'Extra/other doctrines"?

[tweetymom]

Thanks for your opinion tweetymom. It would have been nice to have seen some sources supporting your belief.

What sources do you want?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What sources do you want?

An explanation, scriptures, early Church father writings, etc.

You said there were too many rules and only needed to go to the Father. Going to the Father is most important, but there were other things Jesus commanded, those are rules as well.

 

[Sword_Brethren]

Transubstantiation specifically, not the Real Presence as that is obviously scriptural.
Jon

Transubstantiation is scriptural.

 

[tweetymom]

An explanation, scriptures, early Church father writings, etc.

You said there were too many rules and only needed to go to the Father. Going to the Father is most important, but there were other things Jesus commanded, those are rules as well.

Too many rules concerninmg 1. birth control, not in the Bible. The Bible was written for all believers not just someone to make rules. Listen I am on my way to inspect our motorhome, it was broken into and lots of stuff stolen. Have to take pictures for the insurance co. So I will cvome back later and finish . God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Too many rules concerninmg 1. birth control, not in the Bible. The Bible was written for all believers not just someone to make rules. Listen I am on my way to inspect our motorhome, it was broken into and lots of stuff stolen. Have to take pictures for the insurance co. So I will cvome back later and finish . God Bless

1. interpreting scriptures on your own, not in the Bible.

If you want to discuss birth control not being in scriptures, we have to look at what is in scriptures. How many times do we have to see, ‘be fruitful and multiply’ to understand it’s God’s design that we be fruitful and multiply? God created life and through His design we are instruments of that plan. To act adversely is to act against His design/plan/will.

I hate to hear about your motorhome.

 

[mfbukowski]

What sources do you want?

I think we have a clash of cultures here.

I cannot speak for tweetymom, but I think that she is saying that she has the right to choose her beliefs based on what she thinks is right, along with the ability to interpret scripture as she sees fit in conscience.

Prodigal is wanting references which show that her beliefs, or even the belief that we get to choose our beliefs, is authorized by another body, ie: the Catholic church.

Some think authority should take precedence over conscience I guess. But this is not, to my knowledge, a Catholic belief.

So Prodigal, why did you want her to show sources for what she believes?

 

[Filioque]

Just my own two cents. The Catholic Church does not require a number of things be done, ie, we are not required to ask for the intercession of the Angels and Saints. We are not required to be enrolled in the scapular, believe one word of the Messages of Fatima, or even seek an indulgence for ourselves or the souls of the Faithful Departed. We are however reuired to hold that any of those or other things that the Church either permits or holds are 100% licit, and that there is nothing wrong with them. Sometimes (I don’t think it is the case of those who are supporting them here) there are those who do become excessive.

I know among some traditionalists I knew in the past they misquoted the Council of Trent as requiring that the Mass be in Latin. What Trent did was condemn the errors of those who said it needed to be in the language of the people. Some people in their excitement see past the condemnation of those who misundersand the Communion of Saints, and proport we must seek their intercession. While refusal to do so may leave one with a lopsided and shallow understanding of the Body of Christ, if the person is not infected with the Protestant error that one cannot ask for the Angels and Saints to pray with and for us before the throne of God, we sometimes can harden people’s hearts to the Truths Jesus gave the Catholic Church to teach, and the Authority that He gave her.

While it does happen that there are those who visit this site and attack Catholic practices, or dogma, it is better, as they say to light a candle, and show them that the Catholic Church, promised by Jesus that it would not be abandoned by Him, still teaches the Faith once delivered.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think we have a clash of cultures here.

I cannot speak for tweetymom, but I think that she is saying that she has the right to choose her beliefs based on what she thinks is right, along with the ability to interpret scripture as she sees fit in conscience.

Prodigal is wanting references which show that her beliefs, or even the belief that we get to choose our beliefs, is authorized by another body, ie: the Catholic church.

Some think authority should take precedence over conscience I guess. But this is not, to my knowledge, a Catholic belief.

So Prodigal, why did you want her to show sources for what she believes?

See, I started the list of sources requested with ‘explanations’, but you’ve turned the request into an ‘inquistion’, for some reason???

While she certainly may have an ability to interpret scripture as she sees fit in the conscience, that is a non-Biblical teaching. Maybe you’d care to help show me where I’m wrong by quoting scripture and verse for her?

You shouldn’t assume to know my reason for asking for references. These are discussion boards and we’ve entered into discussions where it’s acceptable to ask someone for sources supporting their statements/beliefs, esepecially when a majority are seemingly aimed at besmirching Catholicism without merit.

 

[tweetymom]

I think we have a clash of cultures here.

I cannot speak for tweetymom, but I think that she is saying that she has the right to choose her beliefs based on what she thinks is right, along with the ability to interpret scripture as she sees fit in conscience.

Prodigal is wanting references which show that her beliefs, or even the belief that we get to choose our beliefs, is authorized by another body, ie: the Catholic church.

Some think authority should take precedence over conscience I guess. But this is not, to my knowledge, a Catholic belief.

So Prodigal, why did you want her to show sources for what she believes?

Thank you for your support. I I do have the right to choose my beliefs and to interperet scripture. I know what I read and do not need the CC to tell me what I believe. Thanks

 

[JonNC]

Transubstantiation is scriptural.

Hi SB,
Care to elaborate?

Jon

 

[Filioque]

Thank you for your support. I I do have the right to choose my beliefs and to interperet scripture. I know what I read and do not need the CC to tell me what I believe. Thanks

I’d like to know myself. Since I believe that the Scripture is God’s word, and it shows the establishment and authority of the Church, rather than individual interpretation, and exclusion from my belief system of those things I find difficult, or either have not read or understood correctly, because it is my own spin. I really want to know. If I can be shown by Biblical sources, and the practice of the early Church, then I’d be happy to convert and abandon what was taught almost universally until the Reformaters initially decided on Sola Scriptura, and the right of Invidual interpretation (until they later repudiated it once they saw how diabolic it was when differing and contradictory doctrines rapidly appeared.

The “right to choose”, hmmm I’ve heard that phrase before, but where? Oh yes, Adam and Eve used that right. Women who procure abortions, they too claim that right. Homosexuals are demanding the right to choose marriage. NAMBLA is upset that they are not given that right. It would seem that absolute freedom to choose does not always end up with people making the correct choices.

Ok I’ll give you the right to choose beliefs that are not supported by Scripture like the Sola errors, but that does not mean that may family and myself will not choose to remain faithful to all that Jesus and the Apostles taught, be it by word or letter.

 

[mfbukowski]

See, I started the list of sources requested with ‘explanations’, but you’ve turned the request into an ‘inquistion’, for some reason???

While she certainly may have an ability to interpret scripture as she sees fit in the conscience, that is a non-Biblical teaching. Maybe you’d care to help show me where I’m wrong by quoting scripture and verse for her?

You shouldn’t assume to know my reason for asking for references. These are discussion boards and we’ve entered into discussions where it’s acceptable to ask someone for sources supporting their statements/beliefs, esepecially when a majority are seemingly aimed at besmirching Catholicism without merit.

Inquisition?

Besmirching Catholicsm?

Just a little touchy, I’d say.

But if following your conscience is a Catholic teaching according to the catechism

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm#I

1782 Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

And if you admit it is non-biblical, then according to the rules of the OP, I hereby submit officially “following your conscience” as an “extra doctrine” not found in the bible, per your own admission.

 

[Filioque]

Inquisition?
But if following your conscience is a Catholic teaching according to the catechism
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm#I
And if you admit it is non-biblical, then according to the rules of the OP, I hereby submit officially “following your conscience” as an “extra doctrine” not found in the bible, per your own admission.

The Catechim is falsely used to settle arguments, what it really is, or should be used as is a Primer. The Catechims is an abbreviation of the Faith, a Cliff notes if you will. To use it as a starting point is a more appropriate use. The Church does teach us to use our Conscience. But She also bids us to form our conscience in the mind of the Church. We should strive to learn and live the Faith, not stopping at the Catechism, but using it to inspire us to read, and learn the Truths, and history of the authentic development of dogma, and the practices that fortify us in that Faith.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Inquisition?

Besmirching Catholicsm?

Just a little touchy, I’d say.

But if following your conscience is a Catholic teaching according to the catechism

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm#I

And if you admit it is non-biblical, then according to the rules of the OP, I hereby submit officially “following your conscience” as an “extra doctrine” not found in the bible, per your own admission.

Again, you and I have a history and I’ve experienced the tone of your posts and the purpose they seemingly have.

As some do with scriptures, you pull out one statement from the Catechism to attempt to show that everyone has a religious freedom to do as they please, even if it means working against the doctrines and teachings of Christ’s true Church.

I admit that private interpretation is non-scriptural. ‘Following one’s own conscience’ is not a doctrine.

Since it appears you’ve missed the point of this thread, I, as original poster, will explain it’s purpose. In discussions around these forums it’s often referred too, by Protestants, that Catholics have those ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines. Those supposedly extra non-Biblical doctrines are what I am attempting to demonstrate are scriptural even if one disagrees with the Catholic interpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you for your support. I I do have the right to choose my beliefs and to interperet scripture. I know what I read and do not need the CC to tell me what I believe. Thanks

Where do scriptures teach private interpretation tweetymom? And what do we do with those scriptures that give authority to the Church and state the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known?

 

[mfbukowski]

Those supposedly extra non-Biblical doctrines are what I am attempting to demonstrate are scriptural even if one disagrees with the Catholic interpretation.

This is about the 4th time you have posted this.

I read English pretty well most of the time and “get it”, at least as far as your objective.

My whole point is that it is silly for a Catholic to spend time on a thread showing all Catholic doctrines are supposedly biblical, when you don’t believe that all doctrine needs to be biblical in the first place. What do you hope to gain?

Oh well, it’s a free country

 

[Dokimas]

Where do scriptures teach private interpretation tweetymom? And what do we do with those scriptures that give authority to the Church and state the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known?

The Bible doesn’t teach private interpretation is okay.
2Peter 1:
19 ¶ And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

It does teach we are to follow the doctrines of the apostles.

Acts 2:
42 ¶ And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Now before any of our catholic brothers or sister get too excited, we’ve come a long way from these verses. The 1st apostles put ‘their money where their mouths are’. They truly lived of humble means, they didn’t have body guards to protect them, they did get martyred, we have the writings of some of them which does not teach some of the teachings that have been adopted since the 1st century, they don’t say the same things about ‘church authority’ that is being promoted on this board. Ex. not one time in his writings did Peter mention anything about the keys he had. The CC and its apologists continually show the keys; why didn’t Peter do that himself??? Notice, if we accept that the apostles teaching is to be adhered to, why aren’t we living the rest of the verses as highlighted?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is about the 4th time you have posted this.

I read English pretty well most of the time and “get it”, at least as far as your objective.

My whole point is that it is silly for a Catholic to spend time on a thread showing all Catholic doctrines are supposedly biblical, when you don’t believe that all doctrine needs to be biblical in the first place. What do you hope to gain?

Oh well, it’s a free country

You may have missed it, but the purpose of this thread is to show that, even if you disagree with the interpretation, Catholic beliefs come from an interpretation of scriptures.
If one can see how a belief is tied in with scriptures, they cannot honestly accuse the Catholic Church has teachings that are non-scriptural.

Catholics will openly discuss all aspects of Catholicism. We have nothing to hide and are proud of faith and all that our beliefs are based on. We will attempt to explain any question asked of us. This is unlike some faiths that believe there are things that should be hidden from those outside their faith, or to those in the process of being evangelized.

If you feel it’s silly, then why are you following and posting in the thread? Your posts have an appearance of derailing the thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible doesn’t teach private interpretation is okay.
2Peter 1:
19 ¶ And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts;
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.​

Now before any of our catholic brothers or sister get too excited, we’ve come a long way from these verses. The 1st apostles put ‘their money where their mouths are’. They truly lived of humble means, they didn’t have body guards to protect them, they did get martyred, we have the writings of some of them which does not teach some of the teachings that have been adopted since the 1st century, they don’t say the same things about ‘church authority’ that is being promoted on this board. Ex. not one time in his writings did Peter mention anything about the keys he had. The CC and its apologists continually show the keys; why didn’t Peter do that himself??? Notice, if we accept that the apostles teaching is to be adhered to, why aren’t we living the rest of the verses as highlighted?

Surely you’re not suggesting that the Pope shouldn’t have body guards today. John Paul was shot by a Turkish. I know of another attempt on his life and plans to assassinate him on another occasion. We also know that Pope Benedict was attacked twice. One is not being honest to suggest the leader of the world’s largest Christian Church is not a target to extremists in these days.

Yes, many of the Apostles were martyred, of course Christianity was illegal in those days. It wasn’t until Constantine legalized Christianity that the largest majority of persecutions ceased.

Christ had many lessons of humilty that He taught the Apostles. Besides that, why would Peter have to repeat what was stated before other Apostles?

His authority was established before the Apostles.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.**

Peter, at times, did assert himself.

**Act 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):
Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:
Act 1:17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

Act 2:14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.

Act 5:3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost and by fraud keep part of the price of the land?

Act 8:21 Thou hast no part nor lot in this matter. For thy heart is not right in the sight of God.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.**

Even during times with Christ, Peter was spokesperson for the Apostles.

**Mat 18:21 Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Mar 8:29 Then he saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? Peter answering said to him: Thou art the Christ.

Luk 8:45 And Jesus said: Who is it that touched me? And all denying, Peter and they that were with him said: Master, the multitudes throng and press thee; and dost thou say, who touched me?

Luk 12:41 And Peter said to him: Lord, dost thou speak this parable to us, or likewise to all?

Joh 6:68 (6:69) And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.**

Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles put together.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It does teach we are to follow the doctrines of the apostles.

Acts 2:
42 ¶ And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
43 Then fear came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
44 Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common,
45 and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need.
46 So continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they ate their food with gladness and simplicity of heart,
47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved.

Read Acts 2:14 to 41.

Verse 14 states:

Act 2:14 But Peter standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and spoke to them: Ye men of Judea, and all you that dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you and with your ears receive my words.

Verse 41 states:

Act 2:41 They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

After that story of Peter’s speaking, it goes on to speak of the doctrines of the Apostles. The Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church. It confirms the doctrines of the Apostles unto this day.

Today, there are over 1 billion Catholics in the world. No one man can go house to house. What was house to house has become nation to nation.

If you’re somehow trying to point at the wealth of the Catholic Church, no one can honestly doubt the Catholic charities in this world. Yes, the Pope lives at the Vatican, but he does not own it. It all belongs to the Church. As for the artworks and other items in it’s possession, do you think America should sell off everything in the Smithsonian: Museums?