Catholic Cheat Sheet

[rcjones]

Hi, I have been around CAF for a while and usually hang out in Apologetics/Scriptures.

Several years ago I was actively looking for answers from Catholics RC and EO which I was unable to get by visiting local churches, and so I came here.

Although I am not Catholic, I am not anti-Catholic. I appreciate the writings of some of the early church Fathers, etc.

I am an active evangelist in Utah and have been for 30 years, though I do engineering stuff to pay the bills. I also teach other Christians how to do evangelism. The Catholic Cheat sheet caught my attention.

I would be happy to give you feedback. I hesitate to offer because in these forums there is often a dogpile effect, where alot of people try to talk with one person and it is difficult to follow.

Why would I want to help? Anyone who preaches Christ is a friend of mine. I would rather speak of Christ than watch television, and in CAF, I am given a view that I haven’t considered.

With the cheat sheet I noticed that some of the issues appear to be strawmen, that is they shoot at an imagined target. If you understand why they are off the mark, then better dialog can occur.

Though Baptists have a reputation for ‘speaking Bible’, the vast majority can only parrot their versions of the Catholic Cheat Sheet’ and their actual knowledge of the Bible is thin. Most converts to Mormonism come out of Baptist churches.

Most Mormons also have their Cheat Sheet which they parrot rather than actually study the Bible.

I will apologize in advance. I do get a bit snippy when I am accused of believing something based on inferences. It is very tiring to have to deny accusations. I am happy to try to state clearly and in detail what I believe and why I believe it so that manipulative techniques aren’t necessary.

I am using the Cheat Sheet from here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WALLET.HTM

The first topic is Sola Scriptura. When people throw their cheat sheets back and forth at each other no real dialog takes place.

At the cheat sheet level Catholics claim that the church gave us the Bible and that should be sufficient evidence that tradition is required.
The typical Protestant cheat sheet responds that God had ordained the apostles to write their books, and he protected his Word in those books so that they could be collected together. At that time, the books which were traditionally used by the church were canonized.

At this level of conversation, I find both arguments unconvincing.
First, I would say that the Jews gave us the Bible and the Gospel writers gave us a commentary on how Jesus fulfilled the scriptures. As the apostles taught in the church, the core of their teachings of Christ were captured in the Gospels. As they interacted with the church, their teachings concerning practice were captured in their letters. When they had passed away it became beneficial to collect a standard set of documents which were recognized by the church to be authentic.

You see why the claim that the church gave us the Bible is a little thin from my perspective. It doesn’t really address the first two points that the Jews gave us scripture, which all the teachings of Jesus and the apostles had to conform to in order to be accepted by the first Jewish church of Jerusalem. The Bereans checked the scriptures they had (the Old Testament) to see if the teachings of the apostles were true. If the apostles had new teachings, the Bereans could not check them against the Old Testament.

So even as I read the New Testament, I am always checking it against the Old Testament as the Bereans would have. This is where I differ from most Protestants who give lip service to the Old Testament “containing Christ” but in practice treat the New Testament as completely new revelation.

Now true Protestants (I am not a Protestant) who use their Cheat sheets, rather than give it due consideration are vulnerable to arguments that there would not be a Bible without the church since they must accept that the church was true up until the Reformation. Those who are well studied know that the claim for sola scriptura does not negate the benefit or even the need for tradition, but that tradition must be tested by the scripture. So simply showing scriptures that mention tradition are not effective arguments for them.

Restorationists have a different vulnerability. They must claim that the church was not true at the time the canon was formed. They do this by way of the Invisible church. To them the church is not an earthly organization, but it has always been invisible. So the members of the councils were members of an invisible church even while being members of an earthly church. The vulnerability for many of them is that they have made their earthly churches to be ‘true churches’ and you must be a member of many of them in order to be saved.

I personally subscribe the the idea that the church is invisible. This is one of the reasons that I started investigating Catholicism, because I recognize that in reading scripture, often you can only discern what you are familiar with. I can see Christ throughout the Old Testament because I am familiar with him. But I was not familiar with Catholicism. So on my own, if it was in the Bible, I would not be able to see it.
I believe that the canon was able to be formed because God accomplishes his spiritual will through men working in the flesh.

So you can see that there are several targets rather than a single target.

I am happy to dialog and help you better target your arguments.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Hi, I have been around CAF for a while and usually hang out in Apologetics/Scriptures.

Several years ago I was actively looking for answers from Catholics RC and EO which I was unable to get by visiting local churches, and so I came here.

Although I am not Catholic, I am not anti-Catholic. I appreciate the writings of some of the early church Fathers, etc.

I am an active evangelist in Utah and have been for 30 years, though I do engineering stuff to pay the bills. I also teach other Christians how to do evangelism. The Catholic Cheat sheet caught my attention.

I would be happy to give you feedback. I hesitate to offer because in these forums there is often a dogpile effect, where alot of people try to talk with one person and it is difficult to follow.

Why would I want to help? Anyone who preaches Christ is a friend of mine. I would rather speak of Christ than watch television, and in CAF, I am given a view that I haven’t considered.

With the cheat sheet I noticed that some of the issues appear to be strawmen, that is they shoot at an imagined target. If you understand why they are off the mark, then better dialog can occur.

Though Baptists have a reputation for ‘speaking to The Bible’,
Most Mormons also have their Cheat Sheet which they parrot rather than actually study the Bible.

I do get a bit snippy when I am accused of believing something based on inferences. It is very tiring to have to deny accusations. I am happy to try to state clearly and in detail what I believe and why I believe it so that manipulative techniques aren’t necessary.

I am using the Cheat Sheet from here: ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/WALLET.HTM

The first topic is Sola Scriptura. When people throw at each other no real dialog takes place.

Catholics claim? that the church gave us the Bible and that should be sufficient evidence that tradition is required.?
The typical Protestant cheat sheet responds that God had ordained the apostles to write their books, and he protected His Wordbeneficial to collect a standard set of documents which were recognized by the church to be authentic

You see why the claim that the church gave us the Bible is a little thin from my perspective. It doesn’t really address the first two points that the Jews gave us scripture, which all the teachings of Jesus and the apostles had to conform to in order to be accepted by the first Jewish church of Jerusalem. The Bereans checked the scriptures they had (the Old Testament) to see if the teachings of the apostles were true. If the apostles had new teachings, the Bereans could not check them against the Old Testament.

So even as I read the New Testament, I am always checking it against the Old Testament as the Bereans would have. This is where I differ from most Protestants who give lip service to the Old Testament “containing Christ” but in practice treat the New Testament as completely new revelation.

Now true Protestants (I am not a Protestant) who use their Cheat sheets, rather than give it due consideration are vulnerable to arguments that there would not be a Bible without the church since they must accept that the church was true up until the Reformation. Those who are well studied know that the claim for sola scriptura does not negate the benefit or even the need for tradition, but that tradition must be tested by the scripture. So simply showing scriptures that mention tradition are not effective arguments for them.

Restorationists have a different vulnerability. They must claim that the church was not true at the time the canon was formed. They do this by way of the Invisible church. To them the church is not an earthly organization, but it has always been invisible. So the members of the councils were members of an invisible church even while being members of an earthly church. The vulnerability for many of them is that they have made their earthly churches to be ‘true churches’ and you must be a member of many of them in order to be saved.

I personally subscribe the the idea that the church is invisible. This is one of the reasons that I started investigating Catholicism, because I recognize that in reading scripture, often you can only discern what you are familiar with. I can see Christ throughout the Old Testament because I am familiar with him. But I was not familiar with Catholicism. So on my own, if it was in the Bible, I would not be able to see it.
I believe that the canon was able to be formed because God accomplishes his spiritual will through men working in the flesh.

So you can see that there are several targets rather than a single target.

I am happy to dialog and help you better target your arguments.

Jesus the Christ said He did found a church why do you think the church is in you’re words “I personally subscribe the the idea that the church is invisible. This is one of the reasons that I started investigating Catholicism, because I recognize that in reading scripture, often you can only discern what you are familiar with”?

David had a person whom he gave the keys of the city (yes, King David is a man and he probably knew what a city is) in you’re opinion why did You’re Lord say He gave the keys to Peter?

Hope this helps you sir(?)

Shalom
God bless you in you’re travels towards you’re Hope in Him.

 

[rcjones]

Jesus the Christ said He did found a church why do you think the church is in you’re words “I personally subscribe the the idea that the church is invisible. This is one of the reasons that I started investigating Catholicism, because I recognize that in reading scripture, often you can only discern what you are familiar with”?

David had a person whom he gave the keys of the city (yes, King David is a man and he probably knew what a city is) in you’re opinion why did You’re Lord say He gave the keys to Peter?

Hope this helps you sir(?)

Shalom
God bless you in you’re travels towards you’re Hope in Him.

Thanks for asking. If he founded an organization which owns property, has huge bank accounts, etc. How would I go about finding out which one it was?
But more fundamentally:

1. he said his kingdom was not of this earth, so why would a church need property?
2. You can’ serve God and mammon (so I would expect the church to do better than anything else at resisting mammon)
3. I have not found a church which has distinguished itself from other man-made organizations
4. I have found people in various churches who appear to be saved, having lives that have been transformed, and the best explanation so far for this is that they are all in an invisible church which transcends the boundaries of organizations.

I know to you it should be obvious. But from someone who is not where you are, it is not. The Catholic church is just one of many options to me.

Concerning David I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that when Jesus gave keys to Peter that there existed a physical church building somewhere that the keys fit?

Thanks.

 

[rcjones]

Thanks for asking. If he founded an organization which owns property, has huge bank accounts, etc. How would I go about finding out which one it was?
But more fundamentally:

1. he said his kingdom was not of this earth, so why would a church need property?
2. You can’ serve God and mammon (so I would expect the church to do better than anything else at resisting mammon)
3. I have not found a church which has distinguished itself from other man-made organizations
4. I have found people in various churches who appear to be saved, having lives that have been transformed, and the best explanation so far for this is that they are all in an invisible church which transcends the boundaries of organizations.

I know to you it should be obvious. But from someone who is not where you are, it is not. The Catholic church is just one of many options to me.

Concerning David I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that when Jesus gave keys to Peter that there existed a physical church building somewhere that the keys fit?

Thanks.

I have said that I will be as candid as I am able.

1. I understand the convenience of buildings etc. But as I see the primary goal in this life is to attain a focus on the next by putting off the flesh and earthly attachments. I am not sure how the church’s example concerning a physical church building and property helps me do that.
2. The apostles modeled lives which resisted mammon and sealed their testimonies with martyrdom. I don’t see that in the church leadership today. (In any church).
3. The primary distinguishing mark of the true church, I expect, is to be able to teach Christ from the Old Testament such that everything Jesus did can be validated by prophecy as the Bereans did.

These are not particular criticisms, but expectations as I ‘shop’ for a church. If I were to be evangelized, these are the primary ‘gut level’ barriers that would have to be overcome. I am not sure that these objection can be overcome through intellectual exercises or debate.

Thanks.

 

[aragonjohn1]

Thanks for asking. If he founded an organization which owns property, has huge bank accounts, etc. How would I go about finding out which one it was?
But more fundamentally:

1. he said his kingdom was not of this earth, so why would a church need property?
2. You can’ serve God and mammon (so I would expect the church to do better than anything else at resisting mammon)
3. I have not found a church which has distinguished itself from other man-made organizations
4. I have found people in various churches who appear to be saved, having lives that have been transformed, and the best explanation so far for this is that they are all in an invisible church which transcends the boundaries of organizations.

I know to you it should be obvious. But from someone who is not where you are, it is not. The Catholic church is just one of many options to me.

Concerning David I am not sure what you are suggesting. Are you suggesting that when Jesus gave keys to Peter that there existed a physical church building somewhere that the keys fit?

Thanks.

Jesus is a Jew so is David.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I have said that I will be as candid as I am able.

1. I understand the convenience of buildings etc. But as I see the primary goal in this life is to attain a focus on the next by putting off the flesh and earthly attachments. I am not sure how the church’s example concerning a physical church building and property helps me do that.
2. The apostles modeled lives which resisted mammon and sealed their testimonies with martyrdom. I don’t see that in the church leadership today. (In any church).
3. The primary distinguishing mark of the true church, I expect, is to be able to teach Christ from the Old Testament such that everything Jesus did can be validated by prophecy as the Bereans did.

These are not particular criticisms, but expectations as I ‘shop’ for a church. If I were to be evangelized, these are the primary ‘gut level’ barriers that would have to be overcome. I am not sure that these objection can be overcome through intellectual exercises or debate.

Thanks.

But, God created the earth for people did he not?

Shalom
God bless You

 

[skeyes]

I have said that I will be as candid as I am able.

1. I understand the convenience of buildings etc. But as I see the primary goal in this life is to attain a focus on the next by putting off the flesh and earthly attachments. I am not sure how the church’s example concerning a physical church building and property helps me do that.
2. The apostles modeled lives which resisted mammon and sealed their testimonies with martyrdom. I don’t see that in the church leadership today. (In any church).
3. The primary distinguishing mark of the true church, I expect, is to be able to teach Christ from the Old Testament such that everything Jesus did can be validated by prophecy as the Bereans did.

These are not particular criticisms, but expectations as I ‘shop’ for a church. If I were to be evangelized, these are the primary ‘gut level’ barriers that would have to be overcome. I am not sure that these objection can be overcome through intellectual exercises or debate.

Thanks.

As I was reading your first point, I realized that I had a different goal for this life than you do. Namely, to be a member of the “Kingdom of God”. The Baltimore Catechism says it this way, “to know, love and serve God and to be with him for eternity”. It is not about preparing for the future in my mind so much as it is about participating in the Kingdom now.

Concerning your second point, I read articles very often about Priest and laymen and women who give their lives for God. I vividly remember Pope John Paul II being shot. But more importantly I remember Pope John Paul II visiting his wouldbe killer in prison and praying with the man. Big church buildings are there because people choose to honor God by making the place for Liturgy beautiful. That is not mammon, that is a sacrificial gift given by someone to build a place of worship and adoration.

In my mind the distinguishing mark of the Church is that it is visible. To me that would be necessary to carry out the mission of making disciples of all the world.

Just a few thoughts I had when I read your post.

Stan