Dealing with anti-Catholic stuff.

[Abu]

GodsGrace154 #59
Please check your underlined.
It says CHRISTIAN and NOT CATHOLIC.
That’s because the person replying to a question knows his history.

Then learn the real history from the same source:
Catholic Apologetics Online
416. Your Church has not been known as Catholic since its foundation; and it has never been universal as the word implies.
The word “Catholic” is derived from the Greek, and it means whole, complete, and universal. The word was first applied to the Church to which we Catholics belong by St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died in the year 107 A.D. He used the word to describe the universality of the Church founded by Christ and subject to the Bishop of Rome. And that Church was truly universal in character from the very beginning. She was commissioned by Christ to go to the ends of the earth and to teach all He had revealed to all nations. She was, therefore, Catholic in scope, though it naturally required time to spread to all localities and peoples in actual fact. Again the Church which Christ established was Catholic in time, since it was to last, as one and the same Church, all days till the end of the world. And the Church to which we Catholics belong is **the only Church which has been in the world since the time of Christ. She alone teaches all that Christ taught; she alone gives all the means of salvation and sanctification instituted by Christ; she alone draws her members from all nations without exception, and is alone adapted to the needs of all men independently of their racial and political differences. In a word, she alone is the one true Catholic Church.
**radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Ignatius&db=2

497. You claim that your Church has not only the marks of unity and holiness, but also of Catholicity. What does the word Catholic mean?
It is derived from the Greek language, and means universal and complete. And as Christ told His Apostles to go and teach all nations all His doctrines, the word Catholic is reserved to that Church which alone teaches all Christ’s doctrines to all peoples—the Catholic Church. St. Ignatius of Antioch, about the year 110, first used the word to designate the true Church. He wrote, “Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church.” Donatism broke away from the Church in the 4th century, just as Protestantism in the 16th, and St. Augustine declared that this heresy was cut off from the Catholic Church. In the same 4th century Pacian used the word Catholic as a mark of identification, saying, “Christian is my name, Catholic my surname.” He did not wish to be taken for one of those who protested against the Catholic Church, yet still continued to call themselves Christians.
radioreplies.info/site-search.php?q=Ignatius&db=1
[My emphases in bold].

 

[GodsGrace154]

The thing about history is you can always learn more. Catholics believe that Catholicism is the fullness of Christianity. So are you claiming no Jews became Christians. You might want to check out Acts 11:26 which says they were first called Christians in Antioch. Coincidentally it was the bishop of Antioch who first coined the phrase Catholic Church to describe the Church as a body or as a whole in about AD 110.

All of the above is correct. Except that I’d add that the first Chriistians were first called The Way.
Acts 9:2

Also, we can say that it was probably a derogatory name, meaning Little Christs. The early Christians were much persecuted, as you know.

While many Jews rejected the Messiah in Jerusalem, and were ultimately judged for it in AD 70 with the fall of Jerusalem,( according to Jesus’ prophecy) , there were far more ‘Jews’ that did accept Christianity in the regions surrounding. These were the hellenized Jews who had been dispersed during the Babylonian conquests of Israel and Jerusalem, as well as the pagans, Greeks known as the Godfearers who accepted Judaism as a way of life and were primed for the acceptance of Christianity.

Now, the Pharisees and Jews in Jerusalem did not accept them as true Jews. Thus, they could only be content to accept the ‘scraps that fall from the Masters table’. Now imagine Jesus is preaching the kingdom of God to not only the Jerusalem Jews but also to the surrounding areas. Christianity included not just the privileged few in Jerusalem, but even the gentiles. So much so that Paul writes about it when he says Christ has brought down the dividing wall between Jew and Gentile, creating one new man. With the kingdom open to all people was it any wonder Jesus had more success among the God fearers and hellenized Jews? For they were on the outside of the kingdom, not able to enter. And the Pharisees in Jerusalem made sure they knew they were not welcome.

Again, I agree. Notice that you always used the term “Christian”. I’d also add that the Jew could not accept Jesus easily because by this time they had been steeped in legalism by the Pharisees and no longer sought a Spiritual God.

The apostles were Jews who believed Jesus was the awaited-for Messiah.

Yes. This is a core belief of Catholicism. They were 12 chosen to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. Just as Moses chose 12 to judge his people.
Right again.

The term “catholic” means universal. It was the ONLY church and became called that because of this reason and because it was “worldwide.” As far as the world was known in the years 120 (about) and on.

it’s kind of like calling Peter the first Pope. There was no first Pope called Peter. The first Pope was proclaimed in the 300’s. Now, if you want to go back and say that every BISHOP that led the Christian community should receive the title of Pope, I’m good with that, but let’s at least understand that this is what happened. There was no Pope in the year 37 AD which is about when Christ died.

And I think I should leave here because it’s becoming an US against THEM and that’s not what I’m here for. This is simple history and it’s not to be argued.

We should also consider that the worship was different than it is today. So many layers have been added on. Good layers, but it’s not as simple as it used to be. Sometimes I think that maybe these layers cause a separation between the people and God - other times I think the worship is beautiful and helps to cement our relationship.

Thanks for posting Psalm 55. This is one of the reasons I’m here - so I don’t forget.

GG

 

[SAVINGRACE]

Bestil Andno;13835601:

My goodness Bestil, I think we need to meet!

I said - Everyone who knows Jesus has the full faith.
Some are going to get upset with me and I apologize beforehand but you asked so I’m answering.
The Catholic church is a good church. Just because I don’t agree with all the doctrine does not make it a a bad church. However, it does have this, let’s call it attitude, of believing it’s the One True Church that comes down from Apostolic times (and this is correct) and sometimes people keep hearing this and it goes to their head a little bit.
It has beautiful worship, it has more sacraments than any other church. But it is also lacking in some ways. Teaching, for example - and I think teaching is VERY important to understand your faith.

So, we could say that every church will have its problems. BUT any church that is biblically based and teaches what the Lord taught will be a good church and will have the FULLNESS of the faith because JESUS IS THE FULLNESS of the faith. Not one doctrine over a different doctrine, not because there are more sacraments.

But then we’d have to get into why Catholics believe in the sacraments and it gets too complicated for our discussion here. Quick: They believe God’s grace is received through the sacraments, while other churches believe grace is given direct to us from God.
Sacraments are a VISIBLE sign of God’s grace - and so they like to have a lot of them.
But Jesus is our fullness of faith. Not anything else.

ONE

You keep quoting the Bible which the Catholic Church gave to the world. The Catholic Church chose the books to be included in the Bible. The first mass produced Bibles were handwritten by monks and nuns.

Why would you trust a Catholic book and not the Catholic Church?

Why should we listen to you or your Church? What authority do you or your Church possess? It may sound haughty or even rude but it is an honest question.

We are talking about where our souls will spend eternity. It’s a serious business, why bother listening to and handing over something that important to ourselves or another individual or a pastor who has no history, authority or qualification?

 

[GodsGrace154]

GodsGrace154;13835674:

You keep quoting the Bible which the Catholic Church gave to the world. The Catholic Church chose the books to be included in the Bible. The first mass produced Bibles were handwritten by monks and nuns.

Why would you trust a Catholic book and not the Catholic Church?

Why should we listen to you or your Church? What authority do you or your Church possess? It may sound haughty or even rude but it is an honest question.

We are talking about where our souls will spend eternity. It’s a serious business, why bother listening to and handing over something that important to ourselves or another individual or a pastor who has no history, authority or qualification?

I hope your question is sincere - I hate arguing.

I know the bible comes from the Catholic Church. Did I ever say otherwise?

I don’t believe monks and nuns wrote the first mass-produced because it’s impossible to mass produce bibles by hand. I’d say Tyndale was the first to print bibles - he got burned at the stake for his troubles. I won’t say by which church.

I don’t have a church. The authority I have is my relationship with God. The understanding I have between me and God, as long as it’s found in the bible. Some have strange beliefs. They sit at home and read and come up with their own theories. This is called SOLO Scripture, BTW. I didn’t do that. I’ve been learning for the past 40 years. I’ve studied the bible and do not find in there all the teachings of a particular church - so I’ve had to question them.

I wouldn’t say that Protestantism has no qualified theologians or historians. When I hear a Pastor (or Priest) speak, I make sure he’s telling me the right things - those out of the bible.

Here’s an example:
John 3:1-10
John 3:6

Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus. He’s telling him that he must be born again. Nicodemus asks Jesus how this could be. Can a man enter a second time into his mother’s womb? Jesus tell N. that he must be born of WATER and of SPIRIT (or he cannot enter the kingdom of God).

Now, if you were just reading that, what would you understand?
Jesus tells N. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, that which is born of the spirit is spirit.

So, first one is born of the flesh. From his mother’s womb. He is born of water - amniotic water, or fluid.

THEN he also has to be born of the spirit. Come to know God, be regenerated - however you want to call it.

Makes sense? The above makes sense to me. You’re born of water and then of spirit.

But then Catholic theologians telll me that the water signifies BAPTISM. How could this be? People in the O.T. weren’t baptized and neither were the ones in the N.T. yet. In the O.T. there were ritual washings which foreshadowed baptism, but not baptisms as we understand them.

Plus, doesn’t the water of the amniotic sack make more sense?

So, this is what I mean. I cannot put aside a flagrant contradiction just so as to agree with “my church.”

There are many more passages like the above.

And in the end, God will judge me for what I know.
If it’s so important to care for our souls, don’t you think we should know what we believe or just listen to what people tell us?

GG

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Lenten Ashes,
Only our Father in heaven is good. And I can assure you we agree on all the basics.

Which correct books are you talking about? You mean like McCabees? There are 7 books extra in the Catholic bible. BTW, did you know that ALL Catholics are being told to update their bible if it was translated prior to 2009 (I think). Because the prior from this date were translated from the Latin and the new ones from the Greek, which is the right way since translating from Latin twice removes from the original and much gets lost in translation.

So, I’m not sure what you mean. Do you mean that because 7 books are removed from the Protestant bible, the morals are not being taught? This is not right and I hope you don’t believe this.

My last paragraph means that, ultimately, our doctrine is NOT what is going to save us but our belief in the Lord.

Let’s say you want to believe that Mary was taken bodily into heaven and I don’t believe that. Is this going to cause me to be lost?

That’s all I was saying. I wasn’t saying you could believe whatever you want to - there are standards to being a Christian.

GG

Morning GG

I’ve heard that the older Catholic bibles are not recommended but nothing official on that. If you know more please provide a link or something and I’ll be glad to look at it.

What I am saying is that while God gives us the bible, there was a human process involved, and so you needed a infallible church guided by the Spirit to ensure you have the correct bible. You had something about nothing being perfect in this world, and while there is a degree to truth to that, you need a infallible Church to give you the correct bible and not the other 300+ books floating around from the early Church claiming or implying inspiration.

In regards to the 7 books that were removed by the reformers, I would say that it is, in fact, a big deal as the concept of purgatory is further enhanced in 2nd Macc.

If there are good protestant Christians in purgatory(and I’m 100% convinced there are) then I am also 100% convinced those good protestant Christians are wishing their protestant Christian ministers, family and friends actually believed in it so they could be praying for them right this very minute!

So I know you likely don’t believe in purgatory, but in this hypothetical you can see that if you are wrong theologically there can be very serious consequences. Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, so I want the full picture.

When we say belief in Christ saves us, I think we have to be careful to ensure we are talking about the same Christ. You know Muslims “believe” in Jesus too, but that belief gets them no where.

I can’t speak on hypotheticals (like not believing in assumption) as to whether a person is saved or not as that is left to God alone. I cant even assume I am saved, so I just trust in God and ask for forgiveness for my wickedness, daily.

What I do not understand is why non-Catholic Christians try to divide the Word of God into essential/non essential when they have no scriptural precedent or authority to do so

Thanks for your response and welcome to CAF!!!

Pax

 

[GodsGrace154]

Morning GG

I’ve heard that the older Catholic bibles are not recommended but nothing official on that. If you know more please provide a link or something and I’ll be glad to look at it.

Hi Lenten Ashes
Re the bible recommendation. No link necessary - I get my info from the top. (not the Pope!) you could look it up and confirm, I’m sure. BTW, St Ignatius is one of my favorite - he knew John! Also, just by chance, the new Ignatius Study Bible might just be one of the best. Check it out though.

What I am saying is that while God gives us the bible, there was a human process involved, and so you needed a infallible church guided by the Spirit to ensure you have the correct bible. You had something about nothing being perfect in this world, and while there is a degree to truth to that, you need a infallible Church to give you the correct bible and not the other 300+ books floating around from the early Church claiming or implying inspiration.

In regards to the 7 books that were removed by the reformers, I would say that it is, in fact, a big deal as the concept of purgatory is further enhanced in 2nd Macc.

I agree. I thank the Catholic Church for our bible. And as far as McCabees is concerned - it speaks about the dead and speaking to them and praying for them. i can’t find any other place in the whole bible where this is spoken of. In fact, some Jews didn’t even believe in the afterlife. Like the Sadducees for instance. And when the O.T. spoke of “sleeping” or the dead, it was always in the context that they were not “living.”

If there are good protestant Christians in purgatory(and I’m 100% convinced there are) then I am also 100% convinced those good protestant Christians are wishing their protestant Christian ministers, family and friends actually believed in it so they could be praying for them right this very minute!

So I know you likely don’t believe in purgatory, but in this hypothetical you can see that if you are wrong theologically there can be very serious consequences. Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ, so I want the full picture.

IF purgatory exists, and I doubt it does, eventually all will get out. We don’t even know what it’s really like. A Monsignor near here says it’ll only last a second or two. Also, did you know that kids are more afraid of purgatory than of hell? This is because they feel they won’t go to hell because they won’t be that “bad”, but they think EVERYBODY is going to have to do purgatory time so they think about it a lot. This takes away from the knowledge of the love that God has for them and interferes with getting to know God. IOW, it’s a stumbling block.

As far as consequences, don’t worry. It’s not about ignorance of scripture - it’s about not being able to find purgatory in there. Anyway, I do believe we are saved by Jesus and not any one doctrine.

When we say belief in Christ saves us, I think we have to be careful to ensure we are talking about the same Christ. You know Muslims “believe” in Jesus too, but that belief gets them no where.

Muslims? Ha! The devil believes in Jesus. That won’t get HIM anywhere either.
BTW, I hope you know that Muslims dislike us because we think Jesus is God. They think He was a nice prophet.

I can’t speak on hypotheticals (like not believing in assumption) as to whether a person is saved or not as that is left to God alone. I cant even assume I am saved, so I just trust in God and ask for forgiveness for my wickedness, daily.

It’s not a hypothetical LA. Believing in the Assumption is a dogma. You MUST believe it to be Catholic. Also, I’d like to advise you that if you checked with someone knowledgeable, you’d know that you CAN assume you are saved as long as you’re trusting Jesus at the foot of the cross.
However, yes, you should ask for forgiveness daily. O wretched man that I am…
Romans 7:24

What I do not understand is why non-Catholic Christians try to divide the Word of God into essential/non essential when they have no scriptural precedent or authority to do so

Thanks for your response and welcome to CAF!!!

Pax

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “dividing the Word of God”. ALL of the Word of God is useful, although not all of it is still practicable since Jesus did away with ceremonial and civil Law but retained and fulfilled Moral Law.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

As far as authority, there are many Protestant Theologians. It’s just that you don’t agree with them. They use the bible in a more simple way and use exegesis differently because they don’t try to read anything into the bible. Although, yes, the bible could be used to prove almost anything so it’s necessary to study it with an open heart and a simple mind and a good soul.

Do you know C.S. Lewis? I’ll bet you do. He was Protestant and wrote the best book I ever read that describes Christianity. it’s called Mere Christianity. I recommend it to all.

Thanks for the welcome. I hope I’m not making too much trouble.
And peace to you too dear sister in Christ.

GG

 

[guanophore]

And I can assure you we agree on all the basics.

And what might those be?

Which correct books are you talking about?

Particularly the 27 books added to the scripture by the Catholic Church, which are known collectively as the New Testament.

You mean like McCabees? There are 7 books extra in the Catholic bible.

Actually it would be more accurate to say that protestants removed these books from the scripture, starting with Luther. Up until that time, there were no Bibles in exixtence that did not include these books.

BTW, did you know that ALL Catholics are being told to update their bible if it was translated prior to 2009 (I think).  Because the prior from this date were translated from the Latin and the new ones from the Greek, which is the right way since translating from Latin twice removes from the original and much gets lost in translation.

This is not entirely accurate. Every Catholic Bible translation, as are Protesant Bibles, informed by the scholarship of previous translations. Even Latin Bibles created during the early centuries are based upon the Greek.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Every time new evidence is discovered, the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, that information informs modernn translations.

If you think that the Greek is the bst source (I agree) then your Bible should be one that was translated from the Septuagint, the Bible used by Jesus and the Apostles, and should contain the seven books removed at the Reformation.

 Do you mean that because 7 books are removed from the Protestant bible, the morals are not being taught?  This is not right and I hope you don't believe this.

Part of the reason they were removed was to support the effort to reject Catholic doctrine.

My last paragraph means that, ultimately, our doctrine is NOT what is going to save us but our belief in the Lord.

I agree with you, but even so, we cannot separate Christ from what He taught. Scripture tell us to “teach with right doctrine” so that people can be saved. People in the early church who believed what modern evangelicals do now were called “heretics” by those who recevied the Apostolic faith. That should be a concern for all of us.

Let’s say you want to believe that Mary was taken bodily into heaven and I don’t believe that. Is this going to cause me to be lost?

The Faith is One, GG. It is not our perogative to go through it picking and choosing which parts we want to believe, and which we don’t . That is a practice that will get us lost.

 there are standards to being a Christian.

GG

What are they, and from whence came they?

 

[guanophore]

I said - Everyone who knows Jesus has the full faith.

If this were true, GG, we would not have any divisions/denominations.

No one would need to be taught, either.

Some are going to get upset with me and I apologize beforehand but you asked so I’m answering.
The Catholic church is a good church. Just because I don’t agree with all the doctrine does not make it a a bad church. However, it does have this, let’s call it attitude, of believing it’s the One True Church that comes down from Apostolic times (and this is correct) and sometimes people keep hearing this and it goes to their head a little bit.

This is not something that belongs to the Church, but to the minds of errant members who belong to her. Having the fullness of the Truth is not a cause for arrogance, but humility.

It has beautiful worship, it has more sacraments than any other church. But it is also lacking in some ways. Teaching, for example - and I think teaching is VERY important to understand your faith.]/quote]

We can certainly take some cues from our separated brethren in the areas of study and hospitality.
GodsGrace154;13835674:

So, we could say that every church will have its problems. BUT any church that is biblically based and teaches what the Lord taught will be a good church and will have the FULLNESS of the faith because JESUS IS THE FULLNESS of the faith.

Yes, Jesus is the fullness of the Truth, but not all have that. Bible Christians stand in the tradition of Apollos, full of zeal, but lacking in parts of the Truth. They cannot teach what the Lord taught because they only have portions of it. This is true for any “bible based” Church. You see, the Church was never intended to be based on the Bible. The bible was never intended to be a full compendium of the faith. Jesus taught the fullness to people, and founded His One Church upon those people. Narrowing the Truth to what is in Scripture only eliminates many things.

Denominations are distinguished by how much, and which parts of the Catholic faith they deny/reject, so by definition, none of the denominations have the fullness of Truth.

But then we’d have to get into why Catholics believe in the sacraments and it gets too complicated for our discussion here. Quick: They believe God’s grace is received through the sacraments, while other churches believe grace is given direct to us from God.

The sacraments are where we receive grace direct from God. They are an encounter with HIm.

Sacraments are a VISIBLE sign of God’s grace - and so they like to have a lot of them.

LOL. I needed a good chortle.

But Jesus is our fullness of faith. Not anything else.

The sacraments dont’ “replace” Jesus, they facilitate an encounter with Him. Anyway, Jesus is not described anywhere in Scripture as a fullness of faith, so I am not sure where you are getting that. He is described as the fullness of God’s revelation of Himself to mankind. Since denominations each reject parts of that fullness, then there are deficiences - the further one gets from Catholic faith, the more deficiencies. A bible based church is a deficiency because the Church was not intended to come out of the Scirpture, but out of the person of Christ. Not all of what He did and taught is found in Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

You have to do some work Bestil. You have to read the whole N.T. You have to know what Jesus wants from you. You have to know when you’re sitting in a church whether or not they are teaching the truth. Not every church does. I can say that although I don’t agree with all of Catholic doctrine, you could feel safe there. There are churches that teach weird things and you would not be safe.

A discernment must be made. You must be knowledgeable. This is why I stress learning a lot. We must KNOW what God wants from US. He is a personal and individual God. He has something different for each one of us. You must read your bible and not depend on this forum where I see much love for God but also much legalism that could damage you.

This seems quite subjective GG. It seems like the discernment is through one’s own study. Read the NT and determine for oneself if what is being taught is accurate? This seems to place a great burden on the neophyte. It also does not seem consistent with the biblical record, which was to cleave to the Apostolic teaching.

Let’s watch those “c’s”. Here in your question you mean “church.”

For Catholics, Church is used only for that which holds the four marks of the Church, handed down from the aposltes. The small c is often used to denote ecclesial communities that are lacking the marks.

The truth matters. Jesus church will have the right answer to that. But churches see the right answer as being a little differently. It takes study to get to where you want to go.

Yes, I agree it takes study,and everyone is called to study their faith diligently. But the Apostolic faith does not leave any room for 'doctrinal distinctives" and answering “a little bit differently”. And what about those that Jesus put in custody of the faith? Where do they figure in this search?

All churches do not teach the same things about everything. For example, baptism in the Catholic Church is different from the teaching of every other Christian church. In Catholicism baptism is a starting point - in other churches it’s the culmination of a process.

There are some Protestant Churches that have retained the Apostolic teaching on baptism. But the two are not mutually exlusive. Of course baptism is a culmination of a process, especially for adults, but that does not mean it is not also a starting point. I think you can read this in the book of Acts. It is the entrance rite into the Church.

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Acts 2:42

These are aspects of faith formation, GG. They both precede and follow baptism. No doubt you are holding a definition of baptism that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

We need the bible here too. You need to decide which way makes more sense to you since one way is more biblical and I won’t say which here.

You have already said it, without saying it, have you not?

It’s ok. We get a lot of that around here.

Jesus didn’t do a bad job. He made everything simple. Man makes everything difficult and complicated.

If everything were so simple, then Jesus would not have needed to leave people in charge of His Church. He knows how people are, that is why He appointed authority.

Some churches will take one or a few verses out of the bible and make a whole doctrine out of it. Actually, every church does this. For instance, the Word of Faith church teaches that God will give you what you ask for. Not only that but you’ve ALREADY RECEIVED IT! And I could lead you to a couple of scriptures that prove this to be true.
For instance Mathew 7:7 Ask and it shall be given. Luke 18:1-8 Persist and you shall receive. Well, do YOU believe this? So, then it must be more complicated and a church cannot teach the above.

But they do teach it, don’t they? But this is precisely why the Church is not founded upon the Scriptures. It is too easy for people to get misled.

The Catholic or Universal Church is the original church.  Does it teach error?  That depends on what you mean by error.  I wouldn't call it error, I'd call it progression of revelation that has brought it to some places I do not believe are correct.

The CC does not believe in “progression of revelation”. On the contrary, we believe that the fullness of the faith was given in whole to the Aposltes. Nothing can be added or subtracted from that once for all divine deposit of the faith.

But, as I’ve said all along, every church has a problem. How to resolve?

Interesting question. What did Jesus tell us to do if there was a dispute among believers?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Coming up against proper anti-Catholic sentiment today from a church friend from a former church. They were properly angry with me, something that has left me tearful and horribly upset. How does one deal with feeling so crushed when attacked like this?

FWIW, in my experience most of the anti-Catholic rhetoric leveled in my direction is born out of ignorance and misunderstanding. If the person understood what the Church was all about and had their facts straight, they might not make such statements.

When this happens to me, I will (if they are willing to listen) try to politely explain to them what is incorrect and why their statements are misguided. Sometimes their response is “Gee. Really? I didn’t know that!”

Others who are just simply prejudiced and bullheaded are going believe what they want to believe. Haters gonna hate and all that. Those people I’m like “Yeah, whatever…” and don’t waste my time getting upset.

My :twocents:

 

[JoyToTheWhirled]

Ok, if I may interject in this very interesting back and forth, the person has come back to me with the idea that we need to interpret scripture with scripture. I felt much better about responding, more prepared, and countered with a question about where we get scripture from, and ultimate authority. I don’t feel so blindsided now.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi Lenten Ashes
Re the bible recommendation. .

Yeah,. i have several Catholic, Protestant and even a Orthodox bible but want a good study bible from the Catholic church. Heard good things about Ignatius bible you noted.

I agree. I thank the Catholic Church for our bible. And as far as McCabees is concerned - it speaks about the dead and speaking to them and praying for them. i can’t find any other place in the whole bible where this is spoken of. In fact, some Jews didn’t even believe in the afterlife. Like the Sadducees for instance. And when the O.T. spoke of “sleeping” or the dead, it was always in the context that they were not “living.”

They are divided on several issues(especially now), but they believed as a whole in praying for the dead. That is why Jesus says this in Matthew 12:32:

Matthew 12:32New International Version (NIV)

32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come

Jesus knew who he was talking to.

IF purgatory exists, and I doubt it does, eventually all will get out. We don’t even know what it’s really like. A Monsignor near here says it’ll only last a second or two.

The opinions on purgatory and how it happens and how long it takes vary greatly. The fact of the matter is we just don’t know and may not know until we die. The point was, what IF? What if every mortal sin is 1 year in purgatory? Just a scenario that can be a little scary if you reflect upon it. If it exists and I think it does, we need to live a pious life in addition to receiving the prayers of the righteous, to include our Blessed Mother, both here and in the next life.

Also, did you know that kids are more afraid of purgatory than of hell? IOW, it’s a stumbling block.

I see it as a stumbling block if, and only if, it’s not properly understood. You know when I was Anglican the priest acknowledged that Catholicism may very well be right on much of what they teach, but they have "made everything too complicated and scare people". And I think there is a smidget of truth to that statement, but I do not fault the Church for teaching sound doctrine. The fact of the matter is Christianity is complicated by it’s very nature, from the paradox of the Cross to the idea of God eating food and pooping(sorry to be graphic) This is hard to comprehend and accept for many who were not raised Christian… but it remains truth whether we fully understand it or not. Reality always asserts itself, eventually, no matter what we believe.

As far as consequences, don’t worry. It’s not about ignorance of scripture - it’s about not being able to find purgatory in there. Anyway, I do believe we are saved by Jesus and not any one doctrine.

Sure, but then there’s this:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

This ^^^ should terrify every believer from every denomination or branch of Christianity.

I hope you know that Muslims dislike us because we think Jesus is God. They think He was a nice prophet.

Most definitely, Islam believes in a different Jesus than Catholics. And that’s my point, I wonder if we believe in the same Jesus as some protestants, like say, Joel Osteen, who has painted a portrait of God as mister nice guy with his cotton candy gospel.

It’s not a hypothetical LA. Believing in the Assumption is a dogma. You MUST believe it to be Catholic.
However, yes, you should ask for forgiveness daily. O wretched man that I am…
Romans 7:24

Right, I’m aware that as a Catholic i must believe it. But you asked the hypothetical, will it damn you if you do not. For non-Catholics, I do not know or assume either way their fate. I pray for the salvation of all souls, especially those in most need of His mercy.

I’m not sure I know what you mean by “dividing the Word of God”. ALL of the Word of God is useful, although not all of it is still practicable since Jesus did away with ceremonial and civil Law but retained and fulfilled Moral Law.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

Essential/non-essential…ask non-Catholic Christians on the great division within their own ranks and the thousands of denominations with conflicting doctrines and that is what you get…WE BELIEVE IN THE “ESSENTIALS”. But they can produce no chart in the bible(since most are sola scriptura practicers) declaring essential from non-essential, it’s something they just make up on the fly.

I think Jesus has said it is ALL essential:

Matthew 4:4New International Version (NIV)

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone,** but on every word that comes from the mouth of God**

Do you know C.S. Lewis? I’ll bet you do. He was Protestant and wrote the best book I ever read that describes Christianity. it’s called Mere Christianity. I recommend it to all.

Thanks for the welcome. I hope I’m not making too much trouble.
And peace to you too dear sister in Christ.

GG

Absolutely, I like C.S. Lewis as he was very intellectual and deep philosophically. Read some of his work. Hey, he even believed in purgatory :coolinoff: even though he was not fully Catholic!

No trouble at all and please don’t let hardliner Catholics drive you away. They are well intended just as zealous non-Catholics are.

Thanks and the Lord be with you.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Ok, if I may interject in this very interesting back and forth, the person has come back to me with the idea that we need to interpret scripture with scripture. I felt much better about responding, more prepared, and countered with a question about where we get scripture from, and ultimate authority. I don’t feel so blindsided now.

So this person thinks that books and documents interpret themselves?

Ask him/her why we have to have a extremely qualified supreme court to interpret the constitution.

 

[GodsGrace154]

This seems quite subjective GG. It seems like the discernment is through one’s own study. Read the NT and determine for oneself if what is being taught is accurate? This seems to place a great burden on the neophyte. It also does not seem consistent with the biblical record, which was to cleave to the Apostolic teaching.

For Catholics, Church is used only for that which holds the four marks of the Church, handed down from the aposltes. The small c is often used to denote ecclesial communities that are lacking the marks.

Yes, I agree it takes study,and everyone is called to study their faith diligently. But the Apostolic faith does not leave any room for 'doctrinal distinctives" and answering “a little bit differently”. And what about those that Jesus put in custody of the faith? Where do they figure in this search?

There are some Protestant Churches that have retained the Apostolic teaching on baptism. But the two are not mutually exlusive. Of course baptism is a culmination of a process, especially for adults, but that does not mean it is not also a starting point. I think you can read this in the book of Acts. It is the entrance rite into the Church.

“They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” Acts 2:42

These are aspects of faith formation, GG. They both precede and follow baptism. No doubt you are holding a definition of baptism that is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

You have already said it, without saying it, have you not?

It’s ok. We get a lot of that around here.

If everything were so simple, then Jesus would not have needed to leave people in charge of His Church. He knows how people are, that is why He appointed authority.

But they do teach it, don’t they? But this is precisely why the Church is not founded upon the Scriptures. It is too easy for people to get misled.

The CC does not believe in “progression of revelation”. On the contrary, we believe that the fullness of the faith was given in whole to the Aposltes. Nothing can be added or subtracted from that once for all divine deposit of the faith.

Interesting question. What did Jesus tell us to do if there was a dispute among believers?

Your answer is found in Mathew 18.

However - Do you speak for everyone on this thread?
Am I not supposed to be speaking to the person I’m having the conversation with?
I’m confused. You post stuff that was not meant for you…

GG

 

[Church_Militant]

Ok, if I may interject in this very interesting back and forth, the person has come back to me with the idea that we need to interpret scripture with scripture. I felt much better about responding, more prepared, and countered with a question about where we get scripture from, and ultimate authority. I don’t feel so blindsided now.

They don’t seem to realize their own circular reasoning. It never works. They say that but then you get boatloads of differing interpretations and even arguments as to what the"essentials" are that they claim to agree on. Take baptism for example. Baptism~ Necessary or Not?

These threads speak to the failure of their SS doctrines and why.
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”
since the Bible is the Word of God it is all we need…

This will also help. “What’s Your Authority?”

Glad to hear that you are feeling better about this interaction. May the Holy Spirit deliver them into your hand.

 

[Church_Militant]

Your answer is found in Mathew 18.

However - Do you speak for everyone on this thread?
Am I not supposed to be speaking to the person I’m having the conversation with?
I’m confused. You post stuff that was not meant for you…

GG

These are not private conversations so you need to realize that and stop trying to make it one.

Most of us Catholics are consistent on what we offer, unlike n-Cs (of which I was one for about 3 decades) where Biblical truth depends upon who you are talking with at the time. It changes from denomination to denomination and in some cases from preacher to preacher (or even individual to individual) and it’s very confusing and misleading.

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or even just the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The second one might be the best for you and if you wish to get deeper into any particular part the references will take you to the relevant section in the main Catechism. I don’t think you’ll ever find a more eloquent, concise, and in depth study of the Christian faith than this.

The fact is that you really have very little idea of what we Catholics believe or why, which makes it difficult for you to speak about Catholicism.

There are indeed differences…but they are the result of modern men and their errant teachings and they do not agree with either the Word of God, or with the verifiable writings of the early church so the wise and honest person examines his beliefs in the context of both these sources and then seeks the church that conforms to that. That is what I did. See My Testimony .

 

[GodsGrace154]

Yeah,. i have several Catholic, Protestant and even a Orthodox bible but want a good study bible from the Catholic church. Heard good things about Ignatius bible you noted.

They are divided on several issues(especially now), but they believed as a whole in praying for the dead. That is why Jesus says this in Matthew 12:32:

Jesus knew who he was talking to.

What do you think “the age to come” means? You think it means after you die?
Do you believe sin could be forgiven after you die?
It means either in this age: The age of the Jew
Or the age to come. The age of Christianity.

It cannot mean that we are forgiven after death. That’s impossible.
Read Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus
Also: Hebrews 8:27 It says that you die once and then comes the judgement.

The opinions on purgatory and how it happens and how long it takes vary greatly. The fact of the matter is we just don’t know and may not know until we die. The point was, what IF? What if every mortal sin is 1 year in purgatory? Just a scenario that can be a little scary if you reflect upon it. If it exists and I think it does, we need to live a pious life in addition to receiving the prayers of the righteous, to include our Blessed Mother, both here and in the next life.

LA, mortal sin is not in purgatory - mortal sin is in hell - in Catholic teaching.
You can live a pious life all you want to - the church teaches that you end up in purgatory so you can be “purged” of the effect of sins you’ve committed because you have to be perfect to go before God. (I’m not saying you should not live the best way you can).
Yeah. Read Luke 16. What was going on there anyway?

I see it as a stumbling block if, and only if, it’s not properly understood. You know when I was Anglican the priest acknowledged that Catholicism may very well be right on much of what they teach, but they have "made everything too complicated and scare people". And I think there is a smidget of truth to that statement, but I do not fault the Church for teaching sound doctrine. The fact of the matter is Christianity is complicated by it’s very nature, from the paradox of the Cross to the idea of God eating food and pooping(sorry to be graphic) This is hard to comprehend and accept for many who were not raised Christian… but it remains truth whether we fully understand it or not. Reality always asserts itself, eventually, no matter what we believe.

It takes the CCC to explain Catholicism. And even that is not easy to understand.
So it has been made too complicated - but most Catholics don’t even really know their faith so I think it doesn’t really matter except for persons such as yourself that are interested in learning about their “religion.”

And churches should teach the true doctrine and sound doctrine. Question is: Is it?
Where is purgatory in the bible?

Sure, but then there’s this:

This ^^^ should terrify every believer from every denomination or branch of Christianity.

You’re referring here to Mathew 7:22-23

It shouldn’t terrify you if you pay attention to Mathew 7:17-18

Most definitely, Islam believes in a different Jesus than Catholics. And that’s my point, I wonder if we believe in the same Jesus as some protestants, like say, Joel Osteen, who has painted a portrait of God as mister nice guy with his cotton candy gospel.

Joel Osteen doesn’t preach the gospel. He’s a motivational speaker, as far as I’m concerned. We have psychological speakers too, like Joyce Meyers. I agree with you on this.

Right, I’m aware that as a Catholic i must believe it. But you asked the hypothetical, will it damn you if you do not. For non-Catholics, I do not know or assume either way their fate. I pray for the salvation of all souls, especially those in most need of His mercy.

AMEN!

Essential/non-essential…ask non-Catholic Christians on the great division within their own ranks and the thousands of denominations with conflicting doctrines and that is what you get…WE BELIEVE IN THE “ESSENTIALS”. But they can produce no chart in the bible(since most are sola scriptura practicers) declaring essential from non-essential, it’s something they just make up on the fly.

I think Jesus has said it is ALL essential:

I must be dense. I STILL don’t understand what you mean.
But I agree that Jesus said it is ALL essential.

Absolutely, I like C.S. Lewis as he was very intellectual and deep philosophically. Read some of his work. Hey, he even believed in purgatory :coolinoff: even though he was not fully Catholic!

No trouble at all and please don’t let hardliner Catholics drive you away. They are well intended just as zealous non-Catholics are.

Thanks and the Lord be with you.

And with you
GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

These are not private conversations so you need to realize that and stop trying to make it one.

Most of us Catholics are consistent on what we offer, unlike n-Cs (of which I was one for about 3 decades) where Biblical truth depends upon who you are talking with at the time. It changes from denomination to denomination and in some cases from preacher to preacher (or even individual to individual) and it’s very confusing and misleading.

Have you ever read the Catechism of the Catholic Church or even just the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? The second one might be the best for you and if you wish to get deeper into any particular part the references will take you to the relevant section in the main Catechism. I don’t think you’ll ever find a more eloquent, concise, and in depth study of the Christian faith than this.

The fact is that you really have very little idea of what we Catholics believe or why, which makes it difficult for you to speak about Catholicism.

There are indeed differences…but they are the result of modern men and their errant teachings and they do not agree with either the Word of God, or with the verifiable writings of the early church so the wise and honest person examines his beliefs in the context of both these sources and then seeks the church that conforms to that. That is what I did. See My Testimony .

I’m sorry if I don’t understand. I’ve written to 3 different persons (and much more before those) and then I get a quote with one particular poster and I cannot speak only to that poster.

Biblical truth is biblical truth - it doesn’t matter who you’re speaking to. There are some strange ideas out there and the CC is not free of them I’m afraid. One should be able to distinguish between biblical truth and garbage. For instance, I think Lenten Ashes does.

Thank you for recommending the CCC. I believe I know it inside out. As I stated to a poster, I liked Mere Christianity better by C.S. Lewis. I find the CCC to be a bit confusing for a normal person. But I truly doubt normal people read it. Only those seeking “deep” knowledge such as ourselves.

If there’s something I don’t know about Catholicism I’d like to know. Have I demonstrated ignorance till now?? What have I said to confirm this?

Do you think the CC is the same as in the times of Ignatius, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas? How long did it take to get to confession as it is today? How long did it take for purgatory to become doctrine?

I’ll get out of the way if I disturb you so much.

I leave you with this:
John 13:35

Good Evening
GG

 

[Lenten_ashes]

What do you think “the age to come” means? You think it means after you die?
Do you believe sin could be forgiven after you die?
It means either in this age: The age of the Jew
Or the age to come. The age of Christianity.

It cannot mean that we are forgiven after death. That’s impossible.
Read Luke 16:19-31 The Rich Man and Lazarus
Also: Hebrews 8:27 It says that you die once and then comes the judgement.

Yes, I think this passage Matt 12:32 means after you die. Many translations say in the world to come. Once you pass, you are not part of this “world” anymore. You become part of another “world”

And absolutely, venial sin can be forgiven when you die. That is what the Church teaches.

We are judged after we die, Amen.

LA, mortal sin is not in purgatory - mortal sin is in hell - in Catholic teaching.
You can live a pious life all you want to - the church teaches that you end up in purgatory so you can be “purged” of the effect of sins you’ve committed because you have to be perfect to go before God. (I’m not saying you should not live the best way you can).
Yeah. Read Luke 16. What was going on there anyway?

I’m well aware of the differences in Mortal and Venial sin and the ramifications therein

But I’m not sure you are understanding what I am saying and maybe I’m not being clear… Confessed Mortal sin, may still lead to temporal punishment in purgatory.

It takes the CCC to explain Catholicism. And even that is not easy to understand.
So it has been made too complicated - but most Catholics don’t even really know their faith so I think it doesn’t really matter except for persons such as yourself that are interested in learning about their “religion.”

GG, That’s a overhyped generalization.

And most protestants think that Paul was president of the first Baptist Church and have little to no understanding on Church history, councils or patristic writings.

It’s good to know and read your bible, but you should also know where that book came from and have a understanding of our rich history in Christianity. Perhaps you do, but I think most protestants do not and that is sad.

So both sides have some flaws, but only one has been given a promise of infallibility from the Lord… Doesn’t mean protestant churches are bad are worthless or anything like that, just means they aren’t necessarily protected from teaching error. And we see this time and time again with each wild Westboro Baptist sect that emerges.

And churches should teach the true doctrine and sound doctrine. Question is: Is it?
Where is purgatory in the bible?

Don’t want to derail the OP’s thread but the concept is definitely there.

Start with 2nd Sam 12:13-18

We see ^^^ there can be a consequence or punishment for sin even AFTER it is forgiven.

Nothing unclean enters heaven Revelation 21:27

Most people are unclean no matter how holy they try to be and have some sort of attachment to some sort of sin. We don’t subscribe to Luther’s modern invention that we are dung covered in snow. If you aren’t cleaned up totally in this life, yet die a faithful and fearful friend of God, you can be cleaned up and enter heaven in the next.

Next look at Hebrews 12:22-23 it says…“the spirits of just men made perfect”…Did you catch that? SPIRITS of the just being made perfect. That would be CHRISTIANS who leave this temporal body.

And this coincides with 1 Corinthians 3:13-15

Where is this place that a man after he dies suffers loss, yet is still saved? Hell? No you suffer loss in hell but aren’t saved, ever. Heaven? No, you don’t suffer loss in heaven.

And so the concept is there and it’s implicit biblically. And the same trustworthy Church that gave us the bible teaches it, so we can trust in her in other matters as well.

GG, if you really think about it, you are in a form of purgatory right now. God is purging us from sin right now, the Holy Spirit is guiding us right now and throughout our walk as Christians this is taking place. So the Church is telling is this purging may need to be finished when we pass.

I really didn’t want to go into a detailed explanation about purgatory because it’s a lot to digest and most wont except it even if it starts to make sense to them. However, if it does exist then it proves the point that doctrine does matter and what we don’t know can hurt us…even if we are still heaven bound.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

I’m sorry if I don’t understand. I’ve written to 3 different persons (and much more before those) and then I get a quote with one particular poster and I cannot speak only to that poster.

Biblical truth is biblical truth - it doesn’t matter who you’re speaking to. There are some strange ideas out there and the CC is not free of them I’m afraid. One should be able to distinguish between biblical truth and garbage. For instance, I think Lenten Ashes does.

Thank you for recommending the CCC. I believe I know it inside out. As I stated to a poster, I liked Mere Christianity better by C.S. Lewis. I find the CCC to be a bit confusing for a normal person. But I truly doubt normal people read it. Only those seeking “deep” knowledge such as ourselves.

If there’s something I don’t know about Catholicism I’d like to know. Have I demonstrated ignorance till now?? What have I said to confirm this?

Do you think the CC is the same as in the times of Ignatius, Anselm, Augustine, Aquinas? How long did it take to get to confession as it is today? How long did it take for purgatory to become doctrine?

I’ll get out of the way if I disturb you so much.

I leave you with this:
John 13:35

Good Evening
GG

GG, biblical truth is biblical truth but requires correct interpretation.

And books do not interpret themselves, I’m afraid. This is why we have the supreme court to correctly interpret the Constitution.

We all have a certain filter in which we interpret things and this filter is dependent upon our background, educational level and life experiences. This is why there are so many denominations teaching conflicting doctrines, some subtle, some not so subtle. Some people’s filters are dirtier than others.

Saying the CC has some strange ideas is a rather subjective and unfounded opinion.There is truth outside the bible. 2+9 is 11 even though the bible doesn’t tell me that. No Catholic teaching contradicts the Word of God.

Pax