The Changing Face Of Catholicism

Unlike Rome, neither are destined for hell for having different views.

 

Matt,

Yet God says...

God feels that the disagreements are not a problem, yet you continue to say they are.

Why not come into agreement with God?

God bless,

Mike

 

Agreement on what? Apparently it doesn't matter that we don't agree so surely it matters not if we don't agree with God?

 

Matt,

Come into agreement with God that it is completly normal and natural for brothers and sisters to have differeing convictions regarding issues like this.

Catholics and Catholic sympathisers just dont "get it" for some strange and bizarre reason. They feel that everyone should be mindless and have a monolithic and totally ungodly "Teaching Magesterium" to command them what they must believe...no matter how false that teaching might be, and how cultic that idea is.

God expects every individual christian to be a student of the scriptures, with the Holy Spirit as their guide.

And the amazing thing is that the folly of turning from that important truth is so obvious...

Jim Jones.
David Koresh
Catholicism
The Mary Baker Eddy cult
The Orthodox and their "Fathers"
Scientology
Mormonism

All have one thing in common. Their victims are forbidden from individually learning from God, with only the scriptures and the Holy Spirit.

God have mercy


Mike

 

Two things:

You list Catholicism and Orthodox with Jim Jones, David Koresh, Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science), Mormonism? Might as well throw the Moonies. The orthodox christian faiths (orthodox, Catholicism with its latin and eastern rites, Coptic churches also suggest that you read and learn the scripture on your own. But as far as doctrinal Statements their churches teachings are correct and if your individual interpretation is different then your wrong. Koresh, Eddy, Smith all interprete scriptures on their own with out any other authority. They read the same bible baptist do but came up with a different conclussion. Pentecostals, baptist different conclusions same bible. So, when it comes down to it interpreting the scriptures with out tradition and authority is closer to the very cults you mention. Koresh, Baker, and Smith.

Next Catholic sympathizers? I believe there are catholics who will be in heaven. But your statement Catholic Sympathizers sounds almost like Himmler saying there are Jewish sympathizers in Deutchland. Or Senator Mcarthy saying there are communist sympathizers in America. You may not have meant it that way but that's how it struck me.

 

But one view has more biblical support than the other. :laugh: We better not go there - that's a topic for another thread.

Having said that, while it's true there are some issues such as this that garner support on both sides (include views of endtimes here), it is also true that no major doctrine is affected by different interpretations when interpretation is done validly.

Of course, anyone can come up with a false teaching using the Bible, but they have to use passages out of context, read another meaning into the text that is not there or is unsupported by other scripture, or otherwise misuse the text.

The basic teachings of sin, redemption, who God is, who Jesus is, salvation, etc. are clearly there.

 

I see your point, Mike, but I think it's more than that. (I am not sure I would put the Catholics and Orthodox on this list as I think they added teachings. There are problems with them but I separate them from the others on the list).

But the others also twisted scripture to fit their own agendas and views. They had specific beliefs and misused the bible to try to show they were right - mainly through eisegesis (reading into scripture) and twisting scripture. I think James Sire's book on Scripture Twisting discusses this.

 

Thinkingstuff,

I said...

And you said...

I guess they would fit as well.

Not really. They read the scriptures, but always through the lens of what the "Fathers" of thousands of years ago believed. They argue against the truth of Sola Scriptura just as agressively as the Catholics do.

Thats my point.

I didnt mention David Koresh, Eddy, and Jim Jones because of them individually, but with their followers in mind. I could have made that clearer I guess.

And thats fine.

Again, you are misunderstanding why I brought up those cults. The cult leaders are not exactly like the groups like the RCC and Orthodox. That was not my point. It is the authority of the cult leaders that is the same as the "authority" that the vicims of groups like the RCC and Orthodox are subject to.

That being, of course, they are all forbidden to practice Gods glorious truth of sola scriptura to learn from God. They are all expected to "toe the party line" completely. Its a great way to keep people in bondage to an organisation or leader.

Yes. Their are many on this forum. Matt Black and Agnus Dei are the 1st 2 that come to mind. Neither claim Catholicism, (Matt Anglican and Agnus Orthodox) yet when certain topics come up, (sola scriptura, justification by faith alone, etc) their responses sound 100% identical to the stock responses that Catholics offer up on other boards I frequent.

I do as well. I believe the vast majority of Catholics will not be saved,(for obvious reasons, they proclaim a false gospel) but it is *possible* for some to stumble upon saving faith, yet still remain in the RCC.

I hope this post makes my meaning more clear. Good grief, the last thing I would bring up would be politics! :laugh:


Mike

 

I'm thinking maybe you haven't read the multiple pages in the Catholic catechism regarding the role of an individual's conscience.

You also seem to think that someone from a 'sola scriptura' perspective could ever reach the same conclusions as the Catholic church yet there are many who do just that from a perspective that was totally not influenced by being in 'bondage'. Interesting dilemna there.

 

Mrtumnus,

Yes, I have. Are you familiar with the Catholic Church Catechisms commands regarding the Teaching Magisterium?

Here it is from the Catholic Catechism....

That is CULTISM 101 right there. No different than the JW's, Mormons, David Koresh, Warren Jefs, and multitudes of other false cults.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm


Mike

 

I understand your position better now. (I don't agree with it though) Reading the above what do you make of the second line with regards to accultism?

 

As others have stated, the article you referenced opposes your statement.

I would say that one of the problems of the Catholic Church as any other large institution is that it changes too slowly. They have made a lot of important changes in the last few decades that have bridged the gap with other Christian groups including protestants. I applaud their leadership in initiating ecumenical discussions with other Christian groups in obedience to Ephesians 4.

 

Just to put some numbers to this for those interested, this chart by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research says that 4% of clergy in the SBC were female in 1994 which was the 2nd lowest of the groups listed. It is likely less after 2000 when the Southern Baptist Faith and Message was changed to explicitly limit the office of the pastor to men. The American Baptist Convention was reported as having 12% female clergy in 1994.

 

Yes, I am very much aware of the role of the Teaching Magisterium of the church.

I am also aware that the church teaches that the primary authority a person must answer to is God, and this occurs through the exercise of an individual's conscience.

1795 "Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths"

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.


Regarding the forming of one's conscience,

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path, we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord's Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.

Guided by the teaching of the church, yes indeed. However, not in place of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The church also cautions that a person can make incorrect judgments of conscience due to ignorance. Hence one must be very careful in that which they determine, and for what reasons. Rejection of the church's authority is certainly one of several thing that could cause an error in judgment. Not will, could.

But the bottom line teaching is this ... "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. "

According to Catholic teaching, the only question any person has to answer in order to reject a church teaching is if they are fully informed and are convicted by the Holy Spirit their position is true and are willing to stand before God with their decision.

 

I am very aware of that. I am also aware of the many people I know and know of who were once firm believers in sola-scriptura and through their diligent study of scripture and openness to the Holy Spirit came to the conclusion what they had been taught all of their lives was not correct, and that scriptures confirm that Christ left His authority in His church.

Which brings up an interesting question in my view -- why is it do you think people tend to carry more 'weight' of opinion if they were on one side of a debate and then changed their views? What is it about being able to say "I used to believe 'x' but now I reject that" which somehow makes their view of "x" more correct than someone who's always believed "x"?

 

I think the reason for this phenomena is that it is so clear that many simply will not change their position no matter how strong the arguments for an opposing position are. You see it all the time. So, in the rare event where someone changes positions, you can at least be sure that they are open to having their worldview challenged. And this naturally adds to their credibility.

Show me someone over 40 who hasn't revised their "theology" at least in some respect in the last 20 years and I guarantee that person is either not interested or is simply unwilling to be taught.

 

DHK, believe it or not the Catholic Church my husband attends, The Church of St Paul in Ham Lake, Minnesota believes in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and some even speak in tongues. Most of the Parishoners bring the Bible to Church with them for Mass. The music is fantastic. Their Bible studies have well over 600 in attendance.

The time they are a changing.

grace56

 

DHK, I do not dispute your testimony nor your faith.

My point simply is that there are others who came from where you are now, would witness to the same illumination, guidance and indwelling of the Holy Spirit which led to their understanding differently than what they have been taught, and ended up in the Catholic church. I would not dispute their testimony nor faith either.

This is why in my view it is much more complex than simply having the opinion that those in the Catholic church are in 'bondage' and cannot see the truth. If that were the case, there would be no 'incoming' of intelligent adults with no background in the Catholic church (and many who have been vehemently opposed for many years), who are rooted firmly in Scripture both before and after their arrival, and testify to being led by the Holy Spirit that the Church is what it proclaims and that Scripture supports this claim.