A compelling non-Catholic argument

[ibkc]

And yet, before you seek understanding of my views, you made the assumption that they were contradictory. Unlike you view of the Protestant churches, I do not have a faith based on pretzel logic. I do not base my beliefs on assumptions.

The thing is, it’s not an assumption on my part. It isn’t a matter of you being the first “Bible alone” alone Christian I have ever spoken to, and that your beliefs are new concepts to me. I am over 40, and I grew up in the Bible Belt of the US. I have been exposed to the beliefs and practices of all the various Protestant churches all my life. I found the beliefs presented by these churches to be confusing and contradictory. Since I had never been exposed to Catholicism, I came to the further erroneous conclusion that Christianity itself is confusing and contradictory and therefore flawed.

In short, I am not making assumptions. I am sharing my own conclusions based on my own experiences. And I am not the only one by far who has come to the same conclusions.

 

[protestantman]

I understand that my user name has brought some stereotypes with it. Understand that I cannot be thrown neatly into a group. Do not think of me as any other protestant you have met or conversed with. Think of me as a unique work of God. I am an individual, and It would be more fiting to understand my beliefs as individual. I do not base my beliefs upon the beliefs of any other man. I base my beliefs on the Word of God. That is why I call myself a Christian. In choosing protestantman to be my user name, I was only giving clarity that I was not Catholic. So please when you ask me questions, base them on my actual beliefs, and not the beliefs you associate with protestants.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For 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. 12We 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. 13This 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.[c] 14The 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. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

The highlighted verse is individual. Thus it does not solely apply to the apostolic succesion.

I agree with the highlited verse. Does it mean other things to other spiritual men? Yes it can.

Most spiritual men make judgements about all things at all times. We must decide if what we are about to do is, well spirital. Are we doing God’s will in this endevor?

Of course we are all outside the judgement of any man, only God can judge us in the end. God did make Christ the head of the Church. The Church is Christ’s continued presents on earth. The Church is not an institution of man as most protestants would have us believe it is an institution formed by God to guide us to obedience to God’s will. The Church acts now as it did while writing through Paul to redirect the faithful in matter of faith and morals as we see in scripture.

 

[protestantman]

Of course we are all outside the judgement of any man, only God can judge us in the end. God did make Christ the head of the Church. The Church is Christ’s continued presents on earth. The Church is not an institution of man as most protestants would have us believe it is an institution formed by God to guide us to obedience to God’s will. The Church acts now as it did while writing through Paul to redirect the faithful in matter of faith and morals as we see in scripture.

I think that this disagreement of the Church being an institution is amissunderstanding of context. When Paul spoke of THE CHURCH, he was speaking of all those who inherited the gift of being sons of God. This is why I do not think that the church is an institution, but rather a nation. The Church is the promised seed of Abraham(Galations 3:26 - 4:7). I think this is were confussion enters in. I think what we call THE CHURCH, you call THE BODY of CHRIST. What you call THE CHURCH, I call the assembly of the church. Does this make sense? I dont think of the Catholic Church as a church, but rather a collection of members of the body of Christ, under the authority of the Apostolic succession.

 

[SCALCO]

Nope. Again you do not understand. The Holy Spirit is always there, yet he does not reveal all truth at once. Even many Catholics here have agreed that the Catholic Church is not in possession of the complete and absolute truth of God. Like when you describe how the Churches understanding of papal infallibity has changed. I am beginning to think that you just want to be able to say that I am contradicting myself. Sort of a subversive tactic, as it is far from the point of this thread. I am not a person of such low intelligence that I would sustain contradicting points of view. I do not just open my mouth and let my words spew forth. If you truly think that I am contradicting myself, then that is a result of your own missunderstanding. If you cannot understand what I am saying, then why do you continue asking me questions? If I asked a question, and the answer was in a language I could not understand, I would not continue to ask questions without an interpreter. If I dont understand the language, I will never recieve an understandable answer to my questions. Likewise, this is why I am here. I am here to gain understanding. This way I can converse on a more intellectual level, and with less ignorance, with followers of the Catholic faith.
So please, try to understand what I am saying, before you jump to say that I contradict myself.

Please note, the understanding of infallibility has never changed, it was clarified. It was always there and always the same.

 

[protestantman]

Any discussion about the deuterocanonal books, there is now a seperate thread for this topic. This way we dont end up with a jumble of topics on one thread. The link to the new thread is below.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=3420224#post3420224

 

[protestantman]

Please note, the understanding of infallibility has never changed, it was clarified. It was always there and always the same.

This is what I was refering to. All truth is there, but the HS does not always clarify it all at once. That is how the Holy Spirit is with me as well. My clarification of scripture is gradual. My own interpretation of scripture is fallible, yet the HS is clarifying the truth to me. So any clarification I have recieved is infallible. The things that have not been clarifed are still to be considered fallible. Are there other areas where the Catholic Churches understanding has not been fully clarified?

 

[CentralFLJames]

I think that this disagreement of the Church being an institution is amissunderstanding of context. When Paul spoke of THE CHURCH, he was speaking of all those who inherited the gift of being sons of God. This is why I do not think that the church is an institution, but rather a nation. The Church is the promised seed of Abraham(Galations 3:26 - 4:7). I think this is were confussion enters in. I think what we call THE CHURCH, you call THE BODY of CHRIST. What you call THE CHURCH, I call the assembly of the church. Does this make sense? I dont think of the Catholic Church as a church, but rather a collection of members of the body of Christ, under the authority of the Apostolic succession.

You are correct that The Church is a nation. More particularly:

St. Peter told the first Christians: You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart by God to proclaim his saving deeds, who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light (1 Pt 2:9).

Catholic are baptised Priest, Prophet and King since we share in those same attributes as our heavenly leader - Jesus.

The Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Jesus Christ, whose members are joined by bonds of spiritual communion: loyalty to the Pope and bishops joined with him, oneness in the truths to be believed and the moral code to be followed, oneness in worship. The Church is a mystery, the sacrament of salvation and the People of God journeying together toward eternal life. (771-776)

While all faiths reflect the truth and goodness of God, only one can be the true faith. The fullness of Jesus’ revelation-the truths to be believed, the way of life, the gifts of grace-subsists (is totally present) in the Catholic Church. (816, 830)

He has put all things under his feet and has given him as head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fullness of the One who fills all things in their totality (Eph 1:22-23).

The term “Mystical Body” refers to the real union of the Church’s members (living and deceased) with Jesus, who is the Head, and with one another through the grace-giving activity of the Holy Spirit. (787-795)

For just as we have many members in one body…in the same way we, many as we are, are one body in Christ, and each one of us is a part of the other (Rom 12:4-5). (See also 1 Cor 12:27; Jn 15:4-5)

The true Church founded by Christ is one, holy, catholic (or universal) and apostolic. Only the Roman Catholic Church has these four characteristics or marks. (811-812)

Rooted in the mystery of the Trinity, the Church’s unity consists especially in the bond of charity. It becomes visible in profession of the same faith, common worship, and union with the Church’s pastors. (813-822)

There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all, through all, and in all (Eph 4:4-5).

Christ gave his life to make the Church holy and sent the Spirit to breathe holiness into it. Since all the Church’s members are called to holiness, Christ gave the Church the means to help them toward this goal, especially the sacraments. (823-829)

In him the whole building is joined together and grows into a holy Temple in the Lord, and in him you are being built together into God’s dwelling place in the Spirit (Eph 2:21-22).

The Catholic Church is necessary for salvation because Christ wills to give us the grace of salvation through his Church. In some way this grace reaches even those who are not members of the Church. If through no fault of their own they do not know our Savior Jesus Christ and his Church, they can be saved if they seek God sincerely and try to live good lives. (846-848)

In Christ we have free and confident access to God through our faith in him (Eph 3:6).

James

 

[Orionthehunter]

He was speaking about the apostles. Note also your included scripture. What does Paul say about his own wisdom? Did he make a claim of infallibility or did he claim weakness? Also, what does he say our faith should and should not rest on?

You are proving our point. Paul was a man with fallible impulses, reasoning, etc. But he what he was saying was not from him but from Christ. This is exactly what the Catholic Church does.

No, this is incorrect. I dont know how I can be more clear on this. Are you just looking for a contradiction, or are you truly not understanding?

I am not understanding either.

Nope. Again you do not understand. The Holy Spirit is always there, yet he does not reveal all truth at once. Even many Catholics here have agreed that the Catholic Church is not in possession of the complete and absolute truth of God. **Like when you describe how the Churches understanding of papal infallibity has changed. **I am beginning to think that you just want to be able to say that I am contradicting myself. Sort of a subversive tactic, as it is far from the point of this thread. I am not a person of such low intelligence that I would sustain contradicting points of view. I do not just open my mouth and let my words spew forth. If you truly think that I am contradicting myself, then that is a result of your own missunderstanding. If you cannot understand what I am saying, then why do you continue asking me questions? If I asked a question, and the answer was in a language I could not understand, I would not continue to ask questions without an interpreter. If I dont understand the language, I will never recieve an understandable answer to my questions. Likewise, this is why I am here. I am here to gain understanding. This way I can converse on a more intellectual level, and with less ignorance, with followers of the Catholic faith.
So please, try to understand what I am saying, before you jump to say that I contradict myself.

Bolded: How has it changed? The Catholic Church knows of no way.

Underlined: Do you not think it might be because in your fallible nature, you have not discerned the contradiction?

Purple Color: We are trying to discover if it is our obstacles to understand what you are saying or to expose to you that you have a contradiction.

From Protestantman: Read 1 Corinthians 2

We have done so and I believe that you have not properly interpreted expecially since you seem to ignore the points that I’ve raised.

From Protestantman: I still see this as a fallible way to discern truth.

You think it fallible only because you reject the infallibility of the Church on matters of Teaching and reject it as a teaching institution. Please keep in mind that by your own admission you may be fallibly misinterpreting which means that you may hold this position in error.

Protestantman: That would be the guidence of the HS. Again read 1 Corinthians 2. It is pretty clear that Paul was of similar thought.

But, he was claiming that by his office in the Church that he had this guidance. Since he is admonishing the faithful, it is clear that he doesn’t believe they hold this guidance to which they can absolutely cling. They are told to look to him (the Church ). Here is a great example of Church not being the collection of believers as Truth is not a democracy but God Himself.

The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For 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. 12We 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. **13This 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.**c] 14The 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. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:

The highlighted verse is individual. Thus it does not solely apply to the apostolic succesion.

You yourself admitted that the “We” was the Apostles (Church) and not the faithful that have this charism. Your colored section is correct but it does not negate that the Spiritual Man is subject to the Church’s as Paul points out in this very Chapter.

I know that your obstacle is related to your interpretation that the Church is an insitution of man. But as I said above, "Please keep in mind that by your own admission you may be fallibly misinterpreting which means that you may hold this position in error. "

 

[Orionthehunter]

And yet, before you seek understanding of my views, you made the assumption that they were contradictory. Unlike you view of the Protestant churches, I do not have a faith based on pretzel logic. I do not base my beliefs on assumptions.

Yes you do. You assume that your understanding of Scripture is Truth. As you can see, this prism of assumption impacts your very interpretation of Scripture. If you are right, it is good. If you are wrong, the consequences may be grave.

I think that this disagreement of the Church being an institution is amissunderstanding of context. When Paul spoke of THE CHURCH, he was speaking of all those who inherited the gift of being sons of God. This is why I do not think that the church is an institution, but rather a nation. The Church is the promised seed of Abraham(Galations 3:26 - 4:7). I think this is were confussion enters in. I think what we call THE CHURCH, you call THE BODY of CHRIST. What you call THE CHURCH, I call the assembly of the church. Does this make sense? I dont think of the Catholic Church as a church, but rather a collection of members of the body of Christ, under the authority of the Apostolic succession.

Sometimes reference to church is the assembly of believers but sometimes it is the Rock. Depends upon context. To get the correct interpretation, you must be sure to have the correct context. To what are you referring to above?

This is what I was refering to. All truth is there, but the HS does not always clarify it all at once. That is how the Holy Spirit is with me as well. My clarification of scripture is gradual. My own interpretation of scripture is fallible, yet the HS is clarifying the truth to me. So any clarification I have recieved is infallible. The things that have not been clarifed are still to be considered fallible. Are there other areas where the Catholic Churches understanding has not been fully clarified?

But your implication was that Authority is a new invention. It is embedded in Scripture as we have been discussing about 1 Cor.

How do you know that the clarification is from the Holy Spirit?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3417818]

Originally Posted by justasking4
We do know that the Pharisees did teach error even though they may have thought of themeselves as infallible. This same principle would apply to church leaders and teachers. It applies to popes and protestant ministers at all times.

guanophore
No, ja4. Jesus would not instruct His disciples to “do all things that they tell you, for they sit in the seat of Moses” if it was erroneous. They were hypocrites, and Jesus instructed them to “do not as they do”. If they were teaching error, why did Jesus tell the disiples to follow it? that just makes no sense at all.

Are you saying here that the Pharisees did not teach error? If that is what you mean that would run counter to what we find in Matthew 15:1-14. The Pharisees taught a lot of error.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3418099]Not what, who. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli.
Is a protestant of today mandated to believe and follow all they taught?

Quote:justasking4
This is also true of your church. No one in the NT church or even the church for the 1st three centuries held to the marian doctrines or celibate leadership.

Church Militant
Untrue.

Celibate clergy goes directly to Our Lord and the apostles.
Matthew 19:10-12
"10 His disciples say unto him: If the case of a man with his wife be so, it is not expedient to marry.11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it. "

Ist Corinthians 7:6-9
“6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. 7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. 8 But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. 9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.”

Revelation 14:1-5

1: Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
2: And I heard a voice from heaven like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder; the voice I heard was like the sound of harpers playing on their harps,
3: and they sing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the hundred and forty-four thousand who had been redeemed from the earth.
4: It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste; it is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes; these have been redeemed from mankind as first fruits for God and the Lamb,
5: and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are spotless.

The problem with these quotes is that they have nothing to do with church leadership. These passages are dealing with other issues.

The Marian doctrines were dogmatically affirmed because they have been held so long, and since they contradict no scripture then there is no problem.

Your 2 responses above were not held by the NT church nor the early church for centuries.

Here’s some of my thinking on these doctrines.

The Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

 

[Subrosa]

How does the Holy Spirit work in someone who is living in Sin? Many here say that the Pope can turn from God and choose to live in sin. Yet they say that the Spirit continues to work through them. The Bible says that this is impossible. “A bad tree CANNOT bear good fruit”

Hi P-man -

I think you have to differentiate between the Holy Spirit and the human in which He dwells. (1 Cor 6:12-20)

The Spirit is infallable, the human isn’t.

The Bible tells us that we are ALL sinners, so there isn’t a scenario where there is perfect Spirit dwelling in perfect man. Paul admonishes us in the above passage to practice morality. That admonishion is an admission of imperfection, otherwise he wouldn’t need to have said it.

Is the Pope infallible? Yes, of course he is. But you are looking at this wrongly.

The Pope is the chief PASTOR of the Catholic Church, as well as administrator. Does your church have a pastor? I assume so. Is he fallible? Again I assume so. Does he produce good or bad fruit? I assume that it is good, otherwise you wouldn’t accept him as pastor. Has he sinned? Anyone who says that they do not sin deceives themselves (1 John 1:8). Is the Holy Spirit working in your pastor?

How does the Holy Spirit work in someone who is living in sin? Well, that’s up to the Spirit, now isn’t it. Everyone is in sin, everyone. What is the fruit they produce? As far as the Pope is concerned, have you ever really looked at the fruit he produces?

Read one piece of fruit, the encyclical Deus Caritas Est. See what he produces as fruit and then decide.

Of course when a person turns from God there is a consequence. But the Spirit can work in whomever He pleases. Moses was a murderer. Paul (Saul) persecuted Christians. Peter turned away from Christ just when He needed him most. But we all know that God worked through these men, as sinful as they were.

Subrosa

 

[justasking4]

Catholics don’t claim to be infallible, it is the Teaching of Jesus that is infallible.

Does this mean then the catehchism and church pronouncements are not infallible either since these things do not come from the lips of Jesus Himself?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3418992]
Originally Posted by protestantman
I consider myself to be a Christian, and nothing else.

guanophore
Unfortunately, it is more complicated than this. The Apostles defined with clarity what one must believe in order to be considered a “Christian”.

What exactly did the "Apostles defined with clarity what one must believe in order to be considered a “Christian”?

All the denominations that have been spawned since the Reformation have rejected a little or a lot of these criteria.

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
This is exactly why I want the total unification of the body of Christ. There is strength and power in unity.

guanophore
But unity is the fruit of adherance to Truth, and there will never be unity until there is adnerance to the Truth. Since, for most, “truth” is based on one’s perceptions, so long as there are so many different perceptions we will be separated from one another.

If what you say is true then by this statement there will never be unity since all men will always have their perceptions of the truth. This would also mean that a prayer of Jesus failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
If history is fallible, and the Holy Spirit is infallible, why not rely on the Holy Spirit.

guanophore
We do, and we recognize that God has entered into human history, and that the HS works through people, who exist in time, and within an historical context

.

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
Yet, I would have to abandon my disbelief of certain doctrines. Thus I am not welcomed freely, but I must accept the rules of the house.

guanophore
I find this to be a very respectful attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
So Jesus is the combination of the Church, the Bible, and believers? How could this be if the Word was with God in the beginning, when the church did not exist?

guanophore
I think it would be more accurate to say that some of God’s revelation is found in the Scripture, some in the Church, and some in the believer. Humanity is quite unable to contain the whole revelation of God

.
Who contains in the catholic church today some of God’s revelation? Is this revelation also inspired-inerrant which is a property of revelation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by protestantman
Many who claim “interpretation from the HS” are false prophets. Weed out the false prophets, and you will see the truth.

guanophore
Weed them out by using which standard?

Scripture.

 

[davidv]

Does this mean then the catehchism and church pronouncements are not infallible either since these things do not come from the lips of Jesus Himself?

Addressed on this thread.

 

[justasking4]

mikeledes;3416448]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Probably not and we should not expect protestants to agree anyway since its been reported that there are over 33,000 different denominations. To have any differences in the catholic church is something i would think would suprise you considering its claims.

mikeledes
We are not saying that there are absolutely no differences among Catholics within certain parameters established by the teaching authority of the Church.

Huh? The unity that Jesus prayed for was “organic”. There were no differences in purpose and mind between the Father and Son. Even your church among itself has failed to live up to this standard.

mikeledes
The differences among Protestants are fundamental and deal with the very core of the Gospel, salvation. The only thing Protestants agree upon in this issue is the use of the phrase “justification by faith alone.” This phrase, however, means different and contradictory things among different Protestants. Arminians vs. Calvinists are just one example.

Do both sides believe that Christ died and rose again for their sins? Do they both believe that Christ was both God and man?

Quote: justasking4
It has something to do with the marian doctrines.
mikeledes
Doctrines that all Catholics are supposed to believe and which Protestants are somehow easily able to identify as Catholic.

Not sure what you mean here. Can you clarify?

Quote: justasking4
i don’t know

.
mikeledes
You can find out.

Quote:justasking4
i suppose your right until they look at the evidence and believe otherwise after.
mikeledes
The only thing Protestants agree on is that Catholics are wrong. I don’t blame them because we came before them and Catholicism has to be wrong in order for Protestantism to be right.

Nonsense. Protestants across denoninations lines share a lot of beliefs in common. The doctrine of God (Trinity), Christ (God in the flesh) the fall of man and salvation in Christ alone are just a number of doctrines all protestants that i’m aware believe in common.

Quote:justasking4
i don’t know. However the church has held different views of this
mikeledes
Not that I’m aware of.

Read church history on Mary and you will see different views of her.

 

[justasking4]

Addressed on this thread.

Thanks. Do you believe all the teachings of the catholic church to be the teachings of Jesus?

 

[justasking4]

Let me offer that I think he was pointing out that you seem to be deliberately selective in what fallible person or institution you chose to listen to. The obvious implication is that The Catholic Church, with over 2,000 years of revelation and life works of the saints and faithful and continuous uninterrupted apostolic succession just might have a collective revelation from the HS that is much more mature than what you could ever hope to pick up on through your own admittedly fallable self teaching in the roughly 65 years of your expected lifetime.

James

Is there anyone in the catholic church that knows all the teachings of the catholic church for the past 2000 years? Do you?

 

[jmcrae]

Are you saying here that the Pharisees did not teach error? If that is what you mean that would run counter to what we find in Matthew 15:1-14. The Pharisees taught a lot of error.

They didn’t teach error in their official proclamations (since all they really did there was repeat the teachings of Moses).

However, in their private advices to the people, they led them astray by trying to get away with as least as possible according to the letter of the law, rather than looking behind the law to the reason for its existence, and interpreting it and following it in light of what it is supposed to accomplish.

This is why I say that the problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too legalistic, but rather, that they weren’t legalistic enough - they only wanted to do the bare minimum.