I'm Not At "mass" But In Church...

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='Jake Huether' date='Mar 16 2004, 04:43 PM'] I'm very sorry that you do not have the Church to guide you in your interpritations.

Without an Authority to rightly and correctly interpret Scripture for you... As far as what is literal and what is symbolism and what is figurative, etc. Your guess is as good as mine, which is as good as Joe shmow, which is as good as Luthers was. [/quote]
first off, props for the post Archangel...I'll get at you later.

-----------

as for your post Jake...don't be sorry. REALLY.

even if it takes MY WHOLE LIFE, and I come to the conclusion that the Roman catholic church is right...at least I will come to it on my own...with the guidance from the Lord...without just taking the word of someone else just because it has a certain "seal of approval".

and even if I continue on in the doctrine I am now, till I stand before the Lord, when ALL truth will be revealed...I'll still be okay...

God lets me know when I'm wrong...and if I AM wrong in anything...the Lord will NOT fail to let me know.

God IS faithful.

peace.

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]God lets me know when I'm wrong...and if I AM wrong in anything...the Lord will NOT fail to let me know.[/quote]

Then Go To Him!!! Face to Face!!!


Hey lumberjack, if you live by a Catholic Church find out when they have Eucharistic Adoration. Go and say a prayer, "Lord I believe help my unbelief" and "Lord increase my (our) faith." If you dont come out touched or changed let me know. He will touch in the Eucharist that's where He is Truly present.
God Bless You!!!

Edited March 17, 2004 by Jason

[phatcatholic]

lumberjack............if u wish to debate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you will need to make a new thread. this one is beginning to stray off topic.

thanks,
phatcatholic

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Mar 18 2004, 11:48 AM'] lumberjack............if u wish to debate the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you will need to make a new thread. this one is beginning to stray off topic.

thanks,
phatcatholic [/quote]
That's a great idea. The Eucharist is one of my favorite topics. I hope you start a thread lumberjack (not that I'll have that much time to contribute).
God bless.

[twf]

I started my own thread a while back with this, but Iron_Monk asked me to post this on this thread, so here it goes.

Hi. My name is Tyler, and I’m an Evangelical Protestant who has been firmly convinced that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded…and thus am planning to convert. About a year and a half to two years a go I was spending a lot of time on a Christian message board called Mount Biblical Sense. There, a Catholic, who went by the alias Iron_Monk, spent a lot of time defending the Catholic Faith, debating with Protestant members (the majority at that particular board) and providing a lot of Catholic apologetics material. I started looking into some of these works (reading articles at websites like Catholic Answers), and after a few months started to wonder if it was possible that the Catholic Faith was true. I continued to read online Catholic apologetics material and started to get really worried…what if it was true? What if my Evangelical faith was wrong in many key doctrines and concepts? At one point, probably during December 2002 I was really worried and concerned…I was in a heavy state of confusion. I prayed quite a bit, and in the new year I felt God had showed me the truth when I started reading some articles at a couple Evangelical apologetics sites that re-convinced me that the Catholic Church was not the true Church, and that the Evangelical Faith was most Biblically sound. So for several months during 2003 I was full-heartedly Evangelical once again. Probably in the late summer, I felt drawn back to the Catholic Answers site. I started reading a bit there again, and that started the second phase of my investigation into Catholicism. I started looking at many pieces of online Catholic apologetics material…stuff at Catholic Answers, ScriptureCatholic.com, Dave Armstrong’s mega site (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZINDEX.HTM) and others. I also chatted quite a bit, over MSN messenger, with the same person who went by the alias Iron_Monk at Mount Biblical Sense---the guy God used to start my journey home. Later on, I read Scott and Kimberly Hahn’s Rome Sweet Home (their conversion story…a very good read), which helped a lot. Catholic theology and issues occupied a huge amount of my time and mind…I was praying and contemplating various arguments for and against throughout the day. Around this time I listened to an audio recording on Sola Scriptura (which can be downloaded here: [url="http://www.maxbrackett.com/Audio01.asp)"]http://www.maxbrackett.com/Audio01.asp)[/url] which played a crucial role in my rejection of this doctrine. By late December (of 2003) I was pretty much convinced, intellectually, that either the Orthodox faith or the Catholic faith was correct…I had mainly ruled out Protestantism by this time. I decided to order Dave Armstrong’s excellent book A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (in .doc format…you can get it for only $6...I HIGHLY recommend this book for any Protestant on this board. Dave is a former Evangelical, and provides, in my opinion, the best Biblically-based arguments I have seen explaining and defending various key doctrines of the Catholic Church. See Dave’s book page at [url="http://ic.net/~erasmus/BOOKS.HTM)"]http://ic.net/~erasmus/BOOKS.HTM)[/url]. After reading this book, intellectually I saw it as very likely that Catholicism did contain the fullness of Christian truth, but I was not yet fully convinced in my heart or mind; so I prayed, and continued to meditate on the issues and arguments. Finally, in early January of this year, I came to a point where I suddenly realized that I fully believed that the Catholic Church was the Church that Jesus founded, and that the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, faithfully teaches the true deposit of faith. Currently I am reading through The Catechism of the Catholic Church and through the deuterocanonical (what Protestants refer to as the Apocrypha) books (see [url="http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html"]http://www.scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html[/url] for some NT evidence in favor of these books, and Dave Armstrong’s before mentioned book for more support. Here’s one good example:

For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. (2 Maccabees 12:44, NRSV)

…compare this to…

Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? (1 Cor. 15:29, NRSV)
Notice the parallelism…this is a very difficult verse for Protestants, but according to Dave Armstrong (in the before mentioned book), baptisms can refer to sufferings or hardships one goes through…such as penances and prayers on behalf of the dead (so that those in purgatory will be comforted, and brought to Heaven, and for mercy for those condemned…prayer for the dead doesn’t change their eternal destiny, that is decided one earth). (In Luke 12:50 Jesus refers to His future work on Calvary as a baptism: I have a baptism with which to be baptized, and what stress I am under until it is completed!). )

God Bless,

Tyler

[MagiDragon]

Hey guys,
another thing that even Protestants must concede is that scripture is *not* open to personal interpretation:

Know this first of all, that ther is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation . . . (2 Peter 1:20 NAB)

[Dave]

Yet many say the Holy Spirit guides them in interpretation, in other words, that it's the Holy Spirit doing the interpreting, not them -- despite the fact that they come to different conclusions!

[Brother Adam]

The Holy Spirit only leads me. haha.

Edited April 4, 2004 by Brother Adam

[MagiDragon]

[quote]The Holy Spirit only leads me. haha.  [/quote]

yah know, i think that may just be true . . . you seem to allow for a wee bit more guidance than most non-Catholics i know.

hmmm . . . i'm gonna have to edit that passage, i *really* shouldn't have let myself mispell a word from Scripture . . .

dah! . . . i can't correct it any more!.

anyway, it *should* read:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation . . . (2 Peter 1:20 NAB)

Dratted 'e' didn't want to do it's job!

Edited April 4, 2004 by MagiDragon

[Bruce S]

[quote]Yet many [Protestants] say the Holy Spirit guides them in interpretation, in other words, that it's the Holy Spirit doing the interpreting, not them -- despite the fact that they come to different conclusions![/quote]

Ah, that DOESN'T happen MORESO with the Catholic Church than any other denomination?

Tell Cardinal Newman, the "Patron Saint" of moving doctrine...

[url="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html"]http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html[/url]

I submit, that the Catholic Church a LOT of men "coming to different conclusions" OR is Newman incorrect in his works?

Of course, that is just RENAMED, the "Development of Doctrine" never, NEW doctrine...just developed MORE than the doctrine that existed BEFORE.

More double talk.

Edited April 4, 2004 by Bruce S

[Livin_the_MASS]

[quote]Of course, that is just RENAMED, the "Development of Doctrine" never, NEW doctrine...just developed MORE than the doctrine that existed BEFORE.

More double talk. [/quote]

You need to know what your making statements about first, before you can make such statements.

It shows knowledge is lacking. lol

Whatever!

God Bless
Jason

Edited April 4, 2004 by Jason

[Bruce S]

[quote]Newman: "Moreover, an idea not only modifies, but is modified, or at least influenced, by the state of things in which it is carried out, and is dependent in various ways on the circumstances which surround it. Its development proceeds quickly or slowly, as it may be; the order of succession in its separate stages is variable; it shows differently in a small sphere of action and in an extended; it may be interrupted, retarded, mutilated, distorted, by external violence; it maybe enfeebled by the effort of ridding itself of domestic foes; it may be impeded and swayed or even absorbed by counter energetic ideas; it may be coloured by the received tone of thought into which it comes, or depraved by the intrusion of foreign principles, or at length shattered by the development of some original fault within it."[/quote]

This sounds like MOVING doctrine to me....

Now remember, I'm QUOTING from the man that the Catholic Church wants to elevate to Sainthood, the man that invented the concept of the Magisterium being always retroactively right.

[PassionistF]

Bruce,

I'm happy to hear that you are assisting at Mass and will pray that you continue to attend not so much to find faults or differences, but perhaps to hear what God wants you to hear from Him.

The Sacrifice of the Mass is where we offer our praise due to God the Father.

I would ask that you pay particular attention to the two parts of the Mass: The Liturgy of the Word followed by the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This of course is the tradition that the early Christians followed in the catacombs and in hiding for fear of persecution. They never stopped offering the Mass despite very real persecution. To me as a covert, that speaks volumes about the Liturgical form used by the Church today. There were no "Bibles", Scripture was shared orally and yet they continued to gather in secret, some died to do so.

First, they received the word orally (note, there were no pews or "Bibles" in them either) and the faithful responded in their participation with the Psalter or by singing or repeating the Psalms and then of course, the Gospel was proclaimed first and then explained (homily). Often times, it is forgotten that the Bible comes from the Church and not the other way around.

Once fed by the Word, those faithful who had examined themselves and were found eligible (1 Cor. 11:26-31) would partake in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

And when the Priest, celebrating in persona Christi says the words "The Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord", he is not ending our responsibility at the doors of the Parish. Our mission as Christians begin there to "go forth, to be sent" (Missa).

Whatever your current standing, Catholic or non-Catholic, like it or not, you are assisting in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and are charged to do the same.

My only question would be this: Is what you do and say here in line with doing just that?

Peace to you always,

[Bruce S]

[quote]Whatever your current standing, Catholic or non-Catholic, like it or not, you are assisting in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and are charged to do the same.

My only question would be this: Is what you do and say here in line with doing just that?

[/quote]

No, of course not, I'm the heretic, don't forget that. I'm the Protestant version of Kerry, going to service at the other side, BUT...unlike Kerry, I don't profane your service by pretending I'm entitled to communion, by the terms set forth, I don't qualify now, and I accept that gracefully....

[PassionistF]

Let's back things up here a minute Bruce... You responded to the latter part of my summary and not the former....

My last question was asked with reference to the Mass being ended: I'll quote myself here...

[i]"And when the Priest, celebrating in persona Christi says the words "The Mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord", he is not ending our responsibility at the doors of the Parish. Our mission as Christians begin there to "go forth, to be sent" (Missa).

Whatever your current standing, Catholic or non-Catholic, like it or not, you are assisting in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and are charged to do the same.

My only question would be this: Is what you do and say here in line with doing just that?"[/i]

Perhaps I should have been more direct by simply asking what part you see yourself playing in the charge "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" and whether or not you see some of your interactions with others here as being in line with doing just that.

And as an aside, regardless of our "eligibility" with regard to reception of the Holy Eucharist, we are as Christians charged with going forth (again, the Missa ... it is sent) and proclaiming the Gospel by living it.

Is your response to that still going to stand as written? Just trying to clarify.

Another question if I may: Since attending Mass, after the Priest proclaims those words "Go in peace to love and serve the Lord" (or similar ones), do you respond by saying "Thanks be to God?" Just curious, that is all.

And I appreciate your reverence with regard to the reception of Christ's Body and Blood.

Peace,

Edited April 6, 2004 by PassionistF