climb over it by a mere wave of the hand. I do believe there is a true Church in the world. However, I am too old to believe unexamined the claims of any human organization that they are the sole institutional representative of God. The inability to examine such a claim, or the willingness to believe it unexamined, is the root of much evil in the world. It was the ground of your Inquisition. It is the ground of Islamic Jihadism. It seems everyone wants to be God’s agent on earth.
Yet the rational mind cries out to know how one can examine and thus differentiate such truth claims, without an independent measure of their truthfulness, a referee of some sort. If it is argued there is no such independent measure, then reason itself is mere fantasy, and there is no point in continuing the discussion. Nevertheless, even your beloved Aquinas believed that one’s God-given reason could serve as an adequate guide into theological as well as pragmatic truth. All sides concede that the exercise of reason does require a trusted starting point, but if we presume to make one modern institution that starting point, without first evaluating its claim to authenticity on some basis other than its own assertions, we have begged the question, and those who beg questions have poor answers for friends. By contrast, if we make a collection of prophetic and apostolic writings – always accepted as authoritative by the Church entire – our starting point, that starting point seems somewhat more reasonable, if not altogether free of epistemological questions. You are known by the company you keep.
Furthermore, logically, since the authentic Ecclesia and the prophets and apostles whose writings ground it would both speak from the same source of truth, one would expect their messages to be essentially the same. This is the problem that Rome, and many other allegedly “one-and-only-true-church” institutions have: They must develop elaborate rationalizations explaining why it is OK for their modern interpretations to controvert the plain sense of the words of Jesus and Paul, et al. It’s very tough to do this successfully. God’s revealed truth is so much better qualitatively than any man-made rattletrap, that a rational mind can usually spot the discrepancy quite easily.
Therefore, it is good to know that, despite the bitter and uncharitable wrangling over whose organization is more charitable, God does “have many people” in this city, that city, some other place, etc. The Ecclesia is alive and well, and takes no comfort in torturing people or calling them morons. The wheats and the tares will be separated in the end, but not by us; discerning the full membership of the Ecclesia is angels’ work, and we do well to leave it there. Our work is to share the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ with words well seasoned in love.