One True Church

[reyb]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1299490' date='Jun 21 2007, 01:01 PM']Philip Wilson[/quote]
Thank you.

[reyb]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1299490' date='Jun 21 2007, 01:01 PM']Dear Reyb,

I can certainly understand how so many things about Catholicism become confusing. I admire you for actually engaging in conversation about these things: that is a rare quality.

I was raised in Protestant home and there I learned to love the Lord, to read the Scriptures, and to pray to our Lord Jesus Christ. I am so thankful for that upbringing since it provided the foundation of what my faith is today. Yet after a little while I was confronted with serious questions, philosophical inconsistencies, and a dissatisfaction with modern Christianity. I read the Early Church Fathers and could not in good conscience remain a Protestant any longer.

I would love to go into more detail about this with you. You said you do not understand certain Catholic teachings, and that you do not accept others. [b]May I ask what these are?[/b] Believe me, I had to wrestle with so many issues in moving from Protestantism to Catholicism. I would love to discuss some of them with you.

Honestly, though, the main issue that settled all the others was coming to terms with the authority of the Church. Once I realized that Christ ordained his Apostles and promised to lead them into all truth, and that these Apostles appointed Bishops, and those Bishops appointed other Bishops all the way down to our present day, I knew that these men had authority to teach the Word of God that superceded my personal interpretations of Scripture. In opening myself to humility and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was then that I began to see that what these men, guided by the Holy Spirit, taught was true.

I reccommend, Reyb, that you make a visit to your local priest as well. He should be able to give a voice to many of the issues that you are confronting.

God bless you, Reyb, and I will pray for you as you continue your journey of faith. Remember, I am eager to discuss!

Farewell,

Philip Wilson[/quote]

[indent]Ok. I will post them in the near future. I am still trying to figure out how to say them. [/indent]

[reyb]

[quote name='Katholikos' post='1295031' date='Jun 14 2007, 03:15 AM']We begin with the knowledge that the Church did not come out of the Scriptures; rather, the Scriptures came out of the Church. The NT is based on the teaching Church who wrote it -- not the other way around. The Church's teachings are written into the NT, either implicity of explicitly, precisely because the Church was teaching before, during, and after she wrote the NT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.[/quote]

[indent]Likos, what do you mean (precisely) by the 'scriptures came out of the Church'?[/indent]

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='reyb' post='1300335' date='Jun 23 2007, 08:05 PM'][indent]Likos, what do you mean (precisely) by the 'scriptures came out of the Church'?[/indent][/quote]

Reyb,

I think I can respond on Likos' behalf, if he will allow me.

First of all, the Scriptures came out of a certain environment. This environment was teaching and preaching. This teaching and preaching (by the Apostles) is what Catholics call "Sacred Tradition." At certain points, the Apostolic Authors felt that there was a need to address certain issues or to record revelations from God in writing. This is what Scripture is.

I mentioned an "environment" in the beginning of my first paragraph. This environment has a name: ecclisiam, or in English, Church. The Apostles were not some disperate band of individuals with wild hair preaching on street corners. They did preach on street corners, but they were also leaders of the catholic (universal or world-wide) Church. They had authority over individual bodies of believers in different cities, they had a hierarchical structure, and Scripture even talks about the Council of Jerusalem.

As time went on, many writings were written in response to many different things. So many of them were very good and teeming with truth (St. Ignatius, St. Clement, etc.). After several centuries of this, there was not a whole lot of certainty as to what books they had had passed on to them were actually inspired and could be called the Word of God. Many different people had many different theories. At this point the time was come for the Church to recognize what books were actually the Word of God and which ones were not. They did many things, but one of the most central things they did was to compare books with this Sacred Tradition which was still alive and still used to preach to the nations and to edify the Church body. Finally, the Church declared to the world that it had recognized certain books and not others, and they gave to the world what is called the Canon of Scripture.

Though it cannot be said that popes and bishops sat down and write the Bible, it is reasonable to say that without their wisdom, authority, and their being used by the Holy Spirit, we would not have the Bible today. To say that the Scriptures came out of the Church is historically verifiable, but even more importantly, it is a spiritual, doctrinal, and a logical necessity for it to have been that way.

It is therefore fallacious to pit the Bible against the Church. One without the other is incomplete.

This leads us to an important truth: there is no other basis upon which we can arrive at an infallible canon (or collection) of Scriptural books. A fallible collection of infallible books does not make sense, and does not give us any certainty that we are in fact holding the Word of God in our hands. An infallible Church gave us an infallible collection of inspired and infallible books. That is somthing that I can trust!

Let me know your other questions, too.

God bless you,

Philip

Edited June 26, 2007 by Lord Philip

[reyb]

[indent]Many believers told me that the true church can be recognized as True Church of Jesus Christ on its teaching. What can you say about it?[/indent]

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='reyb' post='1304084' date='Jun 28 2007, 06:36 AM'][indent]Many believers told me that the true church can be recognized as True Church of Jesus Christ on its teaching. What can you say about it?[/indent][/quote]

Hello Reyb,

I believe that there are many many wonderful, pious Christians that are not in communion with Rome. Christians they are, so in that sense they might be considered to be a part of the Church in a mystical way. But the meetings in which they assemble, though they may preach salvation through Christ, cannot be called a Church.

Here is why: Christ did not base the faith we have received on teaching. Surprising as that might sound, it is true! Our faith is not based upon teaching, but upon the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God. Now we can preach about Christ and that is wonderful. The teachings are so important and they are so good, but they are not the object of our faith. As I said, the object of our faith is Christ himself.

Now Christ (upon whom our faith is built), said and did certain things. One of the things he did was to say that HE will build his Church on Peter (Matthew 16.18). He also appointed the other Apostles to be leaders. What do we find here? A body. Not a mere set of teachings, but a body. At Pentecost, this body was vivified by the Holy Spirit, and it grew.

What do we see here? A living, organic, and growing body. Is a body something that is invisible (like a faith or a set of teachings), or is it visible? By definition, a body is a visible thing.

If something grew out of the ground ten feet away from you and claimed to be your arm, I think you would probably object. See, your body began with cells of life. Those cells produced the other cells in your body. You were fed and you grew. What on earth is this thing that has suddenly appeared doing claiming to be your arm? This thing, even if it is an arm, certainly is not your arm, because it cannot trace its origin back to those original cells of life.

The Apostles were like those initial cells of life. They laid hands on certain men and those men because bishops, which are the successors to the Apostles. The Apostles and the bishops by the sacraments, and yes, by teaching, proclaim and give the grace of God to the world.

Do you see how this analogy works? Do you see that mere teaching cannot make an entity part of the Church?

Let us take this analogy further. One might object and say, "Well, there are such things as transplants. At that point the heart or the liver, which did not originate from my first cells, are nevertheless mine." I agree with this wholeheartedly. Yet we must take this analogy to its end. Any heart or liver that is transplanted then must submit to the head and the rest of the body. If a body wants to be grafted into the Church, it must submit to the Apostolic Authority which is the visible head of the Church (Christ is the invisible and supreme head).

I decided I wanted to be grafted into the Church. I did not claim teachings or goodness or even my faith to do this for me by themselves. What did it was my submission to the head.

Teachings are wonderful, beneficial, and necessary. They are to the Church what food is to the body. The best food for the Church are the Sacraments, because those are the times where we literally meet with Christ and he does work in us. That is the essence of our faith. Without the true Church, that has its roots in Christ's work, we have not the Sacraments and without the Sacraments we are not connected to Christ organically as an arm is organically united to the head (this is especially so without the Sacrament of Holy Orders which has been the main topic of my post here). Without this connection, we rot and die as a severed limb rots and dies.

God bless you, Reyb.

Keep the questions coming!

With Christ's love,

Philip

[reyb]

[quote name='Lord Philip' post='1304344' date='Jun 28 2007, 01:26 PM']Here is why: Christ did not base the faith we have received on teaching. Surprising as that might sound, it is true! Our faith is not based upon teaching, but upon the person of Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God. Now we can preach about Christ and that is wonderful. The teachings are so important and they are so good, but they are not the object of our faith. As I said, the object of our faith is Christ himself.
Philip[/quote]
[indent]As long as you put your faith on the real Jesus then you are in the true faith and true teaching of the Apostles. - Again that is 'if'. [/indent][indent]it is written in 2 Cor 11:1-6[/indent]
[indent]11:1 I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4[color="#FF0000"] For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough[/color]. 5 But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6 I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. NIV[/indent]
I[indent]I just want to give emphasis that Paul is trying to say two Jesus(es) in here. False Jesus and false gospel are preached by false teachers with lying Spirit and they have many followers too even those being preached by Paul. Now, how can we distinguish the real Jesus without knowing both Jesuses in the eyes of Paul? [/indent][indent]And who is that Jesus you’re preaching and put your faith?[/indent][indent]Therefore, it is necessary for us to know (first) before we put our faith on anything.[/indent]

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='reyb' post='1310020' date='Jul 2 2007, 06:30 PM'][indent]As long as you put your faith on the real Jesus then you are in the true faith and true teaching of the Apostles. - Again that is 'if'. [/indent][indent]it is written in 2 Cor 11:1-6[/indent]
[indent]11:1 I hope you will put up with a little of my foolishness; but you are already doing that. 2 I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4[color="#FF0000"] For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough[/color]. 5 But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those "super-apostles." 6 I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge. We have made this perfectly clear to you in every way. NIV[/indent]
I[indent]I just want to give emphasis that Paul is trying to say two Jesus(es) in here. False Jesus and false gospel are preached by false teachers with lying Spirit and they have many followers too even those being preached by Paul. Now, how can we distinguish the real Jesus without knowing both Jesuses in the eyes of Paul? [/indent][indent]And who is that Jesus you’re preaching and put your faith?[/indent][indent]Therefore, it is necessary for us to know (first) before we put our faith on anything.[/indent][/quote]

Reyb,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. When I said that the object of our faith is not teaching, I was not diminishing the need for truth at all. In fact, Jesus himself said that he is the truth. I agree with you that one cannot create tension between truth and Christ, because they are one in the same.

"And who is that Jesus you’re preaching and put your faith?"

This is a very important question, and it will take some time to answer.

The only way we can know something or someone is to [i]get to know[/i] him. We are just not simply born knowing someone. Given this, we must identify and define the [i]means[/i] by which we come to know him. Once we have done this, we must judge the soundness of these means, and then after that we must examine how effective these means are in their task of building our acquaintance with him.

What are these means? Let us approach them systematically.

First, let us address the issue of teaching. Both Catholics and Protestants have this. The question is, which is true? Protestants often claim to be "Bible-Christians", which really is a silly (but I am rather inclined to think it is deceptive) thing to say because Catholic Teaching is just as "Bible-Based" as any Protestant teaching. The issue is not about who uses the Bible and who does not, but who uses it correctly. Now how, Reyb, are you and I, two small minds amidst the vastness of history and arguments and wars on matters of the true faith, to decide? Are we to go to the Bible and decide what it says and then find a church that agrees with us?

I am a decently educated individual, Reyb, but let me tell you I am nowhere near being qualified for such a thing: in fact, I do not think any individual is qualified to do that. There are immense matters of faith that depend on the most subtle differences in language and custom. There are very difficult problems to answer, and too many to address even in ten lifetimes.

Now this does not mean that we have no power to judge at some level of authenticity. Actually, the way we do this is not by subtle and ingenious arguments, but by common sense. There are a hundred ways to argue this, but let me take one path, if I may. Look at Protestantism; this itself is almost impossible because Protestantism looks different everywhere you go and it is always changing. You might have an easier time looking at a stock ticker: constantly shuffling by, constantly changing, and immense with divisions and distinctions.

What does this tell you? Well, I will tell you what is says to me: Christ said, "I AM" just as the Father said to Moses. God does not change. Christ and his teachings do not change. His teachings definitely do not change because they were given to us in the period of public revelation (the lifetime of the Apostles), a very definite period of time. Yet we see Protestantism changing all the time. Not only does it change all the time, but it changes right along with the World. When egalitarianism became the fashion, Protestantism became egalitarian. When economics and sociology became standard ways of addressing problems, Protestantism started addressing problems with economics and sociology. When Rock n' Roll came into fashion, Protestant churches filled with Rock n' Roll. New Protestant doctrines are coming out every day, and when Protestantism first started, its key doctrines were completely novel; the world had never seen them before. It seems that Protestantism is mixing the teachings of Christ with the teachings of the World.

Now let us take a look at Catholicism. This is much easier, one needs only to look toward Rome. Catholicism does not change. While the world and Protestantism change with the direction of the wind, the Catholic Church remains as it always has remained: as steadfast as a rock. I spoke above about Rock n' Roll in the Protestant Church. My point was not that it was bad, but that it feels like it needs to be on the "cutting edge." That is their whole identity. Now look at Catholic Worship: it is as far from being on the "cutting edge" as one can get. The priests still wear outfits whose style dates back nearly 1700 years!

This rather superficial analysis is not proof of anything, but is rather an indicator of something deeper. The Catholic Church does not feel like it needs to change anything. They just want pure Christ. Not Christ [i]and[/i] modernism, not Christ [i]and[/i] feminism, not Christ [i]and[/i] sociology; just Christ. Christ straight, not mixed drink.

This difference in approach should be very illuminating as to the intentions of the Catholic Church.

So you see that in Protestantism, teaching is much more murky than one thought. It is not as "clear" and "simple" as some would have you believe. You have Jesus' words mixed with John Calvin's, with Martin Luther's, with Thomas Paine's, with Jonathan Edwards', with Sartre's, with J.I. Packer's, with Locke's, with Smith's, with Darwin's, with a host of others. How does any Protestant know that what they are receiving is not watered down by the fads and assumptions of the day? The Catholic Church transcends fads and fashionable assumptions. She has been here too long to be swayed by those. If you look not only at Scripture, but at the very earliest writings of the Church Fathers, you see Catholic teaching alive and well, and already old. The Catholic Church preserved and continued this teaching while Protestantism abandoned it and mixed other teachings with Christ's.

So in matters of teaching, one can see that it is much safer to trust the Catholic Church than any Protestant church.

In terms of the effectiveness of teaching as a medium of knowledge with Christ, teaching is an excellent one because when you hear what someone says you get to know a lot about them. But standing alone teaching is very poor. Imagine trying to get to know someone who lived a hundred years ago just by reading love letters left behind by him. Sure, you would get to know a lot about him, but you would not [i]know him[/i]. Since our task is to know Christ and not just know [i]about[/i] him, we must look for more.

There is also prayer, but I know so many Protestants and Catholics who have such a deep prayer life, that I cannot say much about them in comparison, though I will say that the Catholic Church with millions of people who dedicate their lives 100% to prayer might have some sort of advantage in this area.

In terms of the effectiveness of prayer, it is dramatically effective, because it is a key way we meet with Christ, even intimately.

Now we arrive at something exclusively Catholic. Teaching and prayer is where mainstream Protestantism says, "Well folks, that's it!" The Catholic Church says, "That is just the beginning." We have arrived at the issue of Sacraments. This section will be divided into two sections, where I talk about two ways in which Sacramentalism connects us with Christ.

I will start with an analogy. First, with teaching we compared them to reading love letters written by a person far away. That is a great way to start getting to know someone. Next, with prayer we actually were able to talk with this person. Next, and I appeal to the covenantal understanding of our relationship with our Lord being much like a marriage covenant, we are able to touch this person, and touch that person intimately. In the Sacraments, we enter into such communion with Christ that sexual contact in marriage is completely transcended. In fact, the sexual relationship between a husband and a wife is a reflection of this intimacy that Christ wants to have with us. When a man and a woman marry and have sexual intercourse, Scripture says their very flesh unites and becomes one. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist, we take the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ into our bodies. This unites us with Christ in an even deeper way. I do not mean to sound vulgar, but these wonderful things are in fact very much connected. In the Sacraments we come in contact with Christ more deeply than a wife with her husband. This is intimacy beyond the reach of any Protestant teaching. This is only available in the Catholic Church. The other Sacraments enact very similar but different things in our lives.

The second part of the look into Sacramentalism's role in connecting us with Christ will involve a specific Sacrament, that of Holy Orders. Scripture shows that Christ ordained and gave authority to twelve men. It also shows these twelve men in turn ordaining others. As I discussed in my last post, this was the work of a body. Christ is the head, and the Apostles were the body. This body grew and grew and just as your body right now is connected to the body you had as a baby (same DNA, works the same way, etc), this body of believers in subsequent generations were connected to the head (Christ) just as my heart is connected to my head and every other part of the body. Holy Orders ensures that this body does not die by being severed from the head. That very life of Jesus Christ is present here with us because it has remained alive in the ordination of Bishops and Priests. Every ordination of every priest and bishop in the Catholic Church traces back to the ordination of Christ. No Protestant Church can claim that sort of organic connection with Christ.

In terms of physical and [i]real[/i] contact, I cannot think of any better way to know someone fully. Reyb, if you approach the altar in the Catholic Church, you will be approaching Christ himself: the true Christ. No better case can be made by Protestants in terms of connecting you to Jesus, and that is how you will know the real Jesus.

Reyb, it seems your view is that there are Catholic teachings that are not consistent with the real Jesus. What are these teachings? I really would like to know what is standing in the way of your fully entering the Catholic Church right now.

Also, I would like to hear your response to some of the points I have made in this and previous posts. I want to know what your reaction is and how you fit these things in with how you think.

God bless you, Reyb. I will continue to pray for you as you address these very important questions.

With Christ's love,

Philip

[reyb]

[indent]Roman Catholic has the right to claim as the oldest, well-structured and strongest church as against her counterpart but it does not necessarily mean she is the body of Christ in its truest sense because, catholics and protestants looked and lead into one – to the one I called historical Jesus. Their differences are obvious as well as their unity in mind in interpreting the scripture when it comes to Jesus as the second person in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, even in his coming –the gospel - more or less two thousand years ago.

Now, if I will consider that the teachings of the Protestants are of ‘man’s doctrine’ meaning without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I too have to conclude that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a revelation from God but from man. Otherwise, I will put myself defending a selective adaptation of a doctrine – man’s doctrine with God’s doctrinal revelation in some part – while ignoring what Apostle Paul said in Col 2:8 and vice-versa.

In a more boldly expression though I asked for forgiveness to all Protestants in this presentation, suppose I consider that Protestants are in the wrong side of the fence, meaning they follow the lying spirit and the Roman Catholic has the blessing of the Holy Spirit. As we can see, Protestant preached something like this -

[indent]It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is

"'the stone you builders rejected,
Which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." [/indent]
Now, considering Protestants are referring to the same Jesus as that of the Catholics. Is this teaching comes from an evil spirit or from the Holy Spirit?

According to Protestants, Catholics claim that Peter is their first Pope but cannot prove it. While we can see that other Protestants even forced themselves to speak in other’s tongue in order to justify their claim regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit. Now, who failed to prove even to themselves how they become true disciples other than that of their own belief of whatever they claim to posses?

This is the reason why I asked, ‘Did the catholic and protestant ever ask themselves if the Jesus they know and put their faith is the same Jesus proclaimed by all the Holy Prophets and Apostles?’ Is this historical Jesus really exist or it is just a distorted interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by those who claim to be true Christians? I am not questioning the authenticity of the scripture as the written testimony of God’s witnesses but rather the genuineness of catholic’s and protestant’s - the reader’s interpretation - if it is the true message of the written word.

You yourself said ‘[i]the issue is not about who use the bible and who does not but, who used it correctly’[/i].

Thank you Lord Philip for being good to me and though you do not know me personally, you prayed for me and I am hoping you will always pray for me. I feel your good intentions – the more it weakens me to ask reasonable and valid questions which may hurt you in anyway. I wish, one day, Protestants will learn to listen to the arguments of Roman Priest and Bishops and vice-versa – setting aside small differences and religio-political-leadership. Today is the day, here in Phatmass. [/indent]

[reyb]

....

Edited July 4, 2007 by reyb

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='reyb' post='1312672' date='Jul 4 2007, 05:52 PM'][indent]Roman Catholic has the right to claim as the oldest, well-structured and strongest church as against her counterpart but it does not necessarily mean she is the body of Christ in its truest sense because, catholics and protestants looked and lead into one – to the one I called historical Jesus. Their differences are obvious as well as their unity in mind in interpreting the scripture when it comes to Jesus as the second person in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, even in his coming –the gospel - more or less two thousand years ago.

Now, if I will consider that the teachings of the Protestants are of ‘man’s doctrine’ meaning without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I too have to conclude that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a revelation from God but from man. Otherwise, I will put myself defending a selective adaptation of a doctrine – man’s doctrine with God’s doctrinal revelation in some part – while ignoring what Apostle Paul said in Col 2:8 and vice-versa.

In a more boldly expression though I asked for forgiveness to all Protestants in this presentation, suppose I consider that Protestants are in the wrong side of the fence, meaning they follow the lying spirit and the Roman Catholic has the blessing of the Holy Spirit. As we can see, Protestant preached something like this -

[indent]It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. He is

"'the stone you builders rejected,
Which has become the capstone.'

Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." [/indent]
Now, considering Protestants are referring to the same Jesus as that of the Catholics. Is this teaching comes from an evil spirit or from the Holy Spirit?

According to Protestants, Catholics claim that Peter is their first Pope but cannot prove it. While we can see that other Protestants even forced themselves to speak in other’s tongue in order to justify their claim regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit. Now, who failed to prove even to themselves how they become true disciples other than that of their own belief of whatever they claim to posses?

This is the reason why I asked, ‘Did the catholic and protestant ever ask themselves if the Jesus they know and put their faith is the same Jesus proclaimed by all the Holy Prophets and Apostles?’ Is this historical Jesus really exist or it is just a distorted interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by those who claim to be true Christians? I am not questioning the authenticity of the scripture as the written testimony of God’s witnesses but rather the genuineness of catholic’s and protestant’s - the reader’s interpretation - if it is the true message of the written word.

You yourself said ‘[i]the issue is not about who use the bible and who does not but, who used it correctly’[/i].

Thank you Lord Philip for being good to me and though you do not know me personally, you prayed for me and I am hoping you will always pray for me. I feel your good intentions – the more it weakens me to ask reasonable and valid questions which may hurt you in anyway. I wish, one day, Protestants will learn to listen to the arguments of Roman Priest and Bishops and vice-versa – setting aside small differences and religio-political-leadership. Today is the day, here in Phatmass. [/indent][/quote]



Reyb,

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. I think I am getting a bit closer to understanding where you are coming from.

Let us dive right in then.

First, I want to address the following:

"I feel your good intentions – the more it weakens me to ask reasonable and valid questions which may hurt you in anyway."

Do not worry about hurting me, Reyb. We are searching for truth together in a spirit of brotherhood and charity. I do not take offense if you challenge what I say. I certainly hope you do not take offense at anything I say. I am glad to see that you understand I am coming from a position of charity, not judgement.

"Roman Catholic has the right to claim as the oldest, well-structured and strongest church as against her counterpart but it does not necessarily mean she is the body of Christ in its truest sense because, catholics and protestants looked and lead into one – to the one I called historical Jesus."

We have to be very careful here. The term "historical Jesus" is one that is used by skeptics who irrationally judge the testimony of Scripture and the Church to be false: a giant myth made up about a pretty ordinary guy. This judgement is made upon no grounds whatsoever. This is where I get a little confused: are you coming from this viewpoint which denies spiritual existence? I have a hard time believing this because you talk in other parts of your message about the Body of Christ. This has no meaning apart from the actual divinity of Christ: a spiritual matter.

If you are coming from the skeptical point of view (and I doubt this), all I will have to say is an echo of C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton: Jesus claimed to be God. This leaves us only able to believe one of three things: that he was the most evil man in history desiring worship and power over people, or that he was an absolute madman, or that he was God. We do not have the option of calling him "merely a good moral teacher," or some "great man," or "prophet". Now, we know he was not evil: that directly contradicts everything we know about him. It also does not make sense that he was a madman; that equally contradicts everything we know about him. The only rational response to Christ is to believe that he is God, and so some notion of a "historical Jesus" apart from the witness of Scripture and the Church is completely irrational.

Like I have been saying, I can't help but think you mean something different by the "historical Jesus." In any case we must continue with what we have just established: the incontrovertible claim of Christ to be God. Starting here, we must judge our response. The only rational response to someone who is God is to have faith in him.

Now that we have faith in him, we must get to know who he is, and we are back to what I put in my last post: we know him through teaching, through prayer, and through the Sacraments. The Catholic Church is the entity that Christ established within which these three media are found in their fullness.

So to boil it down you must ask yourself, "Is Jesus really who he claimed to be?" If not, then you need not worry about distinctions between Catholics and Protestants (though you may find some Protestant Churches who would share your view). If so, then you must examine what I have said in my last post: how do we get to know him?

"Now, if I will consider that the teachings of the Protestants are of ‘man’s doctrine’ meaning without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I too have to conclude that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not a revelation from God but from man. Otherwise, I will put myself defending a selective adaptation of a doctrine – man’s doctrine with God’s doctrinal revelation in some part – while ignoring what Apostle Paul said in Col 2:8 and vice-versa."

Reyb, my saying that Protestantism teaches traditions of men does not mean that [i]everything[/i] they teach is stained with "man's philosophy" as its origin. The latter does not follow from the former. Let me demonstrate this to you: Muslims believe that Moses was a prophet, that Abraham was the father of God's people, and that Jesus was the Messiah of the Jews. I reject Islam, but that does not mean that I reject those articles of their faith that I just mentioned. I am guessing that you also reject Islam, but I doubt very much that you reject the teachings I just mentioned.

In the same way, you or I could reject Protestantism without rejecting doctrines that Protestants hold: the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the canon or Scripture, etc.

When I rejected Protestantism, I rejected what was specifially "protestant" about Protestantism (e.g. sola scriptura, sola fide, etc.), not everything that Protestantism teaches. I think if I rejected [i]everything[/i] that [i]any[/i] religion teaches, I would be doing a wrong and horrible thing: that would mean that I reject wisdom, forgiveness, love, hope, joy, courage, family and a host of other wonderful things.

To add an additional layer to this, though, these doctrines (Trinity, etc.) did not originate from the Protestant Church. They originate from the Catholic Church. It is much more accurate to ask how one can accept these doctrines and yet reject the Catholic Church.

"Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." [/indent]
Now, considering Protestants are referring to the same Jesus as that of the Catholics. Is this teaching comes from an evil spirit or from the Holy Spirit?"

Same thing here. I would ask any Protestant how they could believe these things apart from the Catholic Church since it was the Catholic Church that gave us the canon of Scripture and which infallibly defended these doctrines against the early heresies (all of which claimed to be interpreting Scripture accurately apart from the Catholic Magisterium).

Just because the foundations of Protestantism qua Protestantism are wrong, that does not mean that everything they teach is from Satan. God gives little bits of his revelation to everyone: [i]every[/i] soul on this earth. That does not mean that they do not need Christ, but it does mean that parts (and sometimes great parts e.g. Protestantism) of his truth exist everywhere. But they do remain only parts: only in the Catholic Church is there fullness.

"Is this historical Jesus really exist or it is just a distorted interpretation of the Holy Scriptures by those who claim to be true Christians? I am not questioning the authenticity of the scripture as the written testimony of God’s witnesses but rather the genuineness of catholic’s and protestant’s - the reader’s interpretation - if it is the true message of the written word."

This is the big question and I am so happy you asked it. Let us start from the grounds which you establish in this statement: we both trust the Scriptures.

Let me ask you this question: suppose you read a document and you cannot make out what it means. You have two people who claim to be able to tell you what it means, but they disagree. Now suppose one of the people was the actual author of the document, and the other person was someone from the opposite end of the world who spoke a different language and did not understand anything of the culture of the author (actually, he really dislikes the author's culture). Whose opinion would you choose?

You would of course choose the author's opinion. There is no choice between the two at all.

Now let us take this example into the current discussion. Whenever someone reads any document, they can only comprehend it in light of their own dispositions, opinions, prejudices, and limited knowledge. This is a fact, though an unfortunate one. If we were angels this would be different, but we are not angels. This is why I do not even trust myself to fully comprehend and understand Scripture correctly. I am a 21st century man who is (alas!) out of touch with many things that were a part of the daily life and understanding of the ancients.

So we have two bodies here (well, actually more like 30,000 bodies of Protestant Churches against the One Catholic Church) each interpreting the Scriptures with their own opinions, prejudices and dispositions. Protestants (as I said before) are filled with modern ideas of egalitarianism, individualism, and many other things (i.e. traditions of men).

The Catholic Church, though, is unlike any Protestant body. It is not just another voice among the thousands of voices claiming to know what the Bible is talking about. No, the Catholic Church has Sacred Tradition.

What is Sacred Tradition? It would take someone a lot smarter than I ten thousand pages to get into all the nuances of what Sacred Tradition is (though as John says at the end of his Gospel, to try to write down the [i]contents[/i] of Sacred Tradition would fill the whole world with books). But, in a nutshell, Sacred Tradition is the Apostles' interpretation of Scripture.

That's right, Reyb, the Catholic Church teaches the opinion of the Apostles on what the Scriptures say. This is interesting because the Apostles were the authors of Scripture (of course, God is the ultimate author of the Scriptures). This means that the Catholic Church does not even interpret the Scriptures. This is very interesting and ironic: the Catholic Church claims the least amount of authority than any of the Churches. Protestants claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit to find the true meaning of Scripture for themselves, as if they were all prophets! The Catholic Church says, "We have no such authority to interpret the Bible. There is too much room for error there. What we are going to do is to preserve and obey the teachings that the Apostles gave. I will not insert my own words. I will not teach what I think: I am only authorized to pass on what I have been given. Unchanged."

This can be historically verified as well, Reyb. This is why Catholics look at the Early Church Fathers so much. Not only becuase the Early Church Fathers were so great, but because one wants to trace back a teaching through time and connect it with the Apostles. One can find Catholic Teaching all over the early Church: consistent, unchanging, and true. Interestingly, one cannot find distinctively Protestant teachings (sola scriptura, sola fide) originating from any Apostle.

This is why Protestant doctrines are considered traditions of men. The Apostles did not teach them which means that Christ did not teach them (Christ told the Apostles that he would lead them "into all truth" thus ensuring that the complete revelation of Christ would be present in their teachings and in the Sacraments he instituted). If Christ did not teach them, then men are teaching them. If men are teaching them, we have traditions of men, plain and simple.

Reyb, I do not want to put my faith in novel inventions of men, even ones as clever as Martin Luther and John Calvin. I trust Christ telling me what he means in Scripture more than them, and certainly more than my own limited understanding of things.

"I wish, one day, Protestants will learn to listen to the arguments of Roman Priest and Bishops and vice-versa – setting aside small differences and religio-political-leadership. Today is the day, here in Phatmass."

I agree with you whole-heartedly. When Protestants recognize the divine authority of the Catholic Church to teach his Word and come under the joyful and liberating wings of the episcopacy, it will be a most happy day. Also, I think Catholics can (and will!) learn so much from Protestants' hunger for Scripture, their warmth, their evangelical zeal and their passionate love of Christ.

God bless you Reyb. I will continue to pray for you as you consider the claims of the Catholic Church. If there is anything I can do to help you along the way to enter into full communion with Christ's Body, just ask and I will do everything in my power. But until then please do keep the questions coming! I am very interested to see how your picture of things develops.

Farewell sir,

Philip

[reyb]

[indent]Maybe, I did not convey my previous message clearly since you are still equating your Jesus to the Jesus of the Holy Prophets and Apostles; from where I used the term ‘historical Jesus’ in order to differentiate the two Jesuses as I mentioned earlier.[/indent]
[indent]Judge it yourself if I am wrong, the Jesus you know is the Jesus according to your own rendition or other man’s interpretation to the scripture who did not see or hear the Power of God the way Paul and other holy prophets saw it. This is the Jesus I called ‘historical Jesus’ and his coming which I called ‘historical gospel’ because it seems to exist and happen more or less 2000 years ago.[/indent]
[indent]Even the sacred tradition which was professed by your forefathers - the early church father of the Roman Catholic Church -was actually based on this premise. Sacred tradition is just an interpretations, understandings, calculations, conclusion and belief as they read the witnesses’ testimony. In short, they are not true witnesses and their sacred tradition is a product of their own studies, interpretation and conclusion. [/indent]
[indent]I do not undermine anyone’s ability in interpreting the scripture or their hardship and zealousness in fulfilling their duties to praise God but accepting their so called ‘God’s revelatory doctrine or sacred tradition’ though it comes from their own interpretation and analysis is compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture –that is, Jesus Christ himself or The Truth. Obviously, only a witness can understand another witness and I beg to disagree that Paul and all witnesses are referring to that historical Jesus. [/indent]
[indent]Of course, it is easy to claim that Paul is one of us, which is the case in the Roman Catholic Church; as if you are saying your forefathers and the megisterium are blessed by the same spirit who guided Paul while writing his testimony. In the same token of what the Protestants are now claiming – they are blessed by the Holy Spirit while interpreting the Holy Scripture. [/indent]
[indent]According to Paul in 1 Cor 2:11-14 [/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"][indent]11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned..[/indent][/color][/indent]
[indent]And he said the same thing in 2 Cor 4:3-4 [/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"][indent]And even if our gospel is veiled , it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.[/indent][/color][/indent]
[indent]We know that Roman Catholic Church and Protestants are referring to the same historical Jesus and the same historical Gospel and let us assume that Paul and other witnesses are really referring to that historical Jesus. Now, will you accept that Protestants are blessed by the Holy Spirit as that of the bishops and priest of the Catholics? If not, do you think it is possible for a man with a lying spirit to see the ‘[color="#FF0000"]light of the gospel of glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ [/color]if we will consider the above verses? [/indent]
[indent]Furthermore, it is written in 1 Cor 12:3[/indent]
[color="#FF0000"][indent]3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit . [/indent][/color]
[indent]Are not Protestants saying ‘Jesus is Lord’? Again, is it possible for a man with a lying spirit to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ if we will consider 1 cor 12:3?[/indent]

As we agreed upon...
[quote name='reyb' post='1310020' date='Jul 2 2007, 08:30 PM'][indent]As long as you put your faith on the real Jesus then you are in the true faith and true teaching of the Apostles. [/indent][/quote]

[Lord Philip]

[quote name='reyb' post='1333184' date='Jul 17 2007, 09:20 PM'][indent]Maybe, I did not convey my previous message clearly since you are still equating your Jesus to the Jesus of the Holy Prophets and Apostles; from where I used the term ‘historical Jesus’ in order to differentiate the two Jesuses as I mentioned earlier.[/indent]
[indent]Judge it yourself if I am wrong, the Jesus you know is the Jesus according to your own rendition or other man’s interpretation to the scripture who did not see or hear the Power of God the way Paul and other holy prophets saw it. This is the Jesus I called ‘historical Jesus’ and his coming which I called ‘historical gospel’ because it seems to exist and happen more or less 2000 years ago.[/indent]
[indent]Even the sacred tradition which was professed by your forefathers - the early church father of the Roman Catholic Church -was actually based on this premise. Sacred tradition is just an interpretations, understandings, calculations, conclusion and belief as they read the witnesses’ testimony. In short, they are not true witnesses and their sacred tradition is a product of their own studies, interpretation and conclusion. [/indent]
[indent]I do not undermine anyone’s ability in interpreting the scripture or their hardship and zealousness in fulfilling their duties to praise God but accepting their so called ‘God’s revelatory doctrine or sacred tradition’ though it comes from their own interpretation and analysis is compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture –that is, Jesus Christ himself or The Truth. Obviously, only a witness can understand another witness and I beg to disagree that Paul and all witnesses are referring to that historical Jesus. [/indent]
[indent]Of course, it is easy to claim that Paul is one of us, which is the case in the Roman Catholic Church; as if you are saying your forefathers and the megisterium are blessed by the same spirit who guided Paul while writing his testimony. In the same token of what the Protestants are now claiming – they are blessed by the Holy Spirit while interpreting the Holy Scripture. [/indent]
[indent]According to Paul in 1 Cor 2:11-14 [/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"][indent]11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned..[/indent][/color][/indent]
[indent]And he said the same thing in 2 Cor 4:3-4 [/indent]
[indent][color="#FF0000"][indent]And even if our gospel is veiled , it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.[/indent][/color][/indent]
[indent]We know that Roman Catholic Church and Protestants are referring to the same historical Jesus and the same historical Gospel and let us assume that Paul and other witnesses are really referring to that historical Jesus. Now, will you accept that Protestants are blessed by the Holy Spirit as that of the bishops and priest of the Catholics? If not, do you think it is possible for a man with a lying spirit to see the ‘[color="#FF0000"]light of the gospel of glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ [/color]if we will consider the above verses? [/indent]
[indent]Furthermore, it is written in 1 Cor 12:3[/indent]
[color="#FF0000"][indent]3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit . [/indent][/color]
[indent]Are not Protestants saying ‘Jesus is Lord’? Again, is it possible for a man with a lying spirit to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ if we will consider 1 cor 12:3?[/indent]

As we agreed upon...[/quote]


Dear Reyb,

Thank you for your response; let's get started, shall we?

"Maybe, I did not convey my previous message clearly since you are still equating your Jesus to the Jesus of the Holy Prophets and Apostles; from where I used the term ‘historical Jesus’ in order to differentiate the two Jesuses as I mentioned earlier."

I understand you are separating "my" Jesus and the "historical" Jesus hypothetically so as to consider the claims of the Catholic Church, but I think in my previous posts I have addressed the issues you bring up here.

Since we want to get to know this "historical" Jesus, we must examine ways in which we can come to know him. We have examined Protestant ways and Catholic ways. Catholic ways encompass not merely getting to know him from a distance, but coming to know him intimately, as a wife knows her husband.

Admittedly, these ways are mysterious and very spiritual. Yet I do not think you have a problem with things being mysterious or spiritual. The Scriptures are teeming with mystery, and are absolutely spiritual in origin.

Now we must judge the validity of these spiritual ways of getting to know Christ intimately in the Catholic Church (Catholics call them the "Sacraments"). We will use one major criterion to judge whether these ways are valid.

The major criterion is whether these Sacraments and the teachings of the Catholic Church have their root in Christ and his Apostles or in men. If their root is in men, then the Catholic Church is no better than any church out there. If their root is in Christ and the Apostles, then we have an obligation to follow them as much as any verse in the Bible.

At this point you say the following:

"Sacred tradition is just an interpretations, understandings, calculations, conclusion and belief as they read the witnesses’ testimony. In short, they are not true witnesses and their sacred tradition is a product of their own studies, interpretation and conclusion." (sic)

This is not true, Reyb. This is why I have been putting so much emphasis on the historical and Sacramental validity of the Ordination of Bishops, the successors of the Apostles. The Bishops, insofar as they act as Bishops, are absolutely forbidden from 'interpreting' anything. They are messengers carrying a message. The Early Church Fathers (especially the earliest ones), when they spoke on matters of doctrine, very openly say that they are not interpreting anything, but rather telling what they have been told. The things they were told were things from the very mouths of the Apostles: this is a historical fact. When the Early Church fathers act as theologians (people who interpret the Word of God), then they are indeed considered fallible. But, as I said, acting as Bishops they were doing something different: transmitting the living Word of God to the Church.

This same Apostolic, Sacred Tradition lives in the Magisterium of the Catholic Church: they do not interpret anything. They merely speak what they have been told. We must remember also that this is based on (and is only possible by) the promise of Jesus Christ that the Holy Spirit would cause the Apostles (and, I believe, their successors) to remember what Christ had taught them. This fits with the other promise of Christ that against the Church the gates of hell would not prevail.

So we are back to what I was saying before: the Catholic Church claims the least amount of Authority among all the thousands of churches out there. The Catholic Church does not allow itself to interpret the Word of God, only to preach it. We do not use our own interpretations. We use the interpretations of St. Peter and St. Paul (who you so eloquently appealed to in your post) and of Christ himself.

"13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

Thank you so much for quoting this wonderful passage of Scripture. This reflects upon the very thing I am talking about. Today, Protestants use their intellect and scholarly methods of exegesis to try and understand the "words taught by the Spirit." St. Paul and the other Apostles received so much from the Holy Spirit that there is no way they could have written it down: but they taught it. Take a look at II Thessalonians 2.15:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Whether by "word" or our "epistle". The "Epistle" is the written teaching. The "Word" is the oral teaching. Protestants use the written teaching only (sola scriptura). Catholics use the written and the oral teaching together as they were always meant to be and which the Apostle here commands them to be. The Bishop in Thessalonica (as well as the people and Presbyters) did indeed hold fast to those traditions, as well as the Bishops, people, and the Presbyters of many other Churches (especially that of Rome as attested by St. Irenaeus of Lyons c. 180 AD). Did this end with that first generation? Did the Bishops keep these teachings quiet and not pass them on to the holy men that succeeded them and those presbyters they ordained? Did Parents neglect to teach their children these truths? No indeed. St. Paul actually commands St. Timothy (a bishop) to pass this teaching on to the following generations.

"I do not undermine anyone’s ability in interpreting the scripture or their hardship and zealousness in fulfilling their duties to praise God but accepting their so called ‘God’s revelatory doctrine or sacred tradition’ though it comes from their own interpretation and analysis is compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture –that is, Jesus Christ himself or The Truth. Obviously, only a witness can understand another witness and I beg to disagree that Paul and all witnesses are referring to that historical Jesus."

As I have said, these traditions have their origin not in any interpretation (that is all Protestants do, so they assume that all these teachings are interpretations like their own....this is not so...we are not dealing with theology here...we are dealing with dogma from the mouth of Christ himself), but in the very teachings of the Apostles and thus of Christ Jesus.

Since this is the case, there is no "compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture." When Christ (as you call him rightly, "the Truth") speaks, we can be assured that what we are receiving is right doctrine. But let me turn the tables on you Reyb, if I may. All the Protestants do, their entire source of doctrine (so they claim) is interpretation of Scripture. Let me ask you, how are Protestants, who have no Sacramental and certainly no historical connection with Christ's teachings, safe from "compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture"? With 30,000 denominations, I would say that they are not safe from this. From Southern, snake-handling charismatics, to Puritans, to "no-free-will" Calvinists to "no-music-in-church" Church of Christ'ers, we have not mere evidence but PROOF that Protestants are not at all safe from "compromising the very spiritual message of the scripture." With much solemnity I echo my fathers in the faith who with sorrow declared that Protestantism has indeed compromised the gospel and its life-giving message.

"Now, will you accept that Protestants are blessed by the Holy Spirit as that of the bishops and priest of the Catholics?"

Many, if not most, Protestants, yes. But as a Catholic I would say that Protestants do not receive this in its fullness, whereas Catholic bishops, priests and laymen have access to this fullness (though only the saints COMPLETELY embody this fullness in this lifetime).

"If not, do you think it is possible for a man with a lying spirit to see the ‘light of the gospel of glory of Christ, who is the image of God’ if we will consider the above verses? Furthermore, it is written in 1 Cor 12:3 - "3 Therefore I tell you that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." Are not Protestants saying ‘Jesus is Lord’? Again, is it possible for a man with a lying spirit to say ‘Jesus is Lord’ if we will consider 1 cor 12:3?"

Reyb, you are making the same mistake you made earlier: just because a Protestant does not accept the Catholic Church as the true Church of Jesus Christ, this does not mean they do not have access to salvation or to the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is not a box that contains the Holy Spirit and then outside the box there is no Holy Spirit. Rather, the Catholic Church is a fountain that bursts forth with the Spirit of God and the Spirit of God fills the earth. Protestants have access to the Spirit of God and can therefore say "Jesus is Lord" right alongside his Catholic brother.

Reyb, you must be careful in how you interpret the Scriptures and how you interpret Catholic Teaching. You have been asking me how I can believe Protestants have a "lying spirit" and still say the Jesus is Lord. I have never said that Protestants are people with "lying spirits." The Catholic Church certainly does not teach that. My beloved Protestant family (my mother, father, sisters, uncles, aunts, etc.) certainly are not people with "lying spirits". They love Christ so deeply that I have much to learn from them. This is the same Holy Spirit working in them as in you and I.

So we arrive at the final question, which I will pose to you.

On what grounds does the Protestant church reject the teachings of Christ and insert their own novel interpretations into matters of doctrine? On what authority do Protestants interpret the Scriptures and declare their differing interpretations as the Word of God? Why should I trust a Protestant mind and novel science of exegesis above the Word of God and the teaching authority that Christ himself established? Why should I trust a thinker who lived 1500 years after Christ and who tried to eject the books of James, Hebrews and Revelations from the Bible rather than the witnesses of Christ himself? Why should I align myself with a church that is constantly changing with the world like a chameleon? Why should I join an organization that is founded on rebellion and sedition instead of the institution and ordination of Christ?

Reyb, you should consider these questions. Everything you asked me about the Catholic Church can equally be asked of the Protestant churches. The difference is that the Catholic Church answers with thundering clarity and visible, historical verifiability. The Protestant Church has no answer; at least, none that I have yet heard.

The institutions of Christ called the Sacraments are therefore valid and the best way to come to know this Jesus Christ who lived 2000 years ago but who more importantly still lives this very day! These Sacraments are only found in the Catholic Church.

God bless you, Reyb. I look forward to your response!

With Christ’s love,

Philip Wilson

[Ora et Labora]

double post

Edited July 20, 2007 by Ora et Labora

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='reyb' post='1299419' date='Jun 21 2007, 09:56 AM'][indent]I was once a Catholic. My Mother and Grandmother are deeply devoted Catholics because my grandfather (my grandmother's brother) is a priest. While my grandfather in my father side is the founder of protestant church called - Church of Christ The Disciple - .But now, I do not consider myself a Catholic because I am unfit to be called catholic because, I do not understand and accept so many teachings about the Roman Catholic Church. For almost 14 years, I was not a member of any Church you may possiby know. Hence, I am here trying to understand the teaching of the Church[/indent][/quote]

I just wanted to say welcome to the Phamily and I'm sure many people on this phorum can answer all of your questions. We have smart, good people here.

Ok, sorry for going off topic..