Posted on 09/18/2022 6:10:24 PM PDT by marshmallow
Reach out to the marginalized, ordain women, engage the youth.
Those were among the themes that emerged from a survey of North Jersey Catholics released last week by the Archdiocese of Newark, spiritual home to 1.3 million worshippers in Bergen, Essex, Hudson and Union counties.
In hundreds of in-person and online listening sessions this year, more than 15,000 local Catholics said the church needs to make fundamental reforms to become welcoming to women, LGBTQ parishioners, immigrants and the young people who have increasingly strayed from religious life.
"They believe that the Church is out of touch today," said a 39-page summary of the findings, released by the archdiocese.
(Excerpt) Read more at njherald.com ...
The Catholic versus Protestant conflict seems contrary to Christianity. Catholics make some very good points, like who has authority to interpret scripture, but Protestants also make some good points, like how does one follow of teaching that directly contradicts scripture? Like the article discusses, what does a believer do when the church starts accepting active, non-repentant homosexuals or ordaining women? As others have posted, the Catholic Church itself might soon experience schism over these issues.
To me, there are both salvation and doctrinal related issues, and Christians of all stripes shouldn’t bash each other over the latter. However, none of us should compromise on salvation related facets of Christianity, such as Christ isn’t the only way to salvation or that it’s OK to continue sinning willfully.
“Survey finds North Jersey Catholics back female priests, LGBTQ rights, more diversity”
If that’s the case they should leave the church and don’t let the door hit them in the ass on the way out.
How do you know that Scripture is correct? I’m not trying to stir the pot. It’s a vital question. Why do we know that the Bible is credible and the Koran (another sacred text that claims to be inspired) is not? You must agree that “because it says so” is not a satisfactory answer. Neither is “because I feel it in my heart”, as muslims and mormons are able to say the same thing about their holy books. The Bible can’t be self-authenticating, so on what authority does it stand?
How do I know scripture is correct? That is a valid question.
The apostles learned directly from Christ. The apostles passed what they had learned to others, initially by speech (oral tradition)and later through writings. Early Christians collected, copied, and passed on the written teachings and oral traditions. Over the course of a couple of centuries, the manuscripts that make up what I call the Bible were gathered and became canon by faithful Christians guided by the Holy Spirit.
Thank you for your response. I agree completely. So what you’re saying is that the writing down and compilation of the Bible was a work of the Church. The Bible belongs to the Church — not the Church to the Bible. The only question remaining is: since there are profound disagreements among people calling themselves Christians, where is the real Church to be found, and how is it to be recognized? Just tossing that out. I don’t need a response if you don’t feel like it right now. I feel like I’m in a conversation with you, not a debate.
The real Church is one, and Christ knows His people. I daresay they don’t belong to any one denomination.
If one believes in Christ, repents of sin, and goes forth seeking to do what is right in God’s eyes—no longer a slave to sin—scripture tells us they are saved.
There are areas of scripture that are unclear, but there can only be one true interpretation, the one intended by the Holy Spirit who inspired the writer. When I encounter those areas, I read numerous sources, both Catholic and protestant, to try and gain a better understanding.
I respect the Catholic Church, because it has spent millennia studying scripture as well as many other early church writings. They don’t rely exclusively on the Bible, although I’m convinced the Bible is the measure of whether a particular teaching is correct or not. By this, I mean if a teaching directly contradicts something the apostles taught, I won’t agree with it.
I try to keep an open mind, and I’m always willing to discuss scripture as I seek the Truth (What the Holy Spirit intended). There are areas where apparently faithful Christians disagree, and I try to not let those areas hinder my walk with those brothers and sisters unless they involve core issues, like the divinity of Christ or repentance of sin.
Me personally? I have attended a number of different denominations and have no problem so long as heresy isn’t being preached. I even used to do charity work with some Catholic nuns and enjoyed hearing their side of the Catholic-versus-Protestant divide. True believers easily cross that divide in my opinion. We all serve the same Christ.
An "always changing tradition" is an oxymoron, as I've previously explained to you. Things that are "always changing" are innovations. Innovations in religion are one step removed from heresy.
Chesterton called tradition the "democracy of the dead," by which he meant that paying careful attention to what our forefathers believed amounted to "giving them a vote". It seems obvious to me that, if we view Christian faith and doctrine as a gift received and passed on rather than something we construct ourselves (whether based on our reading of the Book or not), that is the only way for things to work.
Sola scriptura, unless restrained and governed by authentic tradition, doesn't get the job done. "Is it taught in the Bible?" is a fine test for doctrine, but if that doctrine flunks the test of "Did our forefathers in the faith believe this, or something that could reasonably evolve into it?" it's highly suspect. The Holy Spirit guided them, too. The Holy Spirit can guide them to believe "X", and us to believe "X, and X implies Y, means both X and Y". But He can't guide them to believe "X" and us to believe "not X". God is not the author of contradiction.
That's why even the "Bible Answer Man," back when he considered himself to be a sola scriptura Protestant, pointed to something he called the "historic Christian faith" as a test for doctrine.
Is the bodily assumption of Mary, not recognized as dogma until 1950 and never taught by the early church fathers, a tradition or innovation? If something is taught in the Bible it is God breathed and it matters not whether our
“forefathers in the faith believed it”. If something is not taught in scripture then it is not part of the infallible rule of faith.
Except for the inconvenient fact that until fairly recently people couldn't afford books, which were hand-written and hand-copied. When the original apostles conducted their missionary journeys they had no bibles to hand out. The ancient sacramental churches have converted people just as the original apostles did. Sola scriptura is a ridiculous concept dreamed up as an excuse to secede from the Catholic Church.
And please be advised, I'm not advocating for the Catholic Church here. I merely point out that ancient sacramental chrstianity is the real thing and "Bible Protestantism" is a recent construct that could never have existed in the ancient world. (Judaism is different because it's a mitzvah for every Jew to write a Torah scroll (or have it written for him). Judaism is a book religion; chrstianity is not. So which are you going to choose?
The fact that something is "G-d breathed" does not mean it contains every single doctrine the taught by the religion or all one needs to know. It DOES mean that what is written is absolutely and totally free from error on any subject whatsoever. Both Protestants and Sacramentals tend to conflate Biblical inerrancy with Biblical sufficiency when they are two entirely different things. Unfortunately, the ancient churches have all rejected Biblical inerrancy now as inherently "Protestant."
The Five Books of Moses do indeed contain absolutely everything (since it is what you call the logos) but all this is encoded at a very deep level.
So? Everything the Apostles preached was scripture and their writings were widely read to congregations. The ability to read scripture does not change the fact it is the only infallible rule of faith.
But the scripture they refer to in the new testament was the old testament. The new testament hadn’t been written yet.
Plus there were spurious books out there such as the shepherd of Hermas, Gospel of Judas, etc. It took the Catholic Church about 400 years later to determine what was inspired and what wasn’t.
We even grouped the books by topic, not chronological, for teaching purposes.
The Bible came out of the church, not the other way around.
What makes you think that because it isn’t explicitly in scripture that it’s not valid or a teaching?
The word “Trinity” isn’t in the bible-do you reject the trinity?
The books of the Bible aren’t listed in the Bible, nor anything that says they are inspired. Do you reject that as well?
Whom do you think gave you all 3 of those concepts?
The Catholic Church!
Who are you to say which denominations are biblical? And which offshoot of Lutheran are you?
See my point?
If everyone has authority to interpret scripture then you can’t say one word about their beliefs because THEY are the ultimate arbitrator. You certainly can’t call their denomination unbiblical.
Yet the Apostle Peter refers to Pauls letters as scripture. Further - the Apostles were prophets, everything they preached was scripture, God breathed. Peter’s sermon at Pentecost didn’t become scripture just because Luke wrote it down. It was widely accepted, from the start, that the teachings of the Apostles was scripture. Divine revelation.
The ones the sincerely try to follow the plain teachings of scripture. I don’t agree with them on everything but they make a sincere biblical effort and I can break bread with them. No Lutheran here, you are way off.
Luther was the first rebel and broke away from the faith. Your denomination has to be an offshoot of his.
You confuse teaching and preaching with writing.
Cafeteria Catholics. Maybe they go to mass during Christmas and Easter. If they still bother to do that.
No he wasn’t and no I don’t.
The plain teaching of scripture.
Right.
40k denominations think they teach scripture, including yours. And they all think some teaching(s) is not right and break off to form their own again and again and again...
That’s what Sola Scriptura gets you. Even Luther mentioned that every milkmaid and farmer thought they knew scripture.
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.