Posted on 05/28/2008 6:05:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Hello fellow Freepers. I believe this is my first post on the Religion forum.
Over the past week or so, I put some thought into something I've been pondering for a while; my spiritual welfare. As it was, I had been part of the 'Sola Scriptua' school of thought (Evangelical Christian). By the Bible and only the Bible. Sounded good enough.
Well...what about before the Bible was put into word? It stuck in my head when reading an article earlier on FR concerning a deconstruction of Sola Scriptura and its inherent weaknesses as a foundation for one's faith.
This, combined with a genuine lack of churchgoing (as a family, we've been uncertain about going to various churches, given that top-down problems with Episcopal/Methodist/etc. churches and their increasing liberalization are a genuine problem for one's spiritual welfare), compelled me to make a decision.
I don't know if my family will follow me, persay, but I'm going to go ahead and take the plunge.
Next month, I'm going to the Church of St. Thomas the Apostle near my home, and I'm joining the Roman Catholic Church.
As is, I have a few volumes of the Magnificat pamphlet and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to read.
Any other pointers from other Catholic Freepers?
If you wanted a caucus or ecumenic thread, you should have labeled this as such. Since it's an open thread and you solicited opinions, you got them.
Good luck as you venture toward Rome.
I made no claim to be discussing what you said or did not say.
The dichotomy referred to was between “Bible-believing Protestant” and non-Bible believing Protestant (ie, liberal) churches.
My fascinat-o-meter is pegged . . . at zero.
While there are certainly genuinely saved, Bible-believing Catholics, many strike me as members of a social club.
While there are certainly genuinely Christian "Bible-believing Protestants," none of them have ever struck me and I avoid making sweeping statements about all members of any class.
To me, objectively, the purer choice would be to desire to join a conservative, Bible-believing Protestant church, rather than join a hit-or-miss mixed bag.
The Catholic Church is a Bible-believing Church. "Hit-or-miss mixed bags" are the result of sola scriptura.
But you also said, The Word is not a created thing-- it was with God before the creation of the world, it is holy and therefore deserving of our worship, the same as Christ.
IS the Bible the Word or is it somehow something less, but still worthy of great veneration, because it is the "locus" of the revelation of His wisdom and thought?
This is SO close to how we talk about the Eucharist!
I personally believe in once saved, always saved, even in the case of a Christian who goes on to murder or horribly sin in some other obvious way. However, other than making Catholics nervous, it practically makes no difference if they believe themselves to need to continuously confess to a priest. They are "absolved" of their sin in a regular ritual, but ultimately they are still saved and judged as all Christians. They have been unduly worried, but they probably acted better because of it.
I can see why many beliefs and rituals in the Catholic church started, and they are not bad reasons. I personally believe they have outlived their usefulness, but they aren't inherently harmful. While the strange extra-biblical Mary beliefs are disconcerting, making Mary into another Enoch doesn't discount Jesus. As long as Catholics are careful, they don't make their saints into gods.
All that said, I believe Catholic theology is more of a fog to push through and doctrine makes Christianity into an unnecessarily difficult religion.
Catholicism is complicated. Those made dizzy by grammar might prefer something simpler.
Yes, for the Jews it’s a Presence, a person. But isn’t that what a mind is?
One way to rationalize ignoring the Bible is to accuse others of paying too much attention to it.
How do people "worship a book?" What evidence do you see that people are doing that?
Because Bible-believing Christians can point to a LOT of things Rome teaches that resemble a type of idolatry, i.e. praying to Mary and assorted dead people; believing Mary is a "co-redeemer;" viewing priests as "another Christ;" thinking relics contain instrinsic power; etc.
What does loving God's word too much look like (keeping in mind that Christ Himself is the "word made flesh?")
Yes... although didn’t like being called Canuck when she was young.
However, Catholic theology says that the wafer becomes Christ. I'm saying that the book of the bible is not God even though it is a revelation from His mind to ours. His thoughts are not our thoughts and to worship a piece of leather and paper is idolatry.
Ha! My Memere always wagged her wooden cooking spoon at us!
Her name was Marie Rose, but she was always Memere to us.
Uh, no.
It's important to understand that all this dogma is about almost 2k years of needing to settle questions. The Church doesn't go out of her way to write creeds just for kicks. Somebody says, "Mother of God." Somebody else says, "Is NOT!" And the Vatican says, "Oh Lord, call out the crisis response team. There goes summer vacation."
But for that average Cat'lick, or even for those of us who fancy ourselves to be theologians, on a day to day basis it's not that hard or complicated. (It would be even easier if we stayed way from FR.)
I don't "do theology" when I go to Mass or pray my "office". Because I have spent so many years up in my head, when I pray the rosary I tend to visualize the mysteries, not think about them. "What did Mary and Joseph and a 4O day old baby look like in that big old temple? When strange Simeon grabbed them and blessed the child, when Anna gave thanks for this baby, what was that like?"
A child could do what I do when I pray.
I like to offer the following thought experiment: Imagine "Gray's Anatomy". Now imagine making love. There's no question that knowing your way around some of the anatomy of your beloved will help the making love process. But making love ain't studying Gray's Anatomy.
Exactly. The rebound accusation of "bibliolatry" is just an emtpy deflection of the valid criticism leveled at Rome and its pagan belief that matter becomes God.
Is there something wrong with the questions I’m asking?
I thought I was answering them.
There's about half a dozen problems with that sentence fragment.
God seeks men to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. What is it of God that is worthy of worship? It’s His Mind, His Being, His Presence. It’s His only begotten Son, Christ, begotten, from His Mind. So do we agree that God’s Mind is worthy of worship or not?
I don't believe "doctrine" is a dirty word. In fact, I've learned a lot of "sound doctrine" on this forum, by the grace of God.
I'd be interested in your opinion of the link I sent you if you have some time to read it.
And he taught them many things by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, Hearken; Behold..." -- Mark 4:1-3"And he began again to teach by the sea side: and there was gathered unto him a great multitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea; and the whole multitude was by the sea on the land.
FWIW, I believe in a perseverence of the saints, IOW a "once saved, always saved" since God alone elects His family from before the foundation of the world.
Men may wander through many trials and errors, but if a man is among Christ's sheep, the Holy Spirit will ultimately lead that man home.
These thoughts that God had and gave them to the prophets, and to Moses and to the authors of the NT, saying, “Thus saith the Lord”, were they one time thoughts, or being a God who doesn’t change, are they ongoing thoughts? If they are ongoing, are they being projected now? Is that why the Word of God is called the living Word? Is He still talking to mankind? Or not.
Don't try to sell me. I'm asking for your thoughts, not for a sales job.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.