R
roadrunner570
Guest
Hi Matt! Good to see you!
- Status
Hi Matt! Good to see you!
M
Matt14
Guest
Chesster said:
Excellent resources Chesster, thank you. The councils are all online which is wonderful. The āFundamentalsā looks like a must-have in print.
M
Matt14
Guest
Hi Matt! Good to see you!
[/quote]
What!!
What are you doing here, RR?
Good to see you too. Man, Iām running into friends all over this place.
[/quote]
What!!
What are you doing here, RR?
Good to see you too. Man, Iām running into friends all over this place.
M
Matt14
Guest
Thank you for those. Iāll be looking for those names when browsing the bookstores.
M
Matt14
Guest
Sounds good. Every Christian needs a good kick every once in a while. Or maybe most of the time.
Thanks!
R
roadrunner570
Guest
Came here a few days ago. Kind of doing the same thing you are, just wanting to learn what Catholics believe, and also help explain what Protestants believe as well.What!!
What are you doing here, RR?
Good to see you too. Man, Iām running into friends all over this place.
M
Matt14
Guest
Excellent. God bless you! There seems to be lots of friendly people here, so youāll probably get what youāre looking for.
R
roadrunner570
Guest
Yeah, everyone is playing pretty nicely so far
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Glad to have you both here! You both seem to be very polite and I welcome you as a fellow brother in Christ.
Peace of Christ be with you, and may the Holy Spirit open all of our hearts and guide us into that unity that Our Lord, Jesus, pray to the Father for.
M
Matt14
Guest
Amen.
Roadrunner is a seminary student as well. I think youāll find we are only interested in service to God, and His truth.
Roadrunner is a seminary student as well. I think youāll find we are only interested in service to God, and His truth.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Iām going to recommend the Vatican II documents.
From the time of the Council of Trent up until Vatican II, the emphasis of the Catholic Church was on distinguishing Catholic teaching from Protestant viewpoints, in order to point out and highlight exactly where Protestantism was in error. For example, Eucharistic Adoration was essentially a development in doctrine driven by the motivation to show those who denied the Real Presence just how wrong they were.
However, Vatican II represented a radical shift in this approach. The emphasis now became to highlight the vast commonality between Catholics and Protestants, who went from being labelled āhereticsā to being called āseparated brethrenā. Many of the Vatican II documents can be viewed as trying to explain Catholicism and Catholic teaching in terms that Protestants could relate to.
For example, if you want to know what Catholics think about how the Bible fits in with the Churchās Tradition, then read Dei Verbum. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really teaches about the Blessed Virgin Mary, then read Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 52 to 69.
Ironically, some Catholics left the Church over this newfound ecumenism, in essence becoming modern day Protestants themselves. They failed to understand how the teachings of Vatican II could be reconciled with magisterial documents from centuries ago, as if those documents could be read in isolation, without understanding the historical context they were written in. Other Catholics stayed in the Church but complained about the changes brought about by Vatican II. For example, they might gripe that certain aspects of how the Mass was modified resemble Protestant worship services, as though that were a bad thing. On the other extreme, still other Catholics treated this new ecumenism as a fait accompli, ignoring the real differences that still exist between the Catholic Church and Protestants. So I can understand how you would find it difficult to pin down exactly what Catholics believe.
From the time of the Council of Trent up until Vatican II, the emphasis of the Catholic Church was on distinguishing Catholic teaching from Protestant viewpoints, in order to point out and highlight exactly where Protestantism was in error. For example, Eucharistic Adoration was essentially a development in doctrine driven by the motivation to show those who denied the Real Presence just how wrong they were.
However, Vatican II represented a radical shift in this approach. The emphasis now became to highlight the vast commonality between Catholics and Protestants, who went from being labelled āhereticsā to being called āseparated brethrenā. Many of the Vatican II documents can be viewed as trying to explain Catholicism and Catholic teaching in terms that Protestants could relate to.
For example, if you want to know what Catholics think about how the Bible fits in with the Churchās Tradition, then read Dei Verbum. If you want to know what the Catholic Church really teaches about the Blessed Virgin Mary, then read Lumen Gentium, paragraphs 52 to 69.
Ironically, some Catholics left the Church over this newfound ecumenism, in essence becoming modern day Protestants themselves. They failed to understand how the teachings of Vatican II could be reconciled with magisterial documents from centuries ago, as if those documents could be read in isolation, without understanding the historical context they were written in. Other Catholics stayed in the Church but complained about the changes brought about by Vatican II. For example, they might gripe that certain aspects of how the Mass was modified resemble Protestant worship services, as though that were a bad thing. On the other extreme, still other Catholics treated this new ecumenism as a fait accompli, ignoring the real differences that still exist between the Catholic Church and Protestants. So I can understand how you would find it difficult to pin down exactly what Catholics believe.
M
Matt14
Guest
Wow Catholic2003, awesome post, lots of info and background. I will definitely bookmark to read those entries.
Again, yaāll are going above and beyond and I really appreciate it!
Again, yaāll are going above and beyond and I really appreciate it!
P
puzzleannie
Guest
Latin for āhandbookā or āEverything you always wanted to know about this topic but were afraid to askā. I think it literally means, that which you cannot do without.
M
mercygate
Guest
vade = go
me = me
cum = with
M
mercygate
Guest
Matt ā from your original post:
Another thing that happens a lot is that a Protestant will get hold of a Catholic source but will quote (innocently or otherwise) it in a way that changes the meaning by leaving out what came before or comes after. This is particularly common with statements from the Council of Trent. The Tridentine documents are extremely meticulous in their wording and it is often necessary to read with painstaking care lest one lose an important point. The Chapter on Justification is one that is misused and abused with wild abandon. I have known people to read the text and say: āThatās not what it means! Catholics believe in Justification by works!ā :whacky:
We also get bombed with āquotationsā of perfectly appalling things from supposedly āCatholicā documents that nobody can find any reference to on the face of planet earth before the year 1927 and which appear only in anti-Catholic literature . . .
Right. That does happen and it is often the case that people will cite as authoritative something that is not.
Another thing that happens a lot is that a Protestant will get hold of a Catholic source but will quote (innocently or otherwise) it in a way that changes the meaning by leaving out what came before or comes after. This is particularly common with statements from the Council of Trent. The Tridentine documents are extremely meticulous in their wording and it is often necessary to read with painstaking care lest one lose an important point. The Chapter on Justification is one that is misused and abused with wild abandon. I have known people to read the text and say: āThatās not what it means! Catholics believe in Justification by works!ā :whacky:
We also get bombed with āquotationsā of perfectly appalling things from supposedly āCatholicā documents that nobody can find any reference to on the face of planet earth before the year 1927 and which appear only in anti-Catholic literature . . .
C
cazayoux
Guest
It would only be heresy if it were against *existing * doctrine.I suppose if a threat to the church arose based on the interpretation of Jonah, we might get a new council.
The wording of doctrine sometimes (throughout history) gets nitpicked and twisted. The purpose and substance of the doctrine may need to be clarified.
Be cautious about when the Church makes a statement to realize whether doctrine is being defined or clarified.
Cheers and WELCOME!!
michel
C
cazayoux
Guest
Patrick Madrid has a couple of other books, as well.
āWhy is that in Tradition?ā
and
āAnswer Me Thisā
Along with āWhere is That in the Bible?ā, these three books give quick answers to the most common questions.
I do love the intro to āWhy is That in Tradition?ā
Cheers!
michel
T
trumpet152
Guest
Hey Matt! Itās good to have you here! Personally, I love books by Peter Kreeft, especially Fundementals of the Faith.
M
Matt14
Guest
Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know I ordered four books. One is the official catechism. I also got Karl Keatingās āWhat Catholics Really Believe,ā and Dave Armstrongās āA Biblical Defense of Catholicism.ā
āFundamentals of Catholic Dogmaā is on its way.
Of all these, I think Iām going to like Armstrongās book the best, since he focuses on scriptural arguments for ātrouble areasā of doctrine where catholics and non-catholics disagree.
Iāll let you know what I think of these books. Thanks again for all the feedback!
āFundamentals of Catholic Dogmaā is on its way.
Of all these, I think Iām going to like Armstrongās book the best, since he focuses on scriptural arguments for ātrouble areasā of doctrine where catholics and non-catholics disagree.
Iāll let you know what I think of these books. Thanks again for all the feedback!
M
mercygate
Guest
Of all the titles mentioned on this thread, you picked four good ones. Ott is outstanding.Hi everyone, just wanted to let you know I ordered four books. One is the official catechism. I also got Karl Keatingās āWhat Catholics Really Believe,ā and Dave Armstrongās āA Biblical Defense of Catholicism.ā
āFundamentals of Catholic Dogmaā is on its way.
Of all these, I think Iām going to like Armstrongās book the best, since he focuses on scriptural arguments for ātrouble areasā of doctrine where catholics and non-catholics disagree.
Iāll let you know what I think of these books. Thanks again for all the feedback!
- Status