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?
Sola cauvinus
“Like a good luck charm. Yep, Bible worship plain and simple. I’ve seen it many times.”
It’s like a talisman or lucky charm to some. I’ve even seen one man hold it up in front of him to ward off evil.
Doesn’t the mere idea of “knowing” you are once saved always saved versus knowing another who appears to you at any rate to be a sinner and not accepting of Christ, place you in the realm of being Almighty since judgment is God’s alone?
How do we know the Mind of God and whatever stumbling block and disability within the character of that person which has been placed by Him for His purpose which is something we cannot fathom.
Take King Cyrus for example. To the Hebrews, he was a enemy of God and a great pagan, but he was actually God’s annointed for God’s purpose alone.
We cannot fathom the mind of God.
The thing that bothers me about bibliolatry is the changing nature of human language, the fallible nature of the translators, and the fallible nature of the interpreters.
In protestant bibliolatry, you have 1)the revelation of God’s interaction with humankind in several languages which were used a couple of thousand years ago, plus. You have the body of commentary on the Torah, you have the histories and prophecies given at a time when the world was much different than it is today, when the language was much different than it is today.
Many protestants translators reject commentary and contemporary thought from Jewish and early Christian Church fathers. Even though they may have a scholarly understanding of the language taught to them 2000 years after the documents were put on paper, there is no way they can understand from the complete perspective of the original writer. This does not even take into account the built-in biases of the translators, who may have a theological stake in one interpretation of a word, or another.
Thus, you have the somewhat bizarre spectacle of Protestant translators loudly proclaiming that the Holy Spirit has protected them from any error. Anyone who disagrees is therefore disagreeing with the Holy Spirit.
Then, 2)you have the contemporary interpretation of the translated scriptures, with the same flaws only magnified.
Again, anyone who disagrees with the person’s interpretation is assumed to be disagreeing with the Holy Spirit. Checks and balances are remarkably few, and lead to multiple strongly held interpretations which become divided into separate congregations and even sects; in some instances they drift off into cults.
In contrast, I like the fact that the Catholic Church has taken early church writings strongly into account. The Church has had checks and balances on translators to make sure they are completely in line with the earliest theology of the church, and the input of historians of the day.
When Protestants get loud about Sola Scriptura and the priesthood of the believer, and the right of each one to interpret the bible on his/her own, you end up with spectacles like Jeremiah Wright (not to mention the crazy stray priest who jumped up there and screamed his vitriol). Of course they have that right. But look what they did with it!
The imprimatur does not mean control, it means that nothing contained therein is contrary to Catholic theology. It represents a safeguard against the individual sinful nature and lack of education found in so many contemporary translations. Individual personal revelation is nice, but in order to be accepted by the church, it must stand the test of time and theolgical scrutiny—the true meaning of knowing the tree by its fruit.
Just my 2 cents.
It’s not disagreements, tiki, it’s attitude. They accuse us of hating the Catholics, which we don’t. But their posts aren’t exactly loving either. We differ in how to be saved. Catholics seem to believe that baptism, Mary, the Eucharist are salvific. We do not. We believe Christ and his sacrifice on the cross and our receiving Him into our lives as our Lord and Saviour are what saves us. I think it’s a big divide.
And we try to do the same, Salvation, and are accused of all manner of hateful things because we don’t agree on how to be saved, etc. We also want to educate.
I’ve run into one in particular that went so far as to tell me that he had purposely not congratulated and welcomed me into the Church because he KNEW I was not “on board” with “all” received doctrine. That was after I said that a woman was justified in suing her doctor when, after 8 kids, she had a tubal ligation and it failed. In that case I was not being asked to judge her on having the tubal ligation, but only whether she was justified in filing suit.
I do run into hard-edged Catholics, all of them male so far, now and then. Most are amenable to reason. That particular one was not.
“We believe Christ and his sacrifice on the cross and our receiving Him into our lives as our Lord and Saviour are what saves us. I think it’s a big divide.”
That is exactly what we believe. The divide is in the constant misstatement of what we believe.
Mary alone is not salvic. Belief in Mary is not salvic. Mary’s place is salvation history is firm, but telling us we worship Mary as a goddess is not only a scandal, but such an untruth heaven notices.
BTW, telling people they aren’t saved and you are trying to save them when they are also Christians is just plain pride.
He did give me three fine sons so it wasn’t all bad. I had to laugh at that “Who Loves Ya, Baby.” My second (and LAST) husband says that to me all the time! He loves me so much he sent me a loving second husband who has a true servant’s heart. How blessed is that???
Some do and some don’t, just like anyone else.
I didn’t say you were, Pyro. I’m just saying that there are those who are just as vicious against Protestants as we get accused of being against them.
Well said!
I’m a believer in the prophetic and there have been many prophecies over the past few years regarding different countries.
You’ll have to ask God why he didn’t save all the mohammedans. But it may well have been His purpose not to so that end times prophecy could happen. Dunno. Lots of things are mysteries and will remain so until His return.
Well, we’ve been called cultish or not Christians because we’re not Catholic. There’s enough to go around here, Pyro.
I’m not talking about all Catholics, wagglebee. There are just a certain few whose vitriol doesn’t go unnoticed. Protestants are always being accused of that, but some Catholics are every bit as vitriolic as anyone here.
When I objected to anti-Catholic “vitriol” I was told that thin-skinned posters were to stick to the caucus threads and avoid the open ones. That the open threads have different rules than mutual respect and courtesy.
Now that I am taking part in them according to the rules, I’m vitriolic?
Please.
The only "confusion" is from Protestants who constantly obfuscate the issue. Catholic teaching is pellucidly clear---one WORSHIPS only God (Father, Christ, and Holy Spirit)---any other entity (Mary, saints, your grandfather) gets "veneration/respect". The formal terms are "latria" and "dulia".
But the Protestant camp keeps trying to foist the old "Catholics worship Mary" canard at every opportunity.
>>It’s like a talisman or lucky charm to some. I’ve even seen one man hold it up in front of him to ward off evil<<
Have you seen the little Bible necklaces?
>>But their posts aren’t exactly loving either.<<
And that justifies getting nasty right back? Where is the turn the other cheek in all of it?
More flies by honey, right?
Mary, I know your heart is in the right place but some here are nasty for nasty’s sake. Not telling us how they are right but constantly tell how we are wrong. How many hearts are won with bitterness?
If a liberal used the words that some non-Catholics used against us, we would explode. Then we are expected to always take the high road. I’ve fallen into the “group speak” and apologized. It’s nasty and doesn’t belong.
I agree with your 2 cents.
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.