Credible Catholic Sources

[Mommyof02green]

Do you believe, though, that scripture can not contradict itself?

Yes it cannot countradict itself… everything on a topic has to be taken into account. There are passages in the O.T. that warn people not to add or take away to the word of God.

Yet as Christians we have the N.T. Isn’t that adding on?

Also the word “Bible” itself means a collection of books.

The verses in Rev. just talking about Rev.

Just take example how we are saved…

There are plenty of bible search engines
Just search the N.T. for the word “save” and see what you come up with.

There are verses that say we are saved by baptism.
There are verses that say we are saved by faith.
There are verses that say our deeds save us.
There are verses that say it’s grace that saves us.

There are verses that say if you call on the Lord you will be saved, but at the same time there are verses that say it’s not enough to call Jesus Lord.

It all has to be taken into account.

 

[rr1213]

You mean if I wish to seek Catholic resource I should ask a Protestant and Orthodox? Nuh-Ah. Only Catholic Sources are more reliable when one wants to know what Catholic believe.

Does that mean that if you want to know what a particular Protestant Church teaches that you will accept only sources from that particular Church? Or if you want to understand American history that you will accept only works written by Americans? Or if you want to understand the history of Blacks in America that you’ll only read accounts written by Blacks? Often, the best way to guard against bias is to review accounts written from different perspectives.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does that mean that if you want to know what a particular Protestant Church teaches that you will accept only sources from Church?

If I wanted information about Protestant I would used Protestant sources.

Catholics should look for Catholic sources. That is what I am saying. The thread here is about Catholic Sources and which one is reliable.

Using Protestant Sources to find about Catholicism isn’t accurate. The two have different doctrine belief with the exception of the core belief that Jesus is the Messiah, True God, and True Man.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Does that mean that if you want to know what a particular Protestant Church teaches that you will accept only sources from that particular Church? Or if you want to understand American history that you will accept only works written by Americans? Or if you want to understand the history of Blacks in America that you’ll only read accounts written by Blacks? Often, the best way to guard against bias is to review accounts written from different perspectives.

You can’t parallel the two. Catholic Church claim to be the One True Church of Christ, which I firmly believed as well as all Catholics in this forum.

Most Protestants have no clue what Catholics believe in. Majority of them distort the Truth about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church consider itself, “The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth” What She professes is the Word of God, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and that Jesus established a Church, whom he built upon Peter, and the Apostles. The Apostles in turn pass their authority to their successors.

If the Protestant claims to know Catholic belief and what he say is not in agreement with the Magisterium, he does not know what he is talking about. You cannot play around with the Truth.

The Truth does not contradict itself.

 

[Janet_S]

Ok, what about this website?
christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/catholicism.html

The website above doesn’t accurately represent what the CC teaches. They claim to use the new Catechism (CCC), but the citations they use are few and far between. If they do refer to a part of the CCC, they usually paraphrase it. If you really want to understand Catholicism, read the Catechism yourself. You don’t need this website to translate it for you. You might be surprised, but the Catechism is full of biblical references to support what the Church teaches.

Also, this website has a lot of historical errors regarding the early Church. In the section on sola Scriptura, they claim: “The Early Church clearly understood this (sola Scriptura) and taught it from the beginning of Christianity.” This clearly is not true–it couldn’t have been true. Throughout the 2,000-year history of the Church, most Christians couldn’t read, and the printing press wasn’t invented until 1450 AD. Books had to be hand copied by scribes before this time, and they were very expensive and rare.

I can’t list all the errors presented on this website, the post would be too long. But if you want, I can critique a selected section of this website.

From what I can see, though, this website is the usual anti-Catholic propaganda–they misrepresent what the CC teaches and they don’t understand what the early Church was really like. I wouldn’t waste my time reading this if my purpose was to understand Catholicism. Whoever wrote this clearly doesn’t understand it. Also, I noticed William Webster wrote the section on sola Scripture, and he is a well know anti-Catholic.

 

[rr1213]

You can’t parallel the two. Catholic Church claim to be the One True Church of Christ, which I firmly believed as well as all Catholics in this forum.

Most Protestants have no clue what Catholics believe in. Majority of them distort the Truth about the Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church consider itself, “The Pillar and Bulwark of the Truth” What She professes is the Word of God, the Messiah Jesus Christ, and that Jesus established a Church, whom he built upon Peter, and the Apostles. The Apostles in turn pass their authority to their successors.

If the Protestant claims to know Catholic belief and what he say is not in agreement with the Magisterium, he does not know what he is talking about. You cannot play around with the Truth.

The Truth does not contradict itself.

I really don’t know how to respond to this other than to say that if all you are going to read is Catholic then, of course, you are going to end up with a singular viewpoint because you are excluding everything that is not Catholic. You also are going to miss some very significant and helpful works by people who are not Roman Catholic, such as C.S. Lewis and Bonhoeffer.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I really don’t know how to respond to this other than to say that if all you are going to read is Catholic then, of course, you are going to end up with a singular viewpoint because you are excluding everything that is not Catholic. You also are going to miss some very significant and helpful works by people who are not Roman Catholic, such as C.S. Lewis and Bonhoeffer.

C.S. Lewis is a great Christian Apologist. None of his work seen to be contrary to Catholic teachings. His book “Mere Christianity” is a good book for Christian Apologetics. However, he is not an expert with it comes with Catholic doctrine. He is an Anglican Protestant Christian.

I have no problem with C.S. Lewis. I do have a problem with Non-Catholic Christians who think they know what Catholic believe; but in reality they don’t.

 

[Janet_S]

I really don’t know how to respond to this other than to say that if all you are going to read is Catholic then, of course, you are going to end up with a singular viewpoint because you are excluding everything that is not Catholic. You also are going to miss some very significant and helpful works by people who are not Roman Catholic, such as C.S. Lewis and Bonhoeffer.

I agree with you, it is good to read books and artlcles from different viewpoints.

For example, I know Fr Benedict Groeschel is working on a book about Christian devotion to Jesus Christ from a variety of traditions (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox). I think this is a great project, and I support it. I will probably buy his book when it it published.

However, I think Manny’s point is if you are looking specifically at what the CC teaches, you must go to Catholic sources. For example, if I rely on the following website
christiananswers.net/evangelism/beliefs/catholicism.html
to find out what Catholics believe, I am in trouble.

 

[Mannyfit75]

They are also Anti-Catholic and take many of the writings from the Catechism out of context. The source is not reliable. The only reliable sources are those written by Catholics, Catholic University Professors who have scholarly knowledge about history and doctrines of the Church.

Some will say, I was a Catholic. These Ex-Catholics don’t have much credibility either. Most Catholics who left are purely catechize in the faith, and even if they had the zeal, they left because they simply did not agree with the doctrine of the Church. Ex-Catholics also tend to be extremely Anti-Catholic in there zeal.

correction: purely=poorly catechism

 

[rtconstant]

rr1213, I think that all Manny is saying is that if you want to understand or learn about the Catholic Church go with official Catholic sources. Just like if I wanted to know about the Presbyterian Church of America I’d go with the official works of the PCA.

To me it just makes sense that you’d want to go the source to learn about something. While it is true that I could learn some things about Ireland by studying Scottland, or that I could learn some Spanish by studying Latin wouldn’t it be better and more accurate to study the subject directly? I think that is all Manny is trying to get at.

In general terms of theology then yes one can take their pick of authors from a wide variety of backgrounds and indeed it can be beneficial to do so since you can see different perspectives.

 

[rr1213]

rr1213, I think that all Manny is saying is that if you want to understand or learn about the Catholic Church go with official Catholic sources. Just like if I wanted to know about the Presbyterian Church of America I’d go with the official works of the PCA.

Generally, yes. Still, in either case (Catholic Church or PCA), the sources from the Church are naturally going to reflect the viewpoint and/or bias of that particular Church. Sometimes getting a different viewpoint can lead to a more accurate understanding. No one would suggest that if you wish to truly understand how U.S. government works that you would accept only sources authored and published by the U.S. government. It might also be worth your while to read something written on the subject by an outsider or by a critic.

 

[rtconstant]

A good point. However, if you haven’t already done your research from US sources to understand the mechanics about how our system works then ALL you’re going to get from outside sources is bias. In otherwords you really can’t trust anything from an outside source until you’ve been to the source itself.

At a mechanical level only those within a system can accurately tell what is happening in that system. Others can have opinions on the why’s and where’s but ulitimately can be untrustworthy in terms of operation. So no I wouldn’t completely trust a German book on the workings of the US government until I had seen books on the subject from the US.

Also shouldn’t a Catholic source be biased towards Catholicism? If you looking a group up isn’t that what you want? I know if I want to learn more about a certain group I want to know how they view themselves. This helps one to empathize which leads to better understanding.

An outsider will always have the potential to screw up another group’s beliefs. This is a potential blunder that is easily avoided.

This is all moot anyway. These things don’t become issues until someone says something that is not accurate. If D. James Kennedy states accurately what Catholics believe on something no one is going to protest. However, whenever a protestant says “Hey Catholics worship Mary” and all they have to back themselves up is Chick publications and they didn’t even try to take five minutes to look up what Catholics actually believe about Mary then yes they have been intelectually dishonest and yes they and their sources are wrong.

This is all we’re saying: “Check with us before you by the propaganda.”