Pages

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Blind leading the blind

Candy gives her testimony - again at Keeping The Home: My Testimony

This part caught my eye:

I knew my husband (boyfriend at that time) was a Roman Catholic, and I thought that was what Christians were - I thought the names were interchangeable. Thus, I asked him "how do I get saved?" He shocked me, when he said "I don't know." Fortunatly, he was informed enough to know of people who would know. He brought me over to some mutual friends that we had, who were saved, and I asked them "how do I get saved?"

Candy's husband Erik was an uncatechized Catholic. He is her primary inspiration for hating the Catholic church, that he seemingly knew little or nothing about!

The rest of the testimony is interestingly, although she's printed this out before. She admits to being string willed, which I suppose explains how she can deliberately ignore the rebuttals we have put on this blog to many of her epic essays. It also explains why she is so comfortable following her own interpretations and leaning on her own understanding, skipping over the verses that tell her not to do just that.

I can't begin to understand where she's coming from, but these few revelations at least partially explain our encounters with Candy.



Add to Technorati Favorites




Please browse my eBay items!
Visit my new Amazon Store!





AddThis Social Bookmark Button


http://www.wikio.co.uk

25 comments:

Jennie said...

Elena,
You said: "It also explains why she is so comfortable following her own interpretations and leaning on her own understanding, skipping over the verses that tell her not to do just that."

I think you are referring to the verses in Proverbs 3:
5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
Based on things I've read here and other places about the Catholic church, you seem to be saying that she should trust in the Catholic Church instead of in what you call 'her own interpretations,' however born again Christians are NOT trusting in their own interpretations when they read and study the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit who resides in them; they are trusting in the Lord, just as the verse says. We are to read God's word to find out His teaching for our lives and then obey it.
If we do as the Catholic Church teaches, then we are trusting not in God alone, but in the 'Mother Church' and in Mary and saints, and THIS is NOT trusting in God, but in man's understanding. This is disobedience and distrust in God's Word.

Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and is totally devoted to David saying how wonderful God's word is and asking God directly to teach him His Word. The man or woman of God (who is born again and has God's Spirit in him) 'does not need that any should teach him' (1 John 2:24-27) but is taught directly by the Holy Spirit in accordance with God's word. The Catholic church places itself in the place of Christ who is the Head of the church. Also, they place Mary and priests between the Christian and Christ, when the Bible teaches that through Christ we have direct access to the Father. You are placing the created being in Christ's place, and this is blasphemy and idolatry.(Romans 1:18-32).

Here is an article that explains what the early church taught about trusting in the Word of God alone rather than man's traditions: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/sola-scriptura-earlychurch.html

Catholics seem to have the mistaken idea that the 'Church' must interpret the scriptures for believers (the Church being an institution ruled by men) rather than the Holy Spirit 'interpreting' scripture directly to the believer. Yes, we have pastors and teachers, but their role is not to interpret but to remind us of what we aught already to be learning in our daily relationship with God.

Please think again before you dismiss what I've said and quoted from God's Word. You must be born again, as Jesus said in John 3, and then you will have assurance of salvation (1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.)

Jennie said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elena said...

You're right - it's off topic. And since I don't have the time right now to rebut it, please save your commentary and link for the next time the topic comes up. Thanks in advance

Elena said...

Based on things I've read here and other places about the Catholic church, you seem to be saying that she should trust in the Catholic Church instead of in what you call 'her own interpretations,'

Not at all. Actually Candy picks and chooses cafeteria style which Protestant/Christian authorities she is going to buy into. She also picks churches according to how closely they match to her idea of the truth.

however born again Christians are NOT trusting in their own interpretations when they read and study the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit who resides in them; they are trusting in the Lord,

Which explains why there are so many denominations no one can agree to an actual number of how many exist!

Diana said...

"however born again Christians are NOT trusting in their own interpretations when they read and study the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit who resides in them;"

Then why do Protestants (who all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit) differ with each other on so many doctrines? How is the genuine seeker supposed to figure out who "really" has the Holy Spirit and what the truth is? Is the Holy Spirit the author of confusion?

If we do as the Catholic Church teaches, then we are trusting not in God alone, but in the 'Mother Church' and in Mary and saints, and THIS is NOT trusting in God, but in man's understanding.


This argument is absurd. Let's say that I agree with the word of the Pope (a MAN) who claims the direction of the Holy Spirit...OK....now let's say I agree with Candy (a woMAN), who claims to have no teacher but comes up with her interpretations with only the aid of the Holy Spirit, OK.....now let's say I agree with Jennie's (a woMAN) stances on scripture with the aid of the HS, or let's say that I agree with the stances of St. Benedict (a MAN) who claims leading by the HOly Spirit, or let's say that I agree with the stance of R.C. Sproul,(a MAN) who feels led by the HOly Spirit,or, even, let's say that I agree with my own heartfelt interpretations that I believe were directed to me (a woMAN) through the Holy Spirit....

See the problem here? Tell me, what, in the Protestant mind makes it OK for a protestant MAN to make his own interpretation, but it is not OK for the Catholic to lean on the understanding of another "man" i.e. the Pope? In every case, someone is leaning on "MAN's" understanding, so the Protestant can really have no "beef" with the way they perceive the Catholic's lean on a "man made" institution. (We would say that it is in fact, the ONLY "God-made" institution/Church)

However, the Catholic goes a step further. The Catholic believes that God(of course) knows how sinful people are, he knows that his Word can be interpreted by sinful people to say many, many different things. BUT, He is not the author of confusion. He did not leave us to our fallible selves to try to discern His mysteries. He gave us the Church, led and protected by the Holy Spirit, to be the vehicle by which His Truth is kept safe.

Yes, we can study and learn on our own with the Holy Spirit. But, we are sinful and fallen (even our minds and reason are fallen, not just our bodies). We can rely on the truthfulness of the HOly Spirit, but we cannot rely on our own fallible interpretations even those which we believe to be spirit-led, especially if they fly in the face of what the Church has said from the beginning.

Just as the Pharisees had all their written scriptures, studied them to no end, and followed them the best they could, they were relying on their OWN (MAN'S) understanding. They missed the Truth, which though hidden in the mysteries of the scriptures, also happened to be proclaimed by a Living Walking Man (Jesus) and other living walking men (His disciples).

The new Pharisee (the Protestant) would be wise to listen to the Church, the living body of Christ, which is on earth and proclaiming the Truth for all to hear.

unknown anon said...

The Scriptures themselves call the Church the pillar and foundation of Truth.

If indeed Christ did give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter (and his successors), to build the Church, feed the sheep, and serve, then we are bound to follow His lead.

And that is good enough for me.

Kelly said...

Here is an article that explains what the early church taught about trusting in the Word of God alone rather than man's traditions

The early church, as we read in Scripture, taught the faith orally. Paul cautions Timothy to hold to the traditions which he was taught.

Once the New Testament was written and compiled, we are brought to this period of the early church:

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord's Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

"Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, "as many as walk according to the rule," which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, "Who are you? When and whence did you come?" Tertullian, Prescription against the Heretics, 37 (A.D. 200).

“True knowledge is [that which consists in] the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither receiving addition nor [suffering] curtailment [in the truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy; and [above all, it consists in] the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and which excels all the other gifts [of God]." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,33:8 (inter A.D. 180-199).

"For those are slothful who, having it in their power to provide themselves with proper proofs for the divine Scriptures from the Scriptures themselves, select only what contributes to their own pleasures. And those have a craving for glory who voluntarily evade, by arguments of a diverse sort, the things delivered by the blessed apostles and teachers, which are wedded to inspired words; opposing the divine tradition by human teachings, in order to establish the heresy." Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 7:16 (post A.D. 202).

(I'm especially fond of that one.)

'Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.' Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110).

'The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.' Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

'Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.' Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

I'm curious as to what role it is that you think Mary plays in Scripture interpretation for Catholics. I'm not aware of anything attributed to her, unless you count the theory that Mary was Luke's source for the infancy narrative in his gospel.

Jennie said...

Elena and Diana,
You both said something similar about protestants, so I'll quote Diana: 'Then why do Protestants (who all claim to be led by the Holy Spirit) differ with each other on so many doctrines? How is the genuine seeker supposed to figure out who "really" has the Holy Spirit and what the truth is? Is the Holy Spirit the author of confusion?'.

First of all, it's not legitimate to lump all non-catholic denominations together and then say 'look how divided they are.'
The Lord didn't save me as part of a denomination, but by someone sharing the Word with my family in our home. There are saved people in all Christian denominations, saved by His word and not by a church.
Secondly, if someone seeks God, it's because the Father is drawing that person and they are responding to God's call("no one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" John 6:44); so, the Lord takes care of those who seek Him, and will show them the truth as they seek Him. He leads us as we study His word, and He leads us to other believers with which to worship. He doesn't promise that we'll never make mistakes in our beliefs as we go along, but as long as we continue to abide in Christ, He will teach us and help us to grow in knowledge and wisdom.
Third,
Protestants differ on things in so far as they follow man's traditions instead of sticking to God's word alone. Some differences are only tradition, such as music types and building styles, etc., but some, such as Calvinism vs. arminianism are differences based on one group stressing certain scriptures over other scriptures that uphold their view. If we take the whole Bible and just read it and preach it instead of taking verses out of context and making up doctrines, then there would be no significant differences.

Diana,
I said: If we do as the Catholic Church teaches, then we are trusting not in God alone, but in the 'Mother Church' and in Mary and saints, and THIS is NOT trusting in God, but in man's understanding.

You responded:
'This argument is absurd. Let's say that I agree with the word of the Pope (a MAN) who claims the direction of the Holy Spirit...OK....now let's say I agree with Candy (a woMAN), who claims to have no teacher but comes up with her interpretations with only the aid of the Holy Spirit, OK.....now let's say I agree with Jennie's (a woMAN) stances on scripture with the aid of the HS, or let's say that I agree with the stances of St. Benedict (a MAN) who claims leading by the HOly Spirit, or let's say that I agree with the stance of R.C. Sproul,(a MAN) who feels led by the HOly Spirit,or, even, let's say that I agree with my own heartfelt interpretations that I believe were directed to me (a woMAN) through the Holy Spirit....
See the problem here? Tell me, what, in the Protestant mind makes it OK for a protestant MAN to make his own interpretation, but it is not OK for the Catholic to lean on the understanding of another "man" i.e. the Pope?'

You are saying that protestants are trusting in man when they listen to leaders who teach certain interpretations, and so then that makes it O.K. for Catholics to do it?
Well when protestants do trust in man, and unfortunately many do instead of reading their Bibles, THEY ARE WRONG.
So it follows that IT IS ALSO WRONG for the catholics to trust in mans' teachings, whether they be 'church fathers' or popes or 'saints' if those teachings contradict the scriptures which come directly from Christ and the Apostles.
The Catholic church teaches the tradition's of men along with God's word. Jesus said: 'making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do.' Mark 7:13

My pastor taught on the importance of God's word this morning. Here are the passages he used. I will just list them.
Matthew 4:1-4 Gives life
2 Timothy 3:16 Inspired, profitable
Hebrews 4:12-13 Pierces the heart
Romans 1:16 Gives salvation
Romans 10:17 Provides, matures faith
Romans 12:2 Transforms us
Romans 3:19 Accountability
Jeremiah 1:12 "I am ready to perform My Word"
The word of God endures forever:
1 Peter 1:22-25

22 Since you have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit in sincere love of the brethren, love one another fervently with a pure heart, 23 having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever,
24 because


“ All flesh is as grass,
And all the glory of man[f] as the flower of the grass.
The grass withers,
And its flower falls away,
25 But the word of the LORD endures forever.”[g]


My pastor made the point that only God's word will endure and that which stands upon it. If your church's traditions don't stand upon the Word, they are worthless, and God holds them in contempt, and they will be destroyed along with those who trusted in them.
Again, I say you are trusting in the creature (Mary, the pope, the traditions that contradict God's Holy Word) rather than the Creator.
(see Romans 1:18-32)

Elena said...

First of all, it's not legitimate to lump all non-catholic denominations together and then say 'look how divided they are.'

Well I don't lump all "non-Catholic" denominations together. First of all the Lutheran ladies would come over here and beat me around the head and neck if I even attempted to! Secondly I note that the Anglicans and the Orthodox share much in common with the Catholic church in teachings and practice.

However, I do think that when it comes to the type of Christianity that Candy supports (sola scriptura) it most certainly IS a valid point.


The Lord didn't save me as part of a denomination, but by someone sharing the Word with my family in our home. There are saved people in all Christian denominations, saved by His word and not by a church.


Straw man argument. We aren't debating the salvation of Christians in other denominations. In fact we would all agree that many of our separated brothers and sisters will indeed get to heaven, and that even many Catholics won't. So that's not the argument

Secondly, if someone seeks God, it's because the Father is drawing that person and they are responding to God's call("no one can come to Me unless the Father draws him" John 6:44);

Ah! Well I can lighten your load and have you put that straw man down as well. This also is not an argument we made, or even necessarily disagree with.

so, the Lord takes care of those who seek Him, and will show them the truth as they seek Him.

Now here we are getting to the crux of it. The Lord may lead us to the truth, but that does not mean that everyone will see it and obey it.

BTW, Catholics believe and the church teaches that there are many parts of the truth in the churches of our separated Christian brothers and sisters. So we are not surprised necessarily when someone with no religious upbringing is drawn to one. In fact, if you check out the Catholic Converts in the side bar, many folks get their start in Christianity in Christian churches outside of the Catholic church.


He doesn't promise that we'll never make mistakes in our beliefs as we go along, but as long as we continue to abide in Christ, He will teach us and help us to grow in knowledge and wisdom.

BINGO! I actually have no beef with that.

Third,
Protestants differ on things in so far as they follow man's traditions instead of sticking to God's word alone. Some differences are only tradition, such as music types and building styles, etc., but some, such as Calvinism vs. arminianism are differences based on one group stressing certain scriptures over other scriptures that uphold their view. If we take the whole Bible and just read it and preach it instead of taking verses out of context and making up doctrines, then there would be no significant differences.


Well that's a fight you'll have to take to a protestant blog I guess. From this side of the Tiber, it looks like a lot of disagreement, particularly on issues like homosexuality, ordination of women and abortion.


You are saying that protestants are trusting in man when they listen to leaders who teach certain interpretations, and so then that makes it O.K. for Catholics to do it?


I'll just throw my 2 cents in here and Diane can certainly answer as well.

No. That's not what she's saying. Catholics don't follow the interpretations of man, but in the interpretations of the Church, the pillar of truth, left to us by Jesus Christ. That's the big difference.

Now Jennie, this is not a blog for prosyletizing. If you want to try to prosyletize me or Kelly, I guess you'll have to do so via e-mail which is available in the side bar. This blog is not here for that purpose and I note that your blog is not really set up for any private transfer of information. Any further comments of that type will be deleted.

Jennie said...

unknown anon,
The church is only the pillar and ground of the truth as long as she upholds the truth, as a pillar should.
If the Church or a teacher or preacher departs from the truth we are obligated to depart from that church or teacher or preacher if they won't repent. We are commanded to depart from false teachers and not fellowship with them. This is what we are bound to do by Christ, as well as to obey all His commandments.
Paul himself said that if he or an angel from heaven taught any gospel but the one originally preached, let him be anathema, so that certainly goes for popes and church fathers, etc.

unknown anon said...

Oh, but Jennie, who decides when someone has left the fold, and is teaching error?

And please, don't say to compare what they teach to the Scriptures. Both Calvinists and Arminians have plenty of Scripture to support their teaching. Yet one is wrong, wouldn't you say?

Jennie said...

Kelly,
The article which I linked to, written by William Webster, explains using quotes from some early Christian teachers, that they held scripture above tradition, and always strived to be sure their tradition was the same as or supported by scripture.

We agree that the Apostles taught orally, but they also taught by epistle the same things they taught orally, and as Webster said, virtually the whole New Testament can be recreated from the writings of the church fathers.
They themselves said God's word is their rule and tradition bowed to it.


Your first quote by Irenaeus, does not support tradition being equal with scripture; it stresses being nourished with scripture, as opposed to heresies made up by men, which I contend much of catholic teaching is. Only so long as the 'Church' teaches the truth we should flee to her as being the place where we can hear God's word preached.

In fact, though they use some words that catholics use, all of the men you quoted agree with the teaching that God's word is preeminate over any other teaching, and usually when they use the word tradition they mean the gospel taught by the Apostles that is contained in scripture, as William Webster brings out in the article, and in other writings on the early church.

If teachings are not found in God's word, and are contrary in word and spirit to God's word then they are heretical, no matter who teaches them.


When I talked of Mary, I was not saying she wrote anything or interprets scripture, I only meant that the doctrines of Mary are not Biblical and place Mary between Christ and the believer, taking His place as mediator. She is superfluous in that position; Christ doesn't need her in order to save us or help mediate for us. The Bible says there is only one Mediator, Christ. The Catholic teachings on Mary are one of the traditions of men I talked of that are not mentioned in God's word at all and are contrary to it because they place her even above Christ in effect in some instances.
see this homily from your side bar: http://www.airmaria.com/?sn=080927&vp=2048&prefx=hmly&plyrnb=1&ttl=Homily
Fr. Bonaventure places Mary in Christ's place in a blasphemous way.

Jennie said...

Unknown anon,

We MUST compare what they teach to scripture, including the Calvinists and armenians.
Both are wrong because they only use the verses that support their own views. If you look at all of scripture as a whole you see that there are obviously some things we will not be able to understand, that God has hidden from us. We have to trust Him in those instances, as in all others as well. (but we're not allowed to make up supposed hidden doctrines that were not written down and call them tradition)
I don't think either one is an unsaved heretic because of their views. There is nothing in those teachings opposed to salvation.

Elena said...

I only meant that the doctrines of Mary are not Biblical and place Mary between Christ and the believer, taking His place as mediator.

That one sentence betrays how little you know and understand about the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary.

Mary is not the topic of thread. Check our commenting guidelines and please adhere to them.

Jennie said...

Elena,
Mary was mentioned in my earlier post as an example of a doctrine that is contrary to scripture, a way in which catholics are leaning on mans' understanding instead of God's word. Kelly asked me what I meant and I answered.

Kelly said...

The article which I linked to, written by William Webster, explains using quotes from some early Christian teachers, that they held scripture above tradition, and always strived to be sure their tradition was the same as or supported by scripture.

I have read that article before, and William Webster is quoting out of context to make his point.

I have, personally, read through quite a large amount of the unabridged writings of the early church fathers. Anyone can do so. They are available for free online as historical documents, from webpages which do not come from a particular theological perspective. Try these:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/ecfidx.htm

I have a difficult time reading large amount of text online, so I have used the Faith of the Early Church Fathers 3 volume set by Jurgens, which is often used in universities. But I would still suggest the book by Mike Aquilina as the best starter book.

When you read through large amounts of the early church fathers, not just sentences here or there, it is very clear that they believed in the real, physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in a visible Church established by Him, and other distinctly Catholic doctrines.

For a quick rebuttal of the Webster article, please see:
http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm

Elena said...

That's fine but we aren't going to be debating Mary in this thread. It is clear Jennie that you are not willing to do your homework to discuss Catholicism. If you want to be a serious apologist for your side, then you have to know Catholicism at least as well as we do. It's clear from your statements you do not. You don't even have a good grasp of biblical history but I'll let Kelly take your points apart for that.

Do some studying, get some credibility, and then come back.

Kelly said...

If teachings are not found in God's word, and are contrary in word and spirit to God's word then they are heretical, no matter who teaches them.

I notice you are implying that teachings which are not found in God's word and are NOT contrary to God's word, then they are acceptable. This is how non-Catholic churches have traditions such as the Trinity, meeting on Sunday, or (for some) celebrating Christmas.

Catholic Tradition never contradicts Scripture. Tradition helps us to correctly interpret Scripture. While you disagree, I keep providing you with verses which are the Biblical basis for our teachings. We do not believe they contradict Scripture, but are based in Scripture.

I would suggest you read though this section of the Catechism which emphasizes that Scripture is inspired by God, inerrant, interpreted by the Holy Spirit, and the basis for our faith.
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#111

Jennie said...

Kelly,
I'm not sure if we are understanding one another in what we each mean by tradition that agrees with scripture, and tradition that opposes or does not argree with scripture.
My understanding of William Webster's article is that he is saying that the fathers believed that tradition must agree with scripture or it is not authoritative. Then, it follows that if any traditions or teachings don't agree with scripture they are not authoritative.
Isn't it true that the traditions that the Early Church might speak of might be different than the ones catholics speak of today (I agree that there were traditions), for the simple fact that over time things evolve and grow as things are added or distorted or lost, if people don't take care and compare their teachings and practices to scripture? Have not the catholic teachings and practices evolved over time and things been added that were not there at the beginning? The main concerns that I have as non-biblical traditions are these two: Mary has evolved into someone equal with Christ; and salvation is not taught as it is in God's word. I don't know enough to name all possible aberrations, but these are enough to make catholicism a false gospel.

I agree that the catechism teaches much that is scriptural. That is not the problem. The problem is other teachings and practices that don't agree which I have already mentioned. There seems to be alot of contradictions in the Catholic church, such as upholding the Bible on one hand and then denying it's words on the other hand by supporting Darwinian evolution.
There are many such examples of the church 'talking out of both sides of her mouth.'
I don't think the tradition the historical Christians wrote of is the same as what evolved and I do think that they held scripture, God's word, above it.
I hope to read those links on the entire writings of the fathers as I have time.

Elena said...

There seems to be alot of contradictions in the Catholic church, such as upholding the Bible on one hand and then denying it's words on the other hand by supporting Darwinian evolution

But the church doesn't have an official teaching on evolution let alone upholding it! There is no authoritative document that makes the evolution a doctrine binding on the faithful! Jennie this is yet another example of how really little you know about Catholicism!

Jennie said...

Elena,
Why does it have to be an official document for it to be supposed to be supported by the Catholic church?
The pope is promoting Darwin's theory:http://www.groundreport.com/World/The-Pope-Officially-Agrees-with-Darwins-Theory
This will obviously influence people's ideas about God's word and evolution, whether it's 'official' or not.

Elena said...

Why does it have to be an official document for it to be supposed to be supported by the Catholic church?

Well the Pope could opine that The Cleveland Indians will win the World Series Next Year but that doesn't mean Catholics are bound to believe it, or that he is necessarily correct.

Once again Jennie, you betray your lack of understanding of the Catholic faith.

Barbara C. said...

Jennie,
What you seem to fail to grasp is that all of these things that you see as contradictory to scripture can be and are supported by scripture depending on how you interpret it. And the Catholic Church does not contradict Scripture in the way in which the Church interprets. It just does so in the way that YOU interpret it. Forgive me if I am going to trust the interpretation of a Church that traces its authority back to Jesus and his steward Peter and to men who dedicate the entirety of their lives to prayerfully discerning the will of the Holy Spirit rather than trusting that my interpretation or yours is based on the Holy Spirit rather than just "hearing what I want to hear". Because between being a wife and mother I know that I am too stressed out to figure it all out for myself.

Furthermore, some of the traditions that you claim were created by the Church actually come from writings that were considered scripture for short periods of time. They were left out of the official canon not because they were unorthodox, but for other issues such as authorship and their limited usage. (Again wondering why if you think the Catholic Church is so man-made and wrong why you accept that they compiled the right Canon of scripture.)

And the point we are making about the problem with Protestants (or if you want to consider yourself a "free-agent" Christian), is that every single one claims to be receiving enlightenment from the Holy Spirit but they can't agree on things like the necessity of baptism, when to baptize, if/how the tribulation will go down, the Trinity, if instruments should be used in service, how often to have communion, what communion means, etc. If you and your husband disagree on what the Scripture teaches but you both believe you are being led by the Holy Spirit, then how do you determine who is correct?

And if you can't trust any "man" to help you interpret than why are you looking to Berean Beacon or why should a Protestant minister bother preaching about scripture at service at all. It seems likes Sunday service should just be about worshiping and leaving.

And for the millionth time, MARY IS NOT EQUAL TO JESUS OR ABOVE JESUS. Referring to scripture, since Jesus is a fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom Mary takes the role of Queen Mother just as Bathsheba did for Solomon in the Davidic kingdom. She is revered and honored for her obedience and sacrifice to God's will.

And its funny how some people want to take a seven day creation literally but they don't want to take Jesus saying to eat his body and blood literally even though Jesus was much more clear about when he was speaking in metaphor than the Old Testament is.

Jennie I am sure that you are a really nice person. And I can see why you believe some of the things you believe due to the way in which you interpret them even if I don't agree with your interpretations. Perhaps you are unable or unwilling to see that our interpretations affirm our beliefs even if you disagree.

Jennie said...

Barbara C.,
I think I should explain that I don't believe we need to 'interpret' scripture, unless of course it is being interpreted into another language. For the most part, there is no need of interpretation. The Holy Spirit helps the believer to understand scripture because it has to be spiritually discerned, as scripture says, and anyone without the Holy Spirit cannot fully understand everything. The gospel is clear even to a child, but if a person does not accept it as a child would, that person will be blind to it.
Of course there are some things that are harder to understand, but the Holy Spirit gives wisdom and understanding if we seek it. Peter says:(2 Peter 1:19-21)
"19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
The scriptures are not to be 'interpreted' differently by every man as each sees fit, but since the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, they can only be understood by those who are born again or are responding to the Holy Spirit's call to salvation. (The Bible says 'I will draw all men to me' and 'No one can come to me unless the Father draws him' so God is drawing all men but not all respond.)
Also, we have pastors and teachers to remind us and bring things to our attention as we are forgetful and sinful people, even as believers.

The church already knew through constant usage the body of inspired scriptures. There were some books that were used but not considered as inspired, but useful for some instruction. By the time the 'official canon' was declared, it was only necessary to make an official list because some false books were being written and needed to be refuted.
Many of the things you listed as being disagreements between protestants are not essential things. Some of them are things that might make that group heretical, like not believing in the Trinity. The unessential things like how often to have communion, etc. only divide us because people choose to go to a church that does things the way they like or believe is best, but are not heretical practices.

I don't look to Berean Beacon to help me understand the Bible, but to gain information on Church history and the differences between the Catholic church and the Bible. As I already said, we have Pastors to exhort us and remind us and teach us, because we can be forgetful and sinful.

Since you mentioned Mary again, there are many people and groups in the Catholic church who treat Mary in ways that make her seem to be equal with God. Here's that link again if you didn't see it before:
http://www.airmaria.com/?sn=080927&vp=2048&prefx=hmly&plyrnb=1&ttl=Homily
The last pope even had a motto that he wore that meant 'all yours' speaking of Mary.
'Queen of Heaven' as some call Mary, is not the same as queen mother, and even queen mother is stretching the honor that should be given her, since we are sinful people and prone to idolatry; we are warned to guard against idolatry. Marian honor in the Catholic church goes over that boundary in many cases like in the video above. He makes it sound like the church of Mary rather than the church of Jesus Christ.

The issue about the 'real presence' being in the host, or the host being the real body and blood of Christ is important because of the belief that the host really is Jesus and should be adored; and because of the belief that the mass is a sacrifice. Protestants believe adoring the host is idolatry because Christ is in heaven at the right hand of the Father, and also He is in us and with us as believers. We adore Him in our hearts, not in any physical thing. And the sacrifice of Christ as it says in Hebrews was accomplished once and for all and does not need to be done again and again. Elena has denied that is what is taught, but I have seen Catholic sources describe it this way.
We believe the 'body and blood' is figurative or symbolic because we believe the sacrifice was really made and completed in Christ's flesh as the Bible says. And because Jesus was sitting right there when He said 'This is my Body' we assume He was speaking symbolically. We are saved totally by the real sacrifice on the cross not by the mass.

I believe in the literal 7 day creation, because it literally says that. Jesus said in Matt. 19:3-5: 4 And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
Jesus said He made them male and female 'in the beginning' of creation not millions of years after a big bang, so I believe that.

I do see that your interpretations affirm your beliefs, but I don't accept your interpretations. In some cases your beliefs don't come from scripture but from later writings that we don't accept because we believe they are opposed to scripture. In my last comment to Kelly I mentioned two or three issues which I think are major false teachings based on teachings that came into the church later.

I'm glad you think I'm a nice person; like all of us I'm not always, but I try to be. I hope I don't wear out my welcome here. I'm trying not to be obnoxious.
By the way I have finally started posting on my blog, but there's not much there yet. I won't be 'bashing catholics' unless you think what I say here is that; but I may talk about concerns I have sometimes. However, the blog is mainly going to be daily homemaking or encouragement,etc.

Elena said...

I do see that your interpretations affirm your beliefs, but I don't accept your interpretations.

Which I think now brings us full circle. Because it is pretty obvious that of the thousands of different Protestant/Christian denominations,there are lots of disagreements about interpretation that has caused the splintering. Yet I dare say that you would never say that your Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist or Independent brothers or sisters were not Christian.

Yet Candy and Erik do it all the time. I think Catholic-Bashing IS their belief system.

And since it's nearly impossible to keep this thread on track, I'm closing it.