Condemnation of fellow Christians

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

I can’t help but to mention this, as an outsider it all seems somewhat odd too me. Since my interaction with folks here, I have heard alot about the infailibily of the pope. However based on some of the stuff I have being seeing, i get that folks will disagree with the infallibility of a later pope in order to hang on to the infalliblity of an earlier pope? Maybe I am just missunderstanding, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Phil:

The first thing is that the Infallability of the Pope is a very narrowly defined doctrine. Did you know that only one Pope has ever involked it? And that was in declaring the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Vatican II changed the relationship of the pope to the various Bishops of the Church and their National Councils, so that those Bishops and National Councils now have more autonomy than they had before Vatican I, and maybe even Trent. Most of the complaints (e.g., the Novus Ordo Mass in vernacular) are about things done by these Bishops and National Councils, often contrary to the Pope’s “suggestions”.

Then, you have some who are “Old Catholics” in the mold of Cardinal Leffevre (spelling?) who believe that the Pope’s “Seat” is not “Vacant”, and that Pope John Paul II is not the rightful Pope. I understand them, but I don’t agree with them.

Regarding the Catechism; it must be regarded as accurately representing the Catholic Faith unless it directly contradicts a clear teaching of Scripture or of an Ecumentical Council. I’ve not heard anyone quote Sacred Scripture or a Council document in context which directly contradicts the Catechism. What I have seen is that most “Liberals” avoid using it because it describes the Faith too plainly and completely.

It is my belief that more people will be brought into the Church by our love for each other, for our fellow Christians undergoing persecution in the World today and for the people in our communities, than they will through any dogmatic proclaimation that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church as instituted by Christ.

I believe your questions are of the type best answered by prayer in front of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. You may want to see if your local parish priest would allow you to spend some time there.

In Him, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

Michael,

Thanks for the brief history on the infallibility of the pope.
It is my belief that more people will be brought into the Church by our love for each other, for our fellow Christians undergoing persecution in the World today and for the people in our communities, than they will through any dogmatic proclaimation that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church as instituted by Christ.
<<

Although I will give catholic dogma a good look, I mean specifically those things which I do not believe are as clear in scripture as has been stated to me, yet I have to comment on your assertion of Love.

Your mention of our love for one another is one dogma that I will never be able to deny. And I agree with your pragmatic angle that love gets results. BTW I use the word with the qualification that I mean God’s love as clearly described by John. Love is the uniting doctrine that transcends all doctrines for only by having Christ can we have True Love and the only way that doctrine can be truly taught is if we like Christ lay down our lives for one another as he did for us. That is the true expression of the doctrine of love. And if you have Love then I can be sure that you also have Christ and thus Life.

Peace,
Jeff

 

[Traditional_Ang]

jphilapy:

I don’t pray the rosary because I’m not RC.
What I want to know is why catholics want to replace that fact by saying Christ turns into the bread and wine?
Jeff

Jeff:

I’m not Roman Catholic either - That doesn’t stop me from receiving the comfort of the Rosary. Why are you afraid to talk to Jesus’ mother?

We aren’t saying that Jesus becomes the bread and the wine. We’re saying that Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, makes the Bread and the wine into His Body and Blood. It’s not Jesus who is changed, but the Bread and the Wine that are changed.

That’s the clear meaning of several Scriptures in context, and this is what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church taught from the time of the Apostles through the first Schisms. Even Martin Luther, the “Father of Protestanism”, believed that the Bread and Wine became the Body and Blood of Our Lord. You can decide to either accept or reject the teaching all these people accepted, but at some point I must suggest you take this issue up with Jesus in prayer.

Please read the Gospel of John 6: 32-66. Why did so many of those disciples leave if he wasn’t telling them to EAT his Flesh and DRINK his Blood? The Church has always interpreted this plainly, and never “Spiritually” for 2,000 years, except for Protestants in the last 3 Centuries. Who is right, the Protestants, who have no Teaching Authority? Or the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which discerned which books belonged in the New Testament we’ve been quoting?

In Him, Michael

 

[jphilapy]

These Quotes are from Clement of Alexandria regarding the flesh and blood of Christ:

‘Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: Eat my flesh and drink my blood," describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith.’

‘He says, “Eat my flesh and drink my blood.” Such is suitable food that the Lord ministers… The flesh figuratively represents to us the Holy Spirit; for the flesh was created by Him. The blood indicates to us the Word, for as rich blood the Word has been infused into life.’

‘To Christ, the fulfilling of His Father’s will was food. And to us infants, who drink the milk of the Word of the heavens, Christ Himself is food… But He said, “And the bread that I will give is My Flesh.” Now, flesh is moistened with blood, and blood is figuratively called wine.’

Those are quotes from Clement of Alexandria where he refers to the Jesus words about the flesh and blood as being symbols and metaphors.

Clement of Alexandria is an Early Church Father from about 195 ad.
Jeff

 

[TheGarg]

uniChristian:

Jimmy I am a Cradle Catholic and I can read what the word anathema means! Webster’s on line of anathema "Etymology: Late Latin anathemat-, anathema, from Greek, thing devoted to evil, curse, from anatithenai

1 a: one that is cursed by ecclesiastical authority b: someone or something intensely disliked or loathed – usually used as a predicate nominative <this notion was anathema to most of his countrymen – S. J. Gould>

2 a: a ban or curse solemnly pronounced by ecclesiastical authority and accompanied by excommunication b: the denunciation of something as accursed c: a vigorous denunciation: CURSE"

I’m sure glad this comes from the Romanist church and not God.

The “Romanist Church” as you call it, comes from God, since it was started by The Son of Man, our Lord Jesus Christ. If you want a good idea about who started your church, go to whostartedyourchurch.com.

It is ok to be ignorant, but I believe after some deep study you will find the Catholic Church is the True Church, started by our Lord. See my other post [Good Sites for Protestants and Catholics alike] for some good links of study…

Remember your entire theology [belief system] is derived from the perversions and twists of documents, written by the heretic Martin Luther, like the sola scriptura, the sola fida, and so on, which are abominations. Our Theology (Roman Catholic Church) is based on the Word of God aka (The Bible).

I don’t want to be gruff, but I don’t appreciate your use of the word “Romanist”. I do not worship Rome, I worship Jesus in the Church he started, which is now based in Rome.

God Bless

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

I don’t believe Christ becomes the bread. . . . This is not an issue of having enough faith, this is an issue of mechanics. Jeff

Ah ha. Mechanics. You have put the finger on your “problem.” The Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament – both at the Last Supper and today – is a sacred mystery. “Mechanics” doesn’t begin to cover it. Mechanics is a completely inadequate paradigm by which to approach the glorious mystery of the Presence of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in this Holy Sacrifice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

jphilapy:

I can’t help but to mention this, as an outsider it all seems somewhat odd too me. Since my interaction with folks here, I have heard alot about the infailibily of the pope. However based on some of the stuff I have being seeing, i get that folks will disagree with the infallibility of a later pope in order to hang on to the infalliblity of an earlier pope? Maybe I am just missunderstanding, but please correct me if I am wrong.

Infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (as the Church.)

Some of us will take various documents to butress particular arguments – not all that different from Protestants squabbling about what the Bible means. But the only authoritative interpreter of scripture and tradition is the Church itself – which is why the Catechism is such a valuable document, containing as it does the meaning of various Papal documents, traditions, and scripture.

 

[buffalo]

CatholicCrusade:

Here is the general and specifics of this.

If a person is baptized, he is Catholic, IF he has a valid Baptism, which is possible (but unlikely) outside the Roman Catholic Church.

HOWEVER, if he never elicits an Act of Faith in the Catholic Church (or if he elicits an act of faith contrary to any teaching of the Church) upon having reached the age of use, then he removes himself from the Catholic Church, as he has committed an heretical act, whether or not he does so with culpable or inculpable (“invincible”) ignorance. Either way, he removes himself from the Church.

Can such a person be saved who labours in inculpable ignorance of the Truth, the Catholic Church? No, he cannot, according to Fr. Muller, theologian for the Holy See: (see next post)

Anyone who is validly baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. Now what goes on after that is a different story.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

Ah ha. Mechanics. You have put the finger on your “problem.” The Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament – both at the Last Supper and today – is a sacred mystery. “Mechanics” doesn’t begin to cover it. Mechanics is a completely inadequate paradigm by which to approach the glorious mystery of the Presence of Christ: Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, in this Holy Sacrifice.

Actually you can’t make that argument. The RC says that you have union with Christ when you partake of the Eucharist. That is a mechanic. No matter how much you make it into a mystery, you cannot change that fact. It is simple, Partake of the Eucharist and you have union with Christ. That statement describes how something is done. Hence a mechanic. By faith you receive the Spirit, by faith you are made children of Abraham, by faith you receive the promises. That is also a mechanic.

 

[jphilapy]

vern humphrey:

Infallibility applies only when the Pope is speaking ex cathedra (as the Church.)

Some of us will take various documents to butress particular arguments – not all that different from Protestants squabbling about what the Bible means. But the only authoritative interpreter of scripture and tradition is the Church itself – which is why the Catechism is such a valuable document, containing as it does the meaning of various Papal documents, traditions, and scripture.

So is the catechism the final statement than for clearing up all confusion?

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

The RC says that you have union with Christ when you partake of the Eucharist. That is a mechanic. No matter how much you make it into a mystery, you cannot change that fact. It is simple, Partake of the Eucharist and you have union with Christ. That statement describes how something is done. Hence a mechanic. By faith you receive the Spirit, by faith you are made children of Abraham, by faith you receive the promises. That is also a mechanic.

Trust me, jphilapy. Just “partaking of the Eucarist” mechanically does not nearly BEGIN to describe the faith-banquet of this divine gift. Ditto your contention about Abraham . . . Don’t short-change yourself on this.

 

[JGC]

jphilapy:

So is the catechism the final statement than for clearing up all confusion?

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
FIDEI DEPOSITUM

ON THE PUBLICATION OF THE

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

PREPARED FOLLOWING THE SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL

JOHN PAUL, BISHOP
SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD
FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pt 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.

scborromeo.org/ccc/aposcons.htm

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

So is the catechism the final statement than for clearing up all confusion?

“Final” is probably too strong a word because the Catechism is only about 700 pages long, and many points of doctrine can only be briefly summarized in such a limited format. But generally speaking – certainly for an introduction to Catholic teaching – the Catechism is, indeed, authoritative. For most issues, it does pretty much clear up the confusion. It will certainly not lead you astray.

 

[vern_humphrey]

“Final” is probably too strong a word because the Catechism is only about 700 pages long, and many points of doctrine can only be briefly summarized in such a limited format. But generally speaking – certainly for an introduction to Catholic teaching – the Catechism is, indeed, authoritative. For most issues, it does pretty much clear up the confusion. It will certainly not lead you astray.

I can’t count the times I’ve debated Caholics on this forum and others who wanted to interject something to “prove” the Catechism is wrong.

But you can’t do that. You can go deeper, as you say, but to reject the Catechism is to reject Catholicism.

 

[mercygate]

vern humphrey:

I can’t count the times I’ve debated Caholics on this forum and others who wanted to interject something to “prove” the Catechism is wrong.

But you can’t do that. You can go deeper, as you say, but to reject the Catechism is to reject Catholicism.

:clapping:

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

Trust me, jphilapy. Just “partaking of the Eucarist” mechanically does not nearly BEGIN to describe the faith-banquet of this divine gift. Ditto your contention about Abraham . . . Don’t short-change yourself on this.

The only way I can short change myself is if I rely on something that isn’t true. I’m saying that it is by having faith that we have union with Christ and that is what scripture says.

Explain to me how that is inccorrect and thus shortchanging myself.

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

The only way I can short change myself is if I rely on something that isn’t true. I’m saying that it is by having faith that we have union with Christ and that is what scripture says.

Explain to me how that is inccorrect and thus shortchanging myself.

Jeff

You are correct that faith is the key to union with Christ. Without faith we cannot live in him. From a Catholic point of view, any “shortchanging” would be in limiting one’s “faith” to the affirmation of one’s acceptance of Christ. Faith, for us, is a deep, encompassing life that goes beyond the rational or the merely “spiritual.” In the Catholic view, true faith is profoundly Incarnational by embracing the material world in a transforming way. The very meaning of “life” leaps out of its biological substrate by entering the heart of the living God.

 

[jphilapy]

mercygate:

You are correct that faith is the key to union with Christ. Without faith we cannot live in him. From a Catholic point of view, any “shortchanging” would be in limiting one’s “faith” to the affirmation of one’s acceptance of Christ. Faith, for us, is a deep, encompassing life that goes beyond the rational or the merely “spiritual.” In the Catholic view, true faith is profoundly Incarnational by embracing the material world in a transforming way. The very meaning of “life” leaps out of its biological substrate by entering the heart of the living God.

Ok if You have faith in Him, and you are obeying Him, then aren’t you living in Him? According to the Catholic Church, that isn’t enough. You also have to partake of the Eucharist meal. See that is going beyond the idea that it is by faith. In otherwords it is one thing to say by faith you are filled but it is another thing to say by faith and doing this other thing. I understand that faith is dead without works. But there is a difference between faith that produces works and adding works to your faith. See I received the Holy Spirit because I have faith that produces works, but that is all I need is that faith that produces works. The works verify that I have true faith but they by no means help in getting his life into me.

BTW Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion.

Jeff

 

[mercygate]

jphilapy:

Ok if You have faith in Him, and you are obeying Him, then aren’t you living in Him?

I’ll certainly give you 99 points for the “obeying him” part – starting with things like the moral commandments. But for a Catholic, “obeying him” and “faith in him” also include eating and drinking his Body and Blood *on his terms *as he gives them to us through the Sacraments of his Church. (We take John 6 very seriously.)

It’s a faith thing.

 

[Wil_Peregrin]

Uni, how read you 1 Cor. 10-11?