Does the Catholic Church Claim to Know Too Much?

[stargazer257]

Originally Posted by The Iambic Pen

I have been attending mass as well, when I am able, but I’m still not comfortable making the sign of the cross or genuflecting. Part of that, of course, is that I don’t want to engage in false advertising… I guess I don’t want to give people the impression that I’m already Catholic when I’m not.

It’s quite OK to feel that way, it’s a purely human reaction. As member of my parish’s RCIA team and a former sponsor, I have seen those that are coming into the Church struggle with this as well, mainly out of unfamiliarity with the gesture. However, making the sign of the cross or genuflecting, albiet considered a Catholic tradition by some, is still a way of showing reverence.

The sign of the cross goes WAAAY back to the earliest Christians, who IIRC made the sign of the cross even when they were being martyred to the lions as a sign of thier faith. And genuflecting is simply recognizing that you are in the presence of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord. You know, that can’t be bad, Catholic or otherwise!

Iambic, may your travel home be a safe one, and may the faith journey you are on be blessed. You know, those of us on this forum (and all of the saints in Heaven) are pulling for you! Merry Christmas!

 

[Atreyu]

urban-hermit:

A wise priest in my area said “Apologetics is 10% apologetics and 90% charity”.

I love this quote, I’m stealing it!

IP you are in a very similar situation to my girlfriend! I will definitely pray for you. God bless!

 

[puzzleannie]

The Iambic Pen:

So, to get to the point, my main problem with Catholicism is that it claims to know so much.
. . .
My Protestant church claimed no infallibility for itself, it just taught the truth as it saw it. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, comes right out and says, “This is how it is, this is what you must believe, and we are never wrong.”

I’m supposed to leave Iraq in a few days!!!

the Church does not claim to know everything.
recommended for all forum users, especially those with very basic questions: do your homework first on the CA homepage
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

God bless you and protect you in Iraq, and thank you from the rest of us for your service.

 

[1ke]

The Iambic Pen:

The problem is, against all logic it seems, I still am struggling with all of this. I think twenty-five years of Protestantism is a difficult thing to suddenly toss aside, especially when it would be to join a Church I have always been taught was false.

I was 25 when I converted to the Catholic Church. It’s a great age to do so… wink wink.
The Iambic Pen:

So, to get to the point, my main problem with Catholicism is that it claims to know so much. For example, as a Protestant, when my church said that non-Christians would go to Hell, I could just say to myself, “Well, the Bible does seem to state this clearly, but perhaps my church’s understanding of this is wrong, and perhaps God will do something to save those who, through no fault of their own, never heard and accepted the Gospel message.” My Protestant church claimed no infallibility for itself, it just taught the truth as it saw it. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, comes right out and says, “This is how it is, this is what you must believe, and we are never wrong.”

Funny, my conversion happened when I became convinced of the Authority of the Church. That happened as a result of my study of Acts 15-- the Council of Jerusalem. Scripture gives a clear outline of Authority-- that Authority is invested in the Apostles and their successors. It is that authority that gives us the Scriptures themselves.

Without this authority you can be certain of nothing— not even Scripture. So, as a Protestant, you implicitly relied on the authority of the Catholic Church when you decided to accept Scripture as Scripture… when you decided to accept the orthodox Trinitarian formula developed at Nicea… when you decided to accept the two natures of Christ, fully human and fully divine… and on and on.

As a Protestant you (general “you” including me when I was Protestant) are unaware that there are many assumptions and leaps outside of Scripture that can only be known with certainty through the teaching authority of the Church.
The Iambic Pen:

This is nice if it’s really true, but what if it isn’t? To become a Catholic, I would have to accept every doctrine of the Church. Until I am prepared to do so, I am in the uncomfortable situation of knowing Protestantism does not have a leg to stand on, but also not knowing if the Catholic Church really has the authority it says it has. Quite confusing.

If it isn’t true-- then you are no worse off than as a Protestant believing things that aren’t even internally consistent or logical. You are no worse off and you have the opportunity to be much better off through diligent study of the Church’s teachings.

To be come a Catholic you must assent to all she teaches. Belief and understanding are another matter. For example, when I converted I was not at all convinced about contraception or Marian doctrines. BUT, I assented because I knew that what the Church taught was TRUE. Therefore, any difference between what the church taught and what I believed was a defect in my understanding. So, I just threw up my hands and said, “Ok God, clearly I must be a Catholic… help me out with the rest.”

Since I was single, the contraception thing was not immediately a concern. It was something I knew I’d have to deal with “some day”. Well, between Confirmation Day and Some Day…my Wedding Day… God gave me the grace to encounter many good Catholic speakers, books, and to become involved in pro-life work. Now, I understand the Church’s teaching… and yes, I believe it to be true rather than just assent.

It’s been 10 years of study, and I still have a lot to learn. But you must start somewhere… and typically that somewhere is a big “Fiat” to the Holy Spirit. Let Mary be your guide in this Advent season-- Let It Be Done To Me According To Thy Word. With obedience comes grace.

That is all the advice I can give.

And, I wish you a safe and speedy return from Iraq.

 

[reen12]

quote: Fidelis

I think you’re in bigger trouble than that. If you have come to the realization that Protestantism, including personal interpretation, can have no authority, you are left with two options.

Option one is that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims. No other Church on earth dares makes such a claim. If it is false, it is monstrous. If it is true, it is the path that Christ left us for salvation. It has the authority because it has his authority

If it is false, it is - simply - not true.

There are 5 billion people in the world - who don’t
take such a claim - with any degree of seriousness…
which places same in the realm of incredulity -
for the 5 billion - not monstrosity. :tiphat:

Numbers don’t make such a claim false, yet,
for much of the 80%, it is a matter of indifference -
that the CC holds same to be true.

quote: Fidelis

Option one is that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims. No other Church on earth dares makes such a claim

Which is a good thing, I think. Otherwise, we’d have
two or more entities - involved in a spectacle of
“dueling infallibilities.”

indulgences, treasury of grace, the dogma of the
Assumption, sacraments that ‘dispense’ grace,
infallibility, purgatory…

That a person would hold these to be true -in deference to
infallibility -is interesting, but hardly compelling, in the realm
of faith.

As to infallibility, it may be useful to read the thoughts -
of those gathered - for the Council of Trent. If one can
negotiate these waters - and still hold to infallibility -
I would find that of marked interest.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

In the end, it is a matter of faith. And faith is a gift of
God’s grace, as the CC teachs.

reen12

 

[mercygate]

reen12:

fidelis:

Option one is that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims. No other Church on earth dares makes such a claim. If it

is false, it is monstrous. If it is true, it is the path that Christ left us for salvation. It has the authority because it has his authority.

reen12:

If it is false, it is - simply - not true.

There are 5 billion people in the world - who don’t
take such a claim - with any degree of seriousness…
which places same in the realm of incredulity -
for the 5 billion - not monstrosity. :tiphat:

reen12: the “it” in question is the claim of authority. If the authority did not exist, the claim would, indeed, be “monstrous.”

 

[scylla]

Infallibility,

Lets see if I can tackle that a little in a way that made it easier for me to understand.

I know infallibly that 1+1=2 when you are talking about whole numbers in the decimal system.

The inablility to be wrong on certain statements under certain conditions is something we all have.

Of course you probably know that infallibility has nothing to do with character, sinlessness, or perfection. You don’t have to be perfect to make an infallible statement as I have just demonstrated.

Now saying no man is infallible, is that an infallible statement as an objection. How do you know infallibly. If you are stating that you are making for yourself an infallible statement ruling out the possibility of any person existing that is infallible.

Most objections to the Church would be made by statements believed by the person to be true, and if they are correct and insist only they are, they are trying to make an infallible statement.

You can ask how do you know you are right or have the perfect interpretation unless you have an infallible statement.
Is there a value to truth? Or is it all perception?

We as Catholics have to hold certain things as true, or else our belief is merely opinion, and it really has no true conviction. This is a very modern view which makes people comfortable because opinions are easier to follow than truths. You can modify opinions a little to your personal belief instead of conforming your belief to something unchangeable. This is much more evident as you go into more liberal views of Christianity.

Now do you know truth? or opinion? Jesus said we would know the Truth, not opinion. No of us have heard Him or everything He told the Apostles. Were we left with Scriptures and no true understanding or just opinions like someone wrote us a letter and we must decipher it.

If you would like a little more on this, feel free to PM me or I will just reply to this thread.
I got some of my reference off another website, the author is kinda abrasive toward non-catholics, but does give some very useful insights.

God Bless
Scylla

 

[Superstar905]

I’ve been following this thread, but I only have a little to offer as I’m at work and don’t feel compelled to write much here.

Lambic, I too have been following your story, and it is amazing how when someone is really willing to lay it on the line, and give up the foundation of what they have always believed, for God, what can happen. Your Journey is one I had hoped would inspire some people in my life, although I’m not sure if it has or hasn’t (well, it hasn’t completely, but maybe to some degree). Keep listening, and reading, and praying.

As for the title of this thread, I just want to answer, that in 2000 years of history and praying, the Church probably only knows a fraction of what there is to know, that the Holy Spirit is revealing as the HS guides it to truth. It’s amazing, absolutely amazing.

 

[reen12]

quote: scylla

Now saying no man is infallible, is that an infallible statement as an objection. How do you know infallibly. If you are stating that you are making for yourself an infallible statement ruling out the possibility of any person existing that is infallible.

An elegant argument, logically.

And the wonderful thing about infallibilty, is that it
rests in a spiritual modality…beyond* ‘*dis-proof’.
Which means that it’s an assertion. One that can
neither be proved or disproved, this side of eternity.

It is an argument that seems kin to:
“You can’t prove there is no God.”

And, of course, the atheist hears this, and may well say:
“Now *there’s *an inducement to belief.”

Logic can only be applied - once X is stipulated to
be true. Once these stipulations are in place, applied
logic can then derive all *kinds *of truths…

---

If one wishes to make the argument:

“Infallibility rests on the CC having the authority from
Christ…”

again, this begs the question of whether the Church
actually is the representative of Christ - in short,
is she re-presenting Him - as He appears in the
gospels and the letters of St. Paul.

or,

…as a function of the doctrine that was in place - by the
16th c. - had it become clear - through God’s grace - that
the CC was not what Christ intended at all - in terms of
Church - as the CC came forward, through the corridors
of history.

Was the Reformation, and all that followed, God’s
sharp correction of the pilgrim’s route - of what was,
indeed, His Church…which was - in no wise - what
the CC claimed Church to be?

These matters rest, ultimately, on faith - and grace
given.

reen

 

[volzcpa]

reen12:

quote: scylla

or,

…as a function of the doctrine that was in place - by the
16th c. - had it become clear - through God’s grace - that
the CC was not what Christ intended at all - in terms of
Church - as the CC came forward, through the corridors
of history.

Was the Reformation, and all that followed, God’s
sharp correction of the pilgrim’s route - of what was,
indeed, His Church…which was - in no wise - what
the CC claimed Church to be?

These matters rest, ultimately, on faith - and grace
given.

reen

I do not think your second option is plausible for Christ said to Peter and the Apostles “whatsoever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven” (Matt 16:19 & Matt 18:18). So if the CC was wrong for 1600 years (or even for one day - Matt 28:20) then Christ must have deceived us all because, if God is perfect, he could not bind error in heaven.

 

[reen12]

Hi, volzcpa,

quote: volzcpa

I do not think your second option is plausible for Christ said to Peter and the Apostles “whatsoever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven” (Matt 16:19 & Matt 18:18). So if the CC was wrong for 1600 years (or even for one day - Matt 28:20) then Christ must have deceived us all because, if God is perfect, he could not bind error in heaven.

The position that you’re presenting, here, rests on
the CC’s teachings as to:

-how to interpret the role of Peter,
-the nature of binding and loosing [which is a topic, in itself]

It rests, additionally, on the assumption - that what God might permit, for a period of time - would, necessarily, equate with deception.

If someone were to say to me:

“That is your opinion, assumption, view, assessment…I will
attend to Christ’s Church - which has taught, in His name, for
20 centuries.”

My response would be:

What has the Church taught?

indulgences, treasury of grace, the dogma of the
Assumption, sacraments that ‘dispense’ grace,
infallibility, purgatory, Mediatrix…

If a given individual can hold with the above, that individual
may remain - or become - a Catholic.

I think that the role of grace, in these types of
discussions, is way underplayed. For one could
make the sound argument:

These teachings will be clear, when grace is given.
and
Grace is a gift of God.

Best,

reen12

 

[ComradeAndrei]

This doesn’t follow - there are many Protestant objections to Catholicism which are valid in whole or in part, or which have been, but no longer are.That this is so, is sometimes a point in favour of this or that Protestant position, & sometimes is neither for nor against Protestantism or Catholicism: it depends entirely on what the “jab” is about, and on what the basis for it may be.

What objections do Protestants have to the Church that are valid, aside from matters not pertaining to faith and morals? Yes, they can say, “You had bad popes in the past…” but that sort of thing proves nothing even if it is historically correct.

My statement was overly broad, granted, but that is how I think of the issue. When protestants sling some misquote or misinterpretation my way it doesn’t shake my faith because my faith in the Catholic Church is firm and I know that all of what the Catholic Church teaches is right because it does so with the authority of God, who can neither deceive or be deceived. I don’t try to use that as a “proof” for Catholicism in any apologetics venture, but I do think that way for my own good.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Reen:

If you’re gonna list what the church teaches, please do a good job of it, that list is so impoverished. I wouldn’t be a Catholic either from that.

in XT.

 

[volzcpa]

reen12:

These matters rest, ultimately, on faith - and grace
given.

reen

I too believe that grace is a gift from God but, like all gifts, if we do not open the gift and use the gift as it is intended, we derive no benefit from it. Scripture tells us that 1) Christ died to redeem all mankind, 2) God wants all men to be saved, 3) God is all just, 4) God gives each of us sufficient grace for our needs. So we all receive the gift of grace and if we use the gift of grace, we are given the gift of faith, etc. etc. We have God given free will and an intellect which allow us to choose whether or not we want to accept God’s gifts.

We first receive grace through baptism (Christ said we must be baptized to be saved) and he continues to give us graces which lead to faith, justification, sanctification, etc., if we choose. Through these graces we will ultimately embrace the fullness of truth, the Catholic Church. Some reach this point through years of study of the scriptures and of 2000 years of bible scholars, some reach this through faith that gives them the belief that the Catholic Church is the one true church from being taught a small part of the bible, some never hear of the church or the bible but by the innate knowledge that there is a creator, natural law etc., that person follows his conscience and is saved through his desire to do what is right. God gives different graces based upon each individual’s life circumstances and needs. It has to be that way because God is all knowing, all just and all merciful. The hard part is that we all have to work through the temptations of Satan, who is all bad, to grow in God’s selfless love and not cave in to the selfishness of evil.

 

[reen12]

quote: AquinasXVI

Reen:
If you’re gonna list what the church teaches, please do a good job of it, that list is so impoverished. I wouldn’t be a Catholic either from that.

in XT.

Dear Aquinas,

The theology of the Church is positively elegant.
An intellectual feast!
*

Once put the premises in place, and a gorgeous
panoply of doctrine ensues…

The thing is, Aquinas, I came to question a great
deal of this teaching.

How to reconcile my “list, in blue” with the Scriptures.
And I’m not even talking sola scriptura, necessarily.

How get from the Mary of the gospels, to Mediatrix.
How cope with mechanistic views of salvation:
-sacraments ‘dispensing’ grace
-treasury of grace, from which withdrawals are made
-indulgences!

One day, I looked at these teachings, and said:
I…don’t*…think*…so…
Even Tradition - with a capital “T” - can’t justify this.
No matter what they say.
[They = various popes and councils.]

This is plainly error.
Therefore: the Church’s understanding of Peter and the Keys
cannot be what Christ intended.

An individual may accept:
indulgences, treasury of grace, the dogma of the
Assumption, sacraments that ‘dispense’ grace,
infallibility, purgatory, Mediatrix…

as truth, as plausible, as redolent of the gospels,
and the letters of Paul. I have no problem with
people accepting these things, in conscience.

Yet, I cannot look at this list, and even begin to say:
I assent.

No matter how many other beautiful doctrines the Church
teaches…in point of fact, it teaches these, as well.

Best,

reen12*

 

[reen12]

quote:volzcpa

Through these graces we will ultimately embrace the fullness of truth, the Catholic Church.

A lovely thought, and a faith-based assertion.

You are, I think, accurately reflecting Catholic theology.

Best,

reen12

 

[volzcpa]

reen12:

quote:volzcpa

A lovely thought, and a faith-based assertion.

You are, I think, accurately reflecting Catholic theology.

Best,

reen12

Reen12–

It seems you have a lot of grey, I mean blue, areas concerning what the Catholic Church teaches, so I would highly recommend Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which explains the Catholic beliefs that are most difficult for non-Catholics. I think it would show you that the Catholic Church is really the most biblical church.

 

[reen12]

Dear volzcpa,

It seems you have a lot of grey, I mean blue, areas concerning what the Catholic Church teaches, so I would highly recommend Karl Keating’s book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, which explains the Catholic beliefs that are most difficult for non-Catholics. I think it would show you that the Catholic Church is really the most biblical church.

quote: volzcpa

…the Catholic Church is really the most biblical church.

Indulgences:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1471.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1479.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1498.htm

Mediatrix:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/969.htm

Treasury of Grace:

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1471.htm

There is no way to “nuance” these teachings.

I read these claims - products of Tradition - and say:

“Incredible”…literally.

However nuanced by Apologists - whatever appeals
are made to Tradition
…to me, and to millions of others - simply incredible,
in terms of the gospel, as written, and the letters of St. Paul.

Best,

reen12

 

[volzcpa]

reen12:

I read these claims - products of Tradition - and say:

“Incredible”…literally.

However nuanced by Apologists - whatever appeals
are made to Tradition
…to me, and to millions of others - simply incredible,
in terms of the gospel, as written, and the letters of St. Paul.

Best,

reen12

Reen12—

When you have the church of truth (1Tim 3:15) that has preserved Sacred Tradition, the traditions handed down from the apostles, for 2000 years, without change or addition, you do not need nuance to explain it.

The truth stands on its own without any smoke or mirrors. It’s historical, it’s in the bible and it makes sense to me, and to millions of others (Actually there are a billion Catholics if you count those that say “I am Catholic, but…”).

I will pray that the Holy Spirit will open your heart to see the fullness of truth that resides in the Catholic Church.

 

[reen12]

quote:

When you have the church of truth (1Tim 3:15) that has preserved Sacred Tradition, the traditions handed down from the apostles, for 2000 years, without change or addition, you do not need nuance to explain it.

Some would say: let’s look at what the Apostles actually wrote…
with n’ere a mention of
indulgences, treasury of grace, the dogma of the
Assumption, sacraments that ‘dispense’ grace,
infallibility, purgatory, Mediatrix…

That a billion people believe that the Church can
dispense from a treasury of satisfactions

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1471.htm

• or hold, with the Church, that the mother of Jesus is Mediatrix
  of all Graces,

scborromeo.org/ccc/para/969.htm

is, again, a matter of faith.

It is, additionally, a matter of faith, for several hundred million
other Christians, that the Church -spoken of by Paul (1Tim 3:15) -
was no longer expressed, in the CC - by the 16th century - and that
God was making

quote: reen12

…[a] sharp correction of the pilgrim’s route - of what was,
indeed, His Church…which was - in no wise - what
the CC claimed Church to be…

And I thank you for your prayers, for Christians do well,
I think, to pray for one another.

Best, :tiphat:

reen12