How should Catholics deal with Protestants? The early church said not to associate but the doctrine has changed? (OP reached new poster limit for 7/10

[setarcos]

Yes, but only as regards essential teachings and faith matters.

But that’s the argument then isn’t it. The foundation of Jesus’s Church is the infallible essential teachings and faith matters.

The Holy Spirit preserves the Church from error in those areas, as all Popes, even the saintliest ones, are fallible men.

Oh yes the ubiquitous use of the Holy Spirit to serve mans ends. When clergy err do they cease to be members of the Church which is preserved from erring? You must agree that in order to keep ones unerring Church one cannot include erring individuals as a defining characteristic of said Church else by definition the Church errs at times. And then what do we make of it when those leaders of the Church make decisions in an official capacity as representatives of that Church based on their understanding of Gods revelations to man and then have to apologize later for their actions? Can one lead in the name of God and then admit error? Of course. But then how does one know if they are leading in error or infallibly?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I have no idea what you’re on about. The Holy Spirit, who is God, protects God’s Church.
And that is the end of it.

 

[setarcos]

Given axiomatically that the scriptures were written to be infallible by fallible men, and that’s if we believe the word of the fallible men which say what they wrote is the infallible word of God, we are still left with no guarantee that those fallible men will interpret infallibly what they have written. Even the apostles failed time and again to understand Jesus according to scripture. They often disagreed among themselves which continues to this day.

 

[setarcos]

Sometimes I think that people deliberately shut down a discussion in order to avoid the hard questions. You’ve basically said that’s the way it is because that’s the way it is.
Is it that you don’t understand the dilemma I’ve presented, you don’t care to think about it choosing to remain content whether right or wrong, or you understand what I’m saying and have no good answers?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ve answered the question to my satisfaction.
Why should I continue with the exercise just because you don’t like the answer? There is no obligation on me to do so.

Anyway, this is a discussion board, so probably someone else who wants to banter with you will be along in a moment. I actually have to go to Mass now, will pray for you.

God bless

 

[setarcos]

I’m sorry but you haven’t answered the question at all, you’ve avoided it. Your obligation should be bringing your fellow man to God with every effort you can muster. What does it matter that you’ve answered to YOUR satisfaction? Exercise? This is a serious exploration of the truth of God. I’m sorry if it makes you uncomfortable because you cannot rectify my question with what you believe. Perhaps you should then reevaluate what you believe.

 

[setarcos]

Time and again these conversations conveniently fade off into oblivion without a solid conclusion. Can I not get a good answer! Sometimes I wonder why God bothers. Those that want the answers cant get them and those that think they’ve found all the answers stop looking, content to remain where they are even if where they are is wrong. Then there’s those who’ve been given the answers but cant see it for what it is or see it for what it is but cant accept it! I must constantly ask myself in all humility which am I? What a lowly and lacking creature that God should ever be mindful of him beyond any of the trillions of other options.

 

[Dorothy]

It is only in matters of teaching faith and morals that the magisterium of the Church is infallible.

We have had bad popes, but Our Lord Jesus Christ said that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. I repeat…in matters of faith and morals error is not taught.

 

[setarcos]

My dear Dorothy,
You agree that the magisterium is composed of fallible men. Those same fallible men teach that in matters of teaching faith and morals they are infallible. Do you not see the problem with this? Its circular reasoning. Think about the must touted words…the gates of hell shall not prevail…etc. A gate is an immovable defensive structure. The Church isn’t defending the faith the truth of God is attacking the established immorality and errors of this world. In the end of days the gates will fall and Gods truth will rein. Have you noticed that do to the information explosion in these latter days we’ve all been given access to unprecedented amounts of data concerning the sins of the so called leaders of the Roman Church? Yes…the Roman Church shall reap what sins it has sown as will all such institutions and individuals.

 

[setarcos]

Why is it that you don’t doubt the infallibility of scripture? From where does this feeling come…or reasoning?

 

[Thom18]

I don’t know how the conversation got so sidetracked, but to answer your question:

I visited an abbey for a day and spent some time praying with the monks. Here is one of the readings I remember from vespers, from St. Augustine, which has really stuck with me:

We entreat you, brothers, as earnestly as we are able, to have charity, not only for one another, but also for those who are outside the Church. Of these some are still pagans, who have not yet made an act of faith in Christ. Others are separated, insofar as they are joined with us in professing faith in Christ, our head, but are yet divided from the unity of his body. My friends, we must grieve over these as over our brothers; and they will only cease to be so when they no longer say our Father.

The prophet refers to some men saying: When they say to you: You are not our brothers, you are to tell them: You are our brothers. Consider whom he intended by these words. Were they the pagans? Hardly; for nowhere either in Scripture or in our traditional manner of speaking do we find them called our brothers. Nor could it refer to the Jews, who do not believe in Christ. Read Saint Paul and you will see that when he speaks of “brothers,” without any qualification, he refers always to Christians. For example, he says: Why do you judge your brother or why do you despise your brother? And again: You perform iniquity and common fraud, and this against your brothers.

Those then who tell us: You are not our brothers, are saying that we are pagans. That is why they want to baptize us again, claiming that we do not have what they can give. Hence their error of denying that we are their brothers. Why then did the prophet tell us: Say to them: You are our brothers? It is because we acknowledge in them that which we do not repeat. By not recognizing our baptism, they deny that we are their brothers; on the other hand, when we do not repeat their baptism but acknowledge it to be our own, we are saying to them: You are our brothers.

If they say, “Why do you seek us? What do you want of us?” we should reply: You are our brothers. They may say, “Leave us alone. We have nothing to do with you.” But we have everything to do with you, for we are one in our belief in Christ; and so we should be in one body, under one head.

And so, dear brothers, we entreat you on their behalf, in the name of the very source of our love, by whose milk we are nourished, and whose bread is our strength, in the name of Christ our Lord and his gentle love. For it is time now for us to show them great love and abundant compassion by praying to God for them. May he one day give them a clear mind to repent and to realize that they have nothing now but the sickness of their hatred, and the stronger they think they are, the weaker they become. We entreat you then to pray for them, for they are weak, given to the wisdom of the flesh, to fleshly and carnal things, but yet they are our brothers. They celebrate the same sacraments as we, not indeed with us, but still the same. They respond with the same Amen, not with us, but still the same. And so pour out your hearts for them in prayer to God.

 

[Dorothy]

I agree mostly with what you are saying. I am aware that there has been and is now great sinners in the Church. I am also aware that there are great saints.

As a Catholic I do believe that for the sake of those who are loyal to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals, they can be sanctified. I believe other Christians can be saintly as well.

I agree with your last sentence…as all have to answer for what we have not repented for.

The fact that there is corruption in the Church does not detract from what the Church teaches with regard to faith (dogma) and moral teaching.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with all you have presented above and wondered this myself from the very first OP post.However, I was reluctant to enter in the discussion for it appears I may be a HERETIC ! Surely I have no right to discussion.

Sadly, I do agree that Catholics seem to have more liberty on this site to say such things.

The fact that you have espoused doctrines that separate you from unity with the One Church founded by Christ does not mean that you don’t get to have a say! Especially here, in the non-Catholic subforum.

If we are unable to explore and discuss that which separates us, how will we ever achieve the unity His Heart desires?

 

[guanophore]

This is one thing I haven’t understood yet. The foundation on which Jesus’s Church is to be built must of necessity be infallible. Yet Peter demonstrably was a fallible person.

Yes, clearly you do not understand/accept the gift of infallibility, which is not impeccability.

Do you accept everything they profess, e.g. supremacy or Saint Peter, or do you pick and chose what you ‘accept’?

Jesus promised to lead His Church into “all Truth”.

His idea of leadership is one of servant leadership, and He specifically taught against the concept of “supremacy”.

The One Faith is like a seamless garment. Once one begins to unravel the threads, it loses cohesion.

I can reasonably conclude therefore that the foundation on which Jesus built his Church is not Peter.

Of course you can make this conclusion, a false one, based upon a false premise. God has given you free will, so that you may reject what He has given you to believe, in favor of your own views.

 

[goodcatholic]

How should Catholics deal with protestants?
We should smile in their company to show how compassionate we are. Whenever their inferior theology comes up in conversation, just either put on the snooze button or check your phone for any new messages.

 

[guanophore]

Do you agree that the foundation of the Church must be infallible?

The foundation of the Church is the Apostles and prophets, who have been grafted into the cornerstone, who is Christ.

You have erroneously equated the gift of infallibility with impeccability. If the human beings upon which the Church is founded were not peccable, they would not NEED the gift of infallibility!

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures were written by fallible men who were moved by the power of the Holy Spirit, & yet we don’t doubt the Scripture’s infallibility…Do we…? I don’t…

Technically speaking, infallibility requires fallibility, Only persons with conscience and will can experience the gift of infallibilty (which, as you say, the Holy Scriptures were produced), but the product is inspired and inerrant.

Scriptures are Holy Writings, but do not have the ability to choose or to take responsibility for wrong actions, and therefore, cannot be “infallible”.

 

[guanophore]

But that’s the argument then isn’t it. The foundation of Jesus’s Church is the infallible
essential teachings and faith matters.

What argument is that? You don’t believe that Jesus is able or willing to lead His Church into “all truth”?

Oh yes the ubiquitous use of the Holy Spirit to serve mans ends.

What brings such a cynical person to such an environment as CAF?

When clergy err do they cease to be members of the Church which is preserved from erring?

You have confused impeccability with infallibility.

You must agree that in order to keep ones unerring Church one cannot include erring individuals as a defining characteristic of said Church else by definition the Church errs at times.

No, this is a false conclusion based upon a false premise. The Truth is not defined by those who depart from it.

And then what do we make of it when those leaders of the Church make decisions in an official capacity as representatives of that Church based on their understanding of Gods revelations to man and then have to apologize later for their actions?

That human beings make mistakes.

Can one lead in the name of God and then admit error?

Absolutely!

But then how does one know if they are leading in error or infallibly?

It is a foregone conclusion that anyone following your lead is proceeding in error.

 

[guanophore]

Given axiomatically that the scriptures were written to be infallible by fallible men, and that’s if we believe the word of the fallible men which say what they wrote is the infallible word of God, we are still left with no guarantee that those fallible men will interpret infallibly what they have written.

Another false conclusion based upon a false premise. But I do agree, you have no guarantee that those to whom God entrusted the Teachings are reliable. A person could only benefit from such a guarantee if they believed that Jesus is who He says He is, and that He keeps His promises. Those who refuse these gifts of God are destined for perdition.

Sometimes I think that people deliberately shut down a discussion in order to avoid the hard questions.

There is little benefit to defending the faith for those who have already rejected it. If one is to invest the time and effort to make an apology for their faith, it would seem that it should have some destination rather than pearls before swine.

You’ve basically said that’s the way it is because that’s the way it is.

Proverbs 26:4 “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.”

There comes a time when one who tries to have dialogue with another bears no fruit.

Is it that you don’t understand the dilemma I’ve presented

It is a strawman.

Your obligation should be bringing your fellow man to God with every effort you can muster.

I don’t think it is your place or perogative to decide what the duty of a Christian should be.

This is a serious exploration of the truth of God.

I don’t think so. People that create strawmen, and manufacture questions and conclusions based upon false premises are not really serious about exploring anything.

I’m sorry if it makes you uncomfortable because you cannot rectify my question with what you believe. Perhaps you should then reevaluate what you believe.

I think this is your primary purpose here, to try to get the faithful to “re-evaluate” what they believe. It seems to be a single minded agenda to pull Catholics away from their faith.

It is not our job to rectify your position with what we believe. On the contrary, you should be commended to your cynicism and lack of faith. It is your free choice. God has given you the ability to make it, an continue to make it through eternity.

 

[guanophore]

Time and again these conversations conveniently fade off into oblivion without a solid conclusion.

Actually, it seems quite clear that you have already come to a 'solid conclusion". Perhaps you are disappointed that we are not interested in sharing yours?

Can I not get a good answer!

You have an answer that suits you. Why look for another? Why make it sound like you are not getting you needs met, just because you could not pull anyone on the thread into doubt and disbelief?

Sometimes I wonder why God bothers.

This seems like an odd thing to say, for a person who claims not to believe…

Those that want the answers cant get them

On the contrary, people who want answers get them every day here at CAF. Those, on the other hand, who prefer their own answers to the ones God has given, will keep their own answers.

those that think they’ve found all the answers stop looking, content to remain where they are even if where they are is wrong.

You seem despondent that you have not been able to convince faithful Catholics here that they are “wrong”.