Are "Catholics" really Catholic, or mostly Scriptural illiterates?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mt_28_19_20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is for Mt 28 19_20,
I almost completely agree with you except for on two things.
  1. I was raised Lutheran but it is clear that we believe the same things so why not just drop the lables of who is Catholic and this and that, for we are brothers in Christ and as such we are Christians, not catholics or lutherans, by the Mercy of Christ. But in the grander scheme you probably realize this!
  2. Your first statement I must disagree with when you say that GOD desires all men to be saved or achieve salvation. This is not true for that is the very reason CHRIST spoke in parables and why GOD hardens the hearts of men. (Romans 9:14-30) (John 12:37-41) (Mark 4:10) or even search the Doctrine of Elect!
Another way to think about it is if God desired these things, then why would they have not taken place. God does not desire for desire suggests that something is outside of his abilities or understanding. I desire to have a million dollars (example that is not true and it is a poor one) means that I want it but I necessarily will not have it. God does not desire, for everything he wants he recieves or has…God in a sense knows nothing of desire or want for he is infinitly sustained in himself.

But other than this, I agree with what you have stated and the LORD shines through you!!
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Thank you for your reply. It would be tempting to ask your friend, if ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ, did they learn Scripture by osmosis?

“In other words, the Catholic culture precludes actually studying or learning religion in any sort of methodical sort of way. Instead, Catholics just sort of pick it up as they go along.”.
Do you think this is true? Jesus didn’t teach in a purposeful way, just let the apostles pick things up here and there? What fields of study to we allow study or learning to be devoid of a methodical approach to some extent? Certainly our faith is much more important, and thus we should do the same and more in regards to learning and practicing our faith as we do to other fields of study. Medical students learn by some osmosis during their time in the hospital, however they also have textbooks with methodical learning on which to base this osmosis. How many of us would trust a medical student or doctor who learned only be osmosis and didn’t study the textbooks or pass the tests?

God bless,

Michael
Click to expand...
This is strange: I am betting that you are not Catholic, despite what you claim.

In no way is the RCC like medical school.

I will also bet you are not a doctor.

Tell me why I find your entire op and replies in light of the sacraments completely unconvincing and you might convince me you are Catholic.

If you are 21 or younger, don’t reply.
 
40.png
dotsonjo:
Your first statement I must disagree with when you say that GOD desires all men to be saved or achieve salvation. This is not true for that is the very reason CHRIST spoke in parables and why GOD hardens the hearts of men. (Romans 9:14-30) (John 12:37-41) (Mark 4:10) or even search the Doctrine of Elect!
Click to expand...
Jesus always said when He was speaking in parables and when He was not. And He always explained his parables. Moreover, those listening to Him had the benefit of the Real Presence to understand what He was saying.

God hardened the hearts of those who had already chosen against God.
40.png
dotsonjo:
Another way to think about it is if God desired these things, then why would they have not taken place.
Click to expand...
Free Will.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
Very good point, Ani.

I do think though that the OP, as another poster commented, is attempting to extrapolate data from entirely too small a sample (‘several’ Catholics have ‘questioned his stance’ on ‘certain topics’; certainly one topic is a discipline and can be changed, the second though is a dogma and must be believed).

No I am not extrapolating. Each person can consider the question in their own experience. It was exposure to a small sample that got me thinking about it. Then thinking back on my time on this and other forums, as well as everyday life with fellow Catholics, led me ask the question. I make no assumption or extrapolation of who or how many this is pertinent for.

"If a Catholic rarely mentions Jesus Christ as their savior so that others may know the only true God and reflect the gospel by their words and daily life, and rarely, if at all, mentions Scripture in sharing or defending their faith, then are they really living their faith? Are they really Catholic? And do they have any right question whether someone else is Catholic?

I ask because several Catholics on this forum have questioned whether I am Catholic, since I disagree with required celibacy for priests, and am uncertain whether it is important to our faith if Mary is or is not a perpetual virgin. Then I realized, I don’t recall any of those who have questioned my faith mentioning Jesus or referring to Sacred Scripture. Often seems more focused on the Church being perfect, whether Protestants can agree on anything, and how awful Luther was. Someone even characterized mentioning Scripture as throwing out a road block. Are many Catholics that uncomfortable with the Church’s Sacred Scripture?"

Perhaps one difficulty the OP has is that he is attempting, not only to compare apples and oranges, but is also insisting that others strictly conform to “HIS” interpretation of what HE thinks ‘questioning’ means

I asked a question, and mentioned what caused me to think about the question. Where in the OP am I insisting that others conform to my interpretation and what I think questioning means? I asked the question in relationship to what the Catechism states.

. . . while in his stead, he ignores the obvious fact that others have THEIR interpretations of what is meant by "questioning’ and that, particularly among Catholics in a Catholic forum, their interpretation is certainly worthy of consideration.
You get that from the OP? Or bringing in bias that need not enter this discussion?

Meaning, as another poster noted, a ‘thin skinned’ interpretation that others are unfairly attacking,
No thin skin here, never said anything was unfair. That others questioned whether I am Catholic is plainly seen in the words they posted. What are your thoughts on the OP question? Not why you think the question was asked, the actual question.
or (worse yet) are attempting to argue in a 'wrong" (i.e., what the OP CONSIDERS 'unScriptural) way, and are not as 'Scripturally literate" as he would have them be, is perhaps the real root of this problem which, quite possibly, is not in actuality a problem of the ‘other posters’ but of the OP.
I don’t really care have Scripturally literate others are, let’s not read into the OP question more than is there. You think I have a problem because I ask is how often we mention Jesus and how Scripturally literate we are conveys anything about our Catholic faith?

I do not know and I cannot judge heart or soul, but it does seem to me that for a poster to be ‘on the offensive’ and to make such a blanket generalization of CONDEMNATION for fellow Catholics says more about that poster’s POV and state of mind.
Now, now, please read the original post again. I did not make a blanket generalization of condemnation for fellow Catholics. I said, if, not knowing who or how many the question applies to, nor do I care to know who, that’s not for me to know. Just a question, not a generalization.
For after all, only he knows HIS heart-he cannot really know those others whom he castigates as 'Scriptural illterates", correct?
Yes I only know my heart. It was a question, not a castigation. Do you think some Catholics are Scriptural illiterates? Isn’t that a goal the St Paul Center and Scott Hahn have a a mission to address? Is Scott thus condemning and castigating? Why are some so offended by the question of the OP?
Click to expand...
 
dotsonjo said:
it is clear that we believe the same things so why not just drop the lables of who is Catholic and this and that…

Your first statement I must disagree with when you say that… This is not true …
Click to expand...
Your second statement disproves your first statement. Thanks for cutting to the heart of it so quickly for us.

We are Catholic because we believe Catholic doctrine. You are Lutheran because you believe Lutheran doctrines.
 
Palladio said:
This is strange: I am betting that you are not Catholic, despite what you claim.

If you don’t like the example of how people learn from textbooks and experience in other fields of study and vocation such as medicine, as analogous to Scripture and experience (Church, everyday life events and experience) for our Catholic faith: no problem. Not all will agree or understand the analogy. Never said it was a perfect analogy.
What is concerning is that from that you would bet I’m not Catholic, calling the witness of my own words into question. If that’s what you’d like do to instead of address the O.P., that is your choice

In no way is the RCC like medical school.

It was an analogy. Believe it or not, there are can be similarities in the way people learn fields of study and practice their vocations, and the way people learn their faith and practice the Catholic vocation.

I will also bet you are not a doctor.

Irrelvant whether I am or am not.

Tell me why I find your entire op and replies in light of the sacraments completely unconvincing and you might convince me you are Catholic.

My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that you have extrapolated more into the O.P. and what I’ve asked and said, than was actually said. Either way, its not really important that I convince you whether or not I am Catholic. If you followed me around for a few days, you might have a better idea of whether or not I am Catholic.

If you are 21 or younger, don’t reply.
Oh to be 21 again, that would be nice. Though I doubt you meant that as a complement. 🙂
Click to expand...
 
dotsonjo said:
I am very new to the thread thing…so what does OP mean?
Click to expand...
In summary, if we claim to be Catholic, and especially if we find ourselves tempted to view someone else as not Catholic, can we actually claim to be Catholic if mentioning Jesus and knowing and referring to Scriptures is peripheral to our everyday lives and conversations?

Just as the saying goes, you can tell something about what is important to a person by their checkbook, you can tell what is important to a person by their words and actions. If mentioning Jesus and Scriptures takes a back seat to knowing history, or sports, or music, etc… then are we more historian, or athlete, or musician, than we are Catholic? Same could be asked of Protestants. Some Protestants are Scripture illiterate. (Others please note, this is not a generalization of all Protestants, or denigrating them, as just as there a Catholics who are Scripturally literate and freely mention Jesus when the occasion is appropriate, there are Protestants who do the same as well.

Michael
 
Mt_28_19_20 said:
Excellent! I’ll keep an eye out for it, perhaps it’s more evident and just hasn’t caught my attention. Actually thought there’d be a bit more of it in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=180005

God bless,

Michael
Click to expand...
Hi Michael,

I think that thread is a strange one to point out regarding Scripture.

What’s a compassionate response to a non-remorseful, “Well, I had an abortion…”?

I may use Scripture and the Catechism to support an argument about the sinfulness of abortion, but it wouldn’t be my first “compassionate” response to a woman who has had one (even a non-remorseful woman).

Pax,
Robert
 
dotsonjo said:
  1. Your first statement I must disagree with when you say that GOD desires all men to be saved or achieve salvation. This is not true for that is the very reason CHRIST spoke in parables and why GOD hardens the hearts of men. (Romans 9:14-30) (John 12:37-41) (Mark 4:10) or even search the Doctrine of Elect!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your thoughtful and kind reply.

Actually that statement is from the beginning of the Catechism, and is referenced to 1 Tim 2:3-4. “This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

So, even if we disagree, we can see the Scriptural basis for the Church teaching, and disagree on interpretation. As an aside, most of my Protestant friends are less anti-Catholic and more respectful of the Catholic faith because I refer to relevant Scripture. If I used Scripture rarely, and merely said “well the Church teaches that with the guidance of the Holy Spirit”, they may have more reason to doubt any Scriptural basis.

God bless,

Michael
 
rlg94086 said:
What’s a compassionate response to a non-remorseful, “Well, I had an abortion…”?
Click to expand...
If I am not going to see the woman again, I would simply and gently say that there is counselling available usually through the Church for those suffering from the aftereffects of abortion and to have regular checkups for breast cancer.

If I am going to see the woman again, then I would simply make myself available to her in a friendly way. We wouldn’t necessarily have to take about abortion or even religion. And just let her ask questions from time to time.
 
rlg94086 said:
Hi Michael,

I think that thread is a strange one to point out regarding Scripture.

What’s a compassionate response to a non-remorseful, “Well, I had an abortion…”?

I may use Scripture and the Catechism to support an argument about the sinfulness of abortion, but it wouldn’t be my first “compassionate” response to a woman who has had one (even a non-remorseful woman).

Pax,
Robert
Click to expand...
Hello Robert,
Code: 
 True, it is difficult to know how to respond, and know what is kind and gentle. That said, one can share the gospel with Scripture in a compassionate way. After all, what is more merciful and compassionate than the message of the gospel? In that situation, I might try to "break the ice" by admitting some of my past sins, and how painful they were to acknowledge, and what relief and joy there was in accepting God's mercy and forgiveness. Mentioning how humbling it still is every time I go to confession to ask God for forgiveness for my sins and failings. Referring the the Scriptures can also help someone see that it is not just my opinion,  that it applies to all, and John 3 clearly shows them God's mercy and the central role of Jesus Christ in our salvation. Many different ways, and the Holy Spirit surely works differently in different people. And not everyone will believe the gospel message. I've found it doesn't really matter how perfectly or imperfectly the message is shared, none of us are going to know the perfect words to say, what matters most is whether the person can sense that we actually do care about them, and are not being judgemental.
Now this is a side question not intended for you. I wonder how many people here have actually shared the gospel with someone, a family member or friend? Regardless of whether the message was received favorably or not, how often do we look for opportunities to share our faith, and then act on those opportunities?

Peace,

Michael
 
Ani_Ibi said:
I think many of us would be more disposed to spending time on these ‘questions’ if mt would spend less time descending to the level of namecalling. And by namecalling, I am not referring to the quaint turn of phrase ‘scriptural illiterate.’

🤷
Click to expand...
Excuse me Ani Ibi, please refer me to where you see me name calling in this thread. We can disagree about the other thread from yesterday. I did not intend to name call, so if you point it out in this thread, I can either see where you may have gotten that impression, or be able to clarity. Thank you for your consideration.

Michael
 
And if pop-evangelicals are so versed in Scripture, why do they mention the same half-dozen or so verses all the time?

Why do they use such UNBiblical formulas as “accept Christ” and “personal Savior”?
 
40.png
Mt_28_19_20:
???

If you are a Catholic, I will eat my hat–no, two hats.

If you are going to bait Catholics, at least practice on some high C of Eers first.

Yikes!
 
I guess another tangent to go off on in this question is, “Were Catholics during most of the history of the church really Catholic or Scripturally illeterate?”

The answer is, they were, by and large, COMPLETELY ILLITERATE, yet still quite Catholic. However, then, as now, they were not scripturally illiterate because they couldn’t read…they knew the “golden rule” and the story of the Good Samaratin…this is one reason why the proponents of Sola Scriptura are so far off the mark…as Christianity spread, it was spread by word of mouth, most people were illiterate. Even after the bible came into existence, they were still hearing by word of mouth…so, just because it’s not common (though becoming more so) for Catholics to run around spouting Chapter and Verse doesn’t mean they don’t know the heart of the Christ message.
 
Literacy was restricted, highly, up through the Renaissance, so for the first fourteen or fifteen hundred years of the RCC, no such question could have arisen for the laity.

But for sure the author of the op is not Catholic: “share the gospel.”

What a nutter.
 
40.png
Yerusalyim:
I guess another tangent to go off on in this question is, “Were Catholics during most of the history of the church really Catholic or Scripturally illeterate?” The answer is, they were, by and large, COMPLETELY ILLITERATE, yet still quite Catholic.
Click to expand...
Until the Reformation over 90% of the Church was illiterate.

But folks could still read them the Bible, no? Yes, priests read from the Bible at Mass.

As for other people reading for the illiterate, no. Why?

Because Bibles were hand printed; they were more precious than gold. Most folks could never afford them. That’s why they were chained to pulpits by Catholic and Reformer alike to prevent theft.

Also most folks worked from dawn to dusk. They didn’t have time to sit still for a Bible reading and ponder the words at length.

How did folks learn about the Christian faith? Mass, Sacred Art, Sacred Music, Sacred theatre. Well, I can hear the objections already that the Mass was said in Latin and not the vernacular.

Latin was the lingua franca for all those centuries. Although the common folk did not know Latin well enough to write theological papers on the Bible, they knew it well enough to follow the Mass and to get the general drift of what was happening.

How did they have this level of proficiency in Latin? Buying and selling at the market place when foreign merchants came in.

Folks claiming that they are Catholic should really know the history of their own Church and what their own Church actually teaches.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top