Qb replied, where I last said:
Who do you trust, QB? Oh, I know you may very well say, "I only trust myself in my reading and interpretation of the Bible" or similar words, them you would be setting yourself up as your own pope, chief bottle washer and a church of one! Rather isolated, don't you think
You have to trust someone, so how about your pastor? How about your board of elders?
In my tenure as a pastor I have met some great men who studied hard and others who just gave sermons. There is a point where you do have to trust people. I have been fortunate in that I studied at the seminary that has the largest theological library in the US. Many times I would hear things and it would make me wonder so I would ask for the sources and go read them. Many times I saw a few Catholics studying there. The seminary had loads of Catholic books dating way back as well as current ones.
The point I (think) I was trying to make is, somehow, somewhere, you must be able to discern the ultimate truth of Christ, what His gospel was, and how do we discern that gospel message today. How do we do that?
Without getting into the mechanics of my conclusion that Christianity is the true religion of God here on earth, the only real way for me is to look at all of the factions of Christianity to find the truth, determined by:
1.
It's age. That, In and of itself, does not make it the truth, but rather the fact that if it is the very original manifestation of Christianity in the beginning, and if Christianity is truth, then precedence becomes an important fact for determining that faction that was the original truth of Christianity. What was that "faction" of Christianity between Pentecost and the present day, noting that it was the only "faction" up and until the Orthodox schism circa AD 1,000.
2.
Consistency in doctrine. That in the time of it's existence, there has not been a change in doctrine or faith. That does not mean that a doctrine is not refined, such as the definition as a dogma, the doctrine of the Trinity, it always being there in infant form until it was challenged, but that in the development of doctrine and dogma, there has not been an abandonment of a previous dogma or doctrine, the origination of a novel doctrine or dogma but only it's subsequent development. The Trinity is an outstanding example because we both believe in the Trinity, presumably without a biased shading or you or my part. In the infant church, the word "Trinity" would not have produced a nodding response, but the concept of God being manifested in three persons does. We see the Father stating He will send His divine Son; the Son speaking of the will of the Father, yet "before Abraham came to be, I AM" declares Him as God; and finally, the Son sends the holy Spirit, who comes down at Pentecost and other times, the third manifestation of God in a person, yet there is only one God. (Others can say this better then I can!)
If I had to find the one thing that convinced me of the ultimate truth of Catholicism in consistency of doctrine, it was the events in 1930. There was not one Christian faction that allowed for the use of artificial birth control; it was considered a serious sin. The dam broke when at the Lambeth conference by the Church of England (Anglican) that allowed for it, the rest followed along except for the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church is consistent in condemning the practice before, and it continues to condemn it now. And I know of no other Church who is consistent in the doctrine of the nondissolvability of marriage where a valid marriage exists other then death of one spouse. Again, most Christian factions were lock step in agreement with the Catholic Church in early times. Today, it is permitted, but again, not the Catholic Church.
That ultimately means that I trust in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church! And if you then boil that down as my obedience to the pope, then so be it! It is the pope in conjunction with the teaching authority, the Magisterium of the Church, that I sincerely believe that the ultimate truth of Christianity lies.
I do not insist that this is an easy thing for a non-Catholic to believe overnight, lock stock and barrel. It took me many years to come to that conclusion in my heart and mind. And I surely do not think I am glib of tongue enough to convince you one way or the other in our few exchanges as well.
I last said:
If you loose trust in them, what do you do, go off seeking another church body? I have read messages in this forum and other forums how one person went "church shopping," looking for the one they liked, only to leave again because they "lost trust" in what the preacher was preaching there, or some other reason, but they could not trust any church they attended. To say, "all my trust is in God" is fine in and of itself, but then you become a "church of one" again.
Christ established a church with awesome authority and responsibility, and even though you will find a "bad egg" out of a thousand, why abandon that Church when from the very git go, even in Jesus' own group of apostles, one betrayed Him. His whole Church, divinely inspired and protected as it was, still had it's "bad eggs."
Our free will of choice applies to all, including the clergy of the church, who must still decide between good and evil, and I thank God they are few and far between, even in the present scandal in my Church.
If we see Paul in action and Jesus in action we see them mentoring their disciples. Most every person today has access to historical information. But it does need to be compared with other historical information. Not every historian is equal.
Agreed, but the sheer volume of what is available that supports the truth of the Catholic Church, in my humble opinion, overshadows all! I know this is hard for the non-Catholic to comprehend, he/she being conditioned to go only by what their interpretation of scripture says, but look at the stark limitation and danger that poses. Reads your bible in a prayerful attitude, always asking God to help you understand what it says to you is terribly subjective and can be very misleading to an individual. And it was obvious to me, in my early investigative years that this led to chaos. Luther claimed (it is said) that a "milk maid could read and understand scripture." (paraphrased from memory) He later lamented, I understand, the explosion of diverse interpretations that led to a splintering of Protestant Christian thought and diverse doctrines we see to this day! One denomination believes and teaches the salvific power of baptism, others simply believe it is an
optional outward display of your Christian committment to others witnessing. As I may have said before, the baptismal tank in my previous church affiliation stood dry as a bone for about two years, nary a baptism took place at all! I could mention holy communion again, and you know what I am going to say about that. One Church believes in the true presence of God in the Eucharist, whereas another simply sees it as a symbol of Christ, not His body and blood at all.
One of those churches has to be in error! That is the stark reality!
You continued:
I agree with you in some ways. "Looking for a perfect church? If you find one don't join it because you will ruin it." I can certainly trust God in the midst of some characters who are not so good. God always blesses the church that seeks to do His will. .I am more interested in knowing what scripture teaches than what a denomination teaches. A man once asked me, "How do you tell a crooked stick? You lay a straight one next to it." The straight one of Christianity is the Bible. I do not try and change the Bible to what I want it to say or tell the people. But I must change to conform to what it teaches.
I like that saying!
But then we will run immediately into a disagreement as to the "standard" that is the bible. How do we measure that "standard" when that standard can be interpreted in so many ways? And as I am prone to do, where was that "standard" from the time of Pentecost to the time the New Testament was finally compiled, canonized and generally made available to all who could refer to that "standard"?
I have yet to see an adequate answer from any of my non-Catholic Christian friends…
There are no perfect churches. But there is no doubt that some are better than others. I want to be in one that comes closest to living and teaching according to scripture. You mentioned about church hoppers. They are a tremendous blessing to the church they just left.
I would insist that there is at least one!
But then I would have to immediately point to the imperfection of it's members, including the clergy, let along individuals who make-up the faithful in my church! I don't like some of the music we have, my being more "traditional" in my desires, and my pastor is not the best sermon giver in the world, but I think the world of this man! He has his faults and failures just like I have mine. And in some ways, I am a failure big time! But my parish church is a local church within the regional church that is the diocese of Pensecola-Tallahassee, that, with my bishop, is under the protection of THE CHURCH in consistency, discipline and doctrine. There is no other Christian community that comes close to this cohesion, in my humble opinion.
Is there strife and disunity? Yes, there is some, but it is an "ant hill" compared to the "Mount Everest" of disunity I see in the rest of Christianity. That was a big reason for my attraction to Catholicism in the first place back in 1953.
I bet I'm older then you!
I believe you hit the nail on the head exactly when you said, "Christ established a church with awesome authority and responsibility." With authority comes a responsibility to use it wisely. I do believe in many ways the RCC is undergoing change for the better. From what I have read, Pope John XXIII tried to right the wrongs but some clergy were upset in the process. I think the changes he tried it make were very good.
I am glad you said that, qb, noting that there were indeed, some popes who did not do so wisely by their own conduct and example. I shudder to think what punishment awaited them in their judgment, noting also that I cannot judge, only God knew their hearts. But a failure in their responsibility must bring a much greater consequence then one who has little responsibility save for his conduct before Almighty God.
But to continue in your vane, I think John Paul II continue that "reform" today, bless his heart, I think God will call him home very soon now. (I have the feeling he may not last out this year…)
I would be interested in your proof why you believe that it is necessary to have more than just the Bible for faith and practice.
qb, I am not sure I can prove it to you, but I will give it a try:
As you already seen me say, there was a time when there was only the church; there was no New Testament. In other words, Christ established a church, not a bible! On the other hand, Christ certainly quoted from scripture (The Old Testament) which indicates a tacit approval of the use of scripture. But what we do not have is Christ instructing his apostles to write a bible in order to "etch in concrete" so to speak, the gospel message He gave them orally, while He was in the flesh with His apostles here on earth. (We both know that Jesus, from heaven, spoke to John in his writing about the "seven churches" in the Book of Revelation.) Therefore, all authority for "faith and practice" was resident in the Church and the Church only in the
new covenant of Christ and His gospel message.
However, the New Testament was written. And there is no doubt that the gospels were written in order to achieve that "etched in concrete" gospel message in written form and I think you would agree with me that it was the providence of God that they do so. Remember that Christ spoke of the authority and the power to "bind and loose," first given to Peter in Matthew 16:18 and later to the rest of the apostles in Matthew 18:18 that indicates that decisions concerning faith and morals would be reflected in heaven as either "bound" as if God "bound" it, and "loosed" as if God "loosed" it. And mind you, this was spoken orally to Peter and the apostles before this was recorded in the very scriptures we believe was from the providence of God.
But who decided that scripture was an authority to begin with? Well, the precedent of the Old Testament was there, it now being a closed covenant. It was an authority the preceded the church, even while it's old covenant is not closed, replaced by the new covenant and the gospel of Christ. I submit that it was the authority of the Church that first collated, canonized and declared as divinely inspired "God breathed" scripture, even while places in the New Testament say this about itself, it does not define the boundaries of "itself;" the Church does!
I could almost argue the case that the Church is the
only authority, but I don't do so because it was the Church was the authority that recognized the authority of the New Testament, whose contents it bounded and defined - The New Testament cannot do that by itself - what was once the only authority (the Church, between Pentecost and the completion of the inscripturation of the New Testament) now defines scripture as a parallel authority alongside itself, not in opposition or competition, but in a symbiotic relationship with the authority of the Church in the first place. And oh, I find that easy to do, once the Church defined the authorship of the New Testament, from the pens of the apostles who received authority in the first place, thus their writings
were authority! Therefore, I would not make the case that the Church is the only authority other then to define the range of authority that includes the New Testament (and the Old Testament, by the way, as they continued it in the Bible from the
Septuagint Greek version the early Christians favored.)
Now, if that is not a good case for the combined case of authority in existence in both the Church and in holy Scripture, then I don't know how else to define it. The Church husbanded the scriptures, yet the scriptures heralds the establishment of the Church. It is almost like the song, "Love and Marriage, they go together like horse and carriage."
When the protests began against the Church, one of the first things that had to go was the authority of the Church. What else could they turn to for authority but for scriptures that the Church herself husbanded?
It is like a protesting group of citizens, going to a desert island somewhere with a copy of the Constitution of the United States, denying the authority of the United States that authority only exists in the Constitution!
Sorry, it is a poor analogy, but it serves to point to the absurdity, in my humble opinion, of the idea and doctrines of
Sola Scriptura.
I last said:
If I were to ask you to pray for me, you would have no problem with that at all, but suppose a deceased person is with God in heaven. Do they cease to hear our prayers in that state? If so, why? Can they not be the perfect conduit of our prayers to God, that I may ask "St. Joseph, chaste spouse of Mary, pray for me (to God)"?
We are not asking them to converse with us, but to simply pray for us! Christ was the great intercessor in our salvation, but in prayer, we are all "intercessors" in that we can pray for one another. Why must this intercessory prayer stop at death? If one is in heaven, why can their grand station in heaven be that "ear to God" that our prayers come to Him?
When you ask someone to pray for you, you definitely are conversing with them. I don't know how else you could communicate other than by your will. Prayers are entreaties. When we pray we are entreating whoever we pray to.
OK, I agree here…
(Continued in next message)
