Obsession

shnarkle said:
I'm not Catholic, yet I was born into the faith, and continued in the faith up until I was in my mid 20's. I learned a lot of valuable lessons as a Catholic, and even after leaving the church I can see how much of it still makes a lot of sense to me. I'm not one of those "recovering Catholics" who has a chip on their shoulder, nor am I now of the Protestant persuasion.

I think an equally pertinent question would be how does one defend their faith beyond a simple appeal to authority? This is an especially disturbing defense when we don't just have scripture refuting certain doctrines, but scripture that makes perfect sense, and is in agreement with the rest of scripture, and reality.

Again, this isn't always the case with Catholic doctrine. It only rears it's head when all other arguments fail.
Click to expand...
Your post is very good. My problem with many of the posters on this site is not that they disagree with Catholics, or even that some left the RCC. We all have to go where we think the Holy Spirit is leading us. My problem with many of the posters on this site, and especially former Catholics is precisely--that they seem to have this "chip" on their shoulder. It is one thing to respectfully discuss and debate differences, another thing to do it with a chip on one's shoulder. I guess that is what I mean by the term "Bible thumper." A Bible thumper is one who evangelizes with a chip on their shoulder.

The fact is-----in some ways, all arguments are an appeal to authority. When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.

Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic. If the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, then who would know better than the very Church itself whether or not something is scriptural and revealed? Hence, the "Sola Roma Ecclesia" accusation is simply absurd. If we aren't supposed to look to the Church to teach us the Scriptures, who should we look to? The government?

Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Your post is very good. My problem with many of the posters on this site is not that they disagree with Catholics, or even that some left the RCC. We all have to go where we think the Holy Spirit is leading us. My problem with many of the posters on this site, and especially former Catholics is precisely--that they seem to have this "chip" on their shoulder. It is one thing to respectfully discuss and debate differences, another thing to do it with a chip on one's shoulder. I guess that is what I mean by the term "Bible thumper." A Bible thumper is one who evangelizes with a chip on their shoulder.
Click to expand...
Do you think they have a "chip" because they call you "wise guy?" Or, is that your chip being projected onto them?

Asking for a friend. ?
 
romishpopishorganist said:
And you agree with uninspired, unwritten Protestant Tradition.

What's the difference? "Oh, but, but, but, our Tradition is Biblical, yours is not." is no answer. What makes you think your Tradition is any more biblical than ours? It all comes down to interpretation. How do you know yours is the right one?
Click to expand...
Well you agree with uninspired, unwritten RC tradition. I don't follow man nor does any believer. Well one interpretation reads the bible as a whole (believers) the other (RCC) chooses which bits and pieces it will follow or twist and pretend to follow. That is a big difference.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Your post is very good. My problem with many of the posters on this site is not that they disagree with Catholics, or even that some left the RCC. We all have to go where we think the Holy Spirit is leading us. My problem with many of the posters on this site, and especially former Catholics is precisely--that they seem to have this "chip" on their shoulder. It is one thing to respectfully discuss and debate differences, another thing to do it with a chip on one's shoulder. I guess that is what I mean by the term "Bible thumper." A Bible thumper is one who evangelizes with a chip on their shoulder.

The fact is-----in some ways, all arguments are an appeal to authority. When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.

Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic. If the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, then who would know better than the very Church itself whether or not something is scriptural and revealed? Hence, the "Sola Roma Ecclesia" accusation is simply absurd. If we aren't supposed to look to the Church to teach us the Scriptures, who should we look to? The government?

Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
Your problem is exactly that we disagree with you and quote facts about your institution that you don't want to hear. No chip on my shoulder the Lord took that away when He saved me.

RCs agree that they just turn to what the institution tells them and that is what they believe. The pope and his cronies are just men not an authority and have proved they cannot be trusted. The RCC has changed its teachings and they come up with some great excuses for doing so. Thus their teachings are changeable and cannot be trusted. Actions speak and they don't like it but it shows the fruit of the flesh and not the Spirit.

RCs have a chip on their shoulder because they do not want to face the truth about the false claims of their institution and just get upset when we do not agree with them. This means they resort to name calling.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Oh? And what makes you think Protestants know the Gospel any better than Catholics?
Click to expand...
The evidence suggests that neither are willing to spread it even sparingly. For those who believe that they have the gospel, it should be noted that it is so scandalous that to spread it is undoubtedly going to get you arrested and probably put to death. So one needs to ask themselves why they aren't being arrested or put to death for the gospel they claim to possess?

Perhaps it's because they aren't sharing it at all. The gospel can't be possessed. It has to be wastefully broadcast everywhere all the time.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Your post is very good. My problem with many of the posters on this site is not that they disagree with Catholics, or even that some left the RCC. We all have to go where we think the Holy Spirit is leading us. My problem with many of the posters on this site, and especially former Catholics is precisely--that they seem to have this "chip" on their shoulder. It is one thing to respectfully discuss and debate differences, another thing to do it with a chip on one's shoulder. I guess that is what I mean by the term "Bible thumper." A Bible thumper is one who evangelizes with a chip on their shoulder.

The fact is-----in some ways, all arguments are an appeal to authority. When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.

Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic. If the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, then who would know better than the very Church itself whether or not something is scriptural and revealed? Hence, the "Sola Roma Ecclesia" accusation is simply absurd. If we aren't supposed to look to the Church to teach us the Scriptures, who should we look to? The government?

Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
Well put. I would only point out that it is the Spirit who teaches, and who has the authority. Furthermore, it can only be those who are taught of God that can witness the truth. What we're dealing with are people who are not confessing what they have witnessed, but professing what they have been taught. There is all the difference in the world between these two schools of thought.

The Spirit's testimony is completely consistent with the testimony of scripture. We don't see this in any denomination today. People simply adhere to what they've been taught without being able to articulate why what they're teaching is right or correct. They're all incapable of addressing, much less defending their fundamental assumptions.
 
shnarkle said:
The evidence suggests that neither are willing to spread it even sparingly. For those who believe that they have the gospel, it should be noted that it is so scandalous that to spread it is undoubtedly going to get you arrested and probably put to death. So one needs to ask themselves why they aren't being arrested or put to death for the gospel they claim to possess?

Perhaps it's because they aren't sharing it at all. The gospel can't be possessed. It has to be wastefully broadcast everywhere all the time.
Click to expand...
Well if you think it is not being shared you can do it.
 
shnarkle said:
Well put. I would only point out that it is the Spirit who teaches, and who has the authority. Furthermore, it can only be those who are taught of God that can witness the truth. What we're dealing with are people who are not confessing what they have witnessed, but professing what they have been taught. There is all the difference in the world between these two schools of thought.

The Spirit's testimony is completely consistent with the testimony of scripture. We don't see this in any denomination today. People simply adhere to what they've been taught without being able to articulate why what they're teaching is right or correct. They're all incapable of addressing, much less defending their fundamental assumptions.
Click to expand...
Oh people are consistent with what the Holy Spirit teaches them. I am happy for you to defend your fundamental assumptions, please go ahead.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Your post is very good. My problem with many of the posters on this site is not that they disagree with Catholics, or even that some left the RCC. We all have to go where we think the Holy Spirit is leading us. My problem with many of the posters on this site, and especially former Catholics is precisely--that they seem to have this "chip" on their shoulder. It is one thing to respectfully discuss and debate differences, another thing to do it with a chip on one's shoulder. I guess that is what I mean by the term "Bible thumper." A Bible thumper is one who evangelizes with a chip on their shoulder.

The fact is-----in some ways, all arguments are an appeal to authority. When the Protestants appeal to the Scriptures, they aren't really appealing to the Scriptures, what they are doing is appealing to an interpretation of the Scriptures that is based on what they were taught by their ministers, teachers, scholars, etc. Protestants deny they are doing this, instead claiming to go by the Holy Spirt of course.

Now, Catholics freely admit that any appeal to the Scriptures in the Catholic Church, is really an appeal to an interpretation based on the teachings of the Faith. For Catholics, the Bible is the Divine text book of the Faith, the Church the divinely authorized teacher. Because the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, the idea that Church teaching is not evidence that something is scriptural and revealed---is sort of oxymoronic for the Catholic. If the Church is the divinely authorized teacher of the Scriptures, then who would know better than the very Church itself whether or not something is scriptural and revealed? Hence, the "Sola Roma Ecclesia" accusation is simply absurd. If we aren't supposed to look to the Church to teach us the Scriptures, who should we look to? The government?

Thus, everything is ultimately an appeal to authority. The question is--which authority is divinely authorized? Catholics see this as the RCC, Protestants do not.
Click to expand...
the Church the divinely authorized teacher.
Click to expand...
the only reason you believe that is because the men of the RCC tell you that.

there is no scripture to support that the RCC is His church. Believers are His church - wherever they are individually or wherever they gather together. the RCC is not His church anywhere at any time.

The RCC is not divinely authorized by God. It does not teach the truth of His word.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
And you agree with uninspired, unwritten Protestant Tradition.

What's the difference? "Oh, but, but, but, our Tradition is Biblical, yours is not." is no answer. What makes you think your Tradition is any more biblical than ours? It all comes down to interpretation. How do you know yours is the right one?
Click to expand...
Who says I have an uninspired unwritten Tradition?
I have an inspired written Tradition.
 
PeanutGallery said:
Who says I have an uninspired unwritten Tradition?
I have an inspired written Tradition.
Click to expand...
Yes; that is the Scriptures.

The unwritten traditions, (note that when we say "unwritten" we do not literally mean "unwritten." Some of them have been written down, just not all) you have are the interpretations of the Scriptures that you are taught by your teachers, clergy, scholars, etc, that have largely been accepted in your sect, and that you have accepted.

In other words, you are part of a specific community of believers. Your reading of the Scriptures is mediated through that community. You just do not realize it.
 
shnarkle said:
Well put. I would only point out that it is the Spirit who teaches, and who has the authority.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

On this we agree.

The issue isn't whether or not it is the Spirit who teaches and the Spirit who has authority, but the mechanism in which the Spirit speaks. The Spirit is immaterial. We only know and understand things through the material. That means there must be concrete manifestations of the authority of the Spirit.

For Protestants, I guess, the Scriptures alone are the concrete manifestation of the authority of the Spirit. For Catholics, the Scriptures is one manifestation of the authority of the Spirit, the other is the Church. If the Spirit guides the Church, and I think we can agree that the Spirit guides the Church--the Body of Christ, it is difficult for me to understand, again, why the testimony of the Church to some teaching, say the IC, should not be taken as evidence that the Scriptures teaches the doctrine, if the Scriptures themselves are unclear.

Put another way: when we approach the Scriptures, and we seek to prove or disprove that the Scriptures teach something, and the evidence in the Scriptures is inconclusive, why shouldn't the Church have the authority to judge the evidence and then make a determination either way, and then bind the Christian conscience to that decision?

So you have two sides to an issue, again, say the IC of Mary. One side says "The Scriptures teach this doctrine." The other side says "The Scriptures do not teach this doctrine." Why doesn't the Church get to judge the evidence and then make an authoritative, definitive determination either way?
shnarkle said:
Furthermore, it can only be those who are taught of God that can witness the truth. What we're dealing with are people who are not confessing what they have witnessed, but professing what they have been taught. There is all the difference in the world between these two schools of thought.

The Spirit's testimony is completely consistent with the testimony of scripture. We don't see this in any denomination today. People simply adhere to what they've been taught without being able to articulate why what they're teaching is right or correct. They're all incapable of addressing, much less defending their fundamental assumptions.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is true enough. It does not mean that there is no defense or that no one can defend those assumptions.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Yes; that is the Scriptures.

The unwritten traditions, (note that when we say "unwritten" we do not literally mean "unwritten." Some of them have been written down, just not all)
Click to expand...
Gee,this is as bad as reading a KJV! "Suffer" doesn't really mean "suffer", "prevent" doesn't mean "forbid", "unwritten" doesn't mean "unwritten", etc. The concept of "accidence" has gone wild. ? (Whatever happened to "A is A; A is not not-A"?)
romishpopishorganist said:
you have are the interpretations of the Scriptures that you are taught by your teachers, clergy, scholars, etc, that have largely been accepted in your sect, and that you have accepted.
Click to expand...
And about us sect-less believers? We who attend a church because we agree with their teachings, but are not afraid of disagreeing - or even walking out if needs be - without the fear of eternal damnation if we do?
romishpopishorganist said:
In other words, you are part of a specific community of believers. Your reading of the Scriptures is mediated through that community. You just do not realize it.
Click to expand...
As you do not realize that you are actually a native-born Bantu! ☺️ Your generalizations are fantastic - in both meanings of the word.
 
romishpopishorganist said:
Yes; that is the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
And yet, you believe the uninspired unwritten Tradition above God's inspired written Tradition.

In other words, you are part of a specific community of believers.
Click to expand...
Believers of God's inspired written word.

Your reading of the Scriptures is mediated through that community. You just do not realize it.
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
RiJoRi said:
Gee,this is as bad as reading a KJV! "Suffer" doesn't really mean "suffer", "prevent" doesn't mean "forbid", "unwritten" doesn't mean "unwritten", etc. The concept of "accidence" has gone wild. ? (Whatever happened to "A is A; A is not not-A"?)

And about us sect-less believers? We who attend a church because we agree with their teachings, but are not afraid of disagreeing - or even walking out if needs be - without the fear of eternal damnation if we do?

As you do not realize that you are actually a native-born Bantu! ☺️ Your generalizations are fantastic - in both meanings of the word.
Click to expand...
Confusion has one source and it is not God.
 
Maxtar said:
We already have it. One OT reading, one NT reading, and a Gospel reading at every Mass. Plus a psalm reading. And a sermon. And the most holy of sacraments, the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion.
Click to expand...
And yet, Catholicism buries the true Gospel of Jesus Christ under a ton of man-made traditions and beliefs, especially in its Marolatry, making Jesus Christ take a back seat to His mom, except at Christmas and Easter...why would anyone want to do that, "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men"?

Just reading the Pericope every Sunday isn't enough--one must inwardly digest it and BELIEVE what it says--and act on it.
 
RiJoRi said:
Gee,this is as bad as reading a KJV! "Suffer" doesn't really mean "suffer", "prevent" doesn't mean "forbid", "unwritten" doesn't mean "unwritten", etc. The concept of "accidence" has gone wild. ? (Whatever happened to "A is A; A is not not-A"?)

And about us sect-less believers? We who attend a church because we agree with their teachings, but are not afraid of disagreeing - or even walking out if needs be - without the fear of eternal damnation if we do?

As you do not realize that you are actually a native-born Bantu! ☺️ Your generalizations are fantastic - in both meanings of the word.
Click to expand...
Prevent does not mean forbid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top