I just don't get...

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolduude
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi V.S.
So, how can both be right? And why, after 1,000 years, has Sacred Tradition not brought the unity that Christ called for? So, your post seems to say you agree that Scripture and Tradition has been no more successful that sola scriptura in bringing about one true institutional Church on earth.
For those of us who seek unity, it is clear we must rely more on the Holy Spirit than our own devices.

Jon
Their are over a billion Catholics across the world, thats pretty unified. Just because some christians choose to separate themselves from Jesus Holy Church, doesn’t mean his church in itself isnt unified. His Holy Church has always been an institution. Instead of letting Christ correct his church man chose to try and do it, separated themselves and left. But the doors are always open for anyone to come home.😃
 
I am sorry, but I did not find the time to read the whole thread. I wish to answer to the OP however…
How do Protestants remain Protestants with the (almost literal) mountain of evidence against them?

Church Fathers, the Gospels, St. Paul, St. Peter, and most of all, logic!

It also befuddles me as to how the Reformation created new churches in the first place. It seems to me that most breaks in the Church at that time took place out of anger, not legitimate doctrinal disputes (Henry VII is a prime example).

It seems the anger took over, the split occurred, and the doctrinal stuff got worked out later. That’s probably why 95% of it is so crazy.

If only Protestants did this:
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Hear the good news of the RCC I mean…
I used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith. You might think this odd, but I can and will not submit my will to the Catholic Church’s teaching in the issues that they try to push on me dogmatically that I cannot agree on.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it illogical, heretical or schismatic if you wish…
 
How do Protestants remain Protestants with the (almost literal) mountain of evidence against them?

Church Fathers, the Gospels, St. Paul, St. Peter, and most of all, logic!

It also befuddles me as to how the Reformation created new churches in the first place. It seems to me that most breaks in the Church at that time took place out of anger, not legitimate doctrinal disputes (Henry VII is a prime example).

It seems the anger took over, the split occurred, and the doctrinal stuff got worked out later. That’s probably why 95% of it is so crazy.

If only Protestants did this:
“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”

Hear the good news of the RCC I mean
You’ve got within your post part of the answer. I highlighted and underlined it for you. The Gospel (Good News) is of Jesus not the RCC or the CC or ANY church for that matter. That’s the first place you loose me.
 
Greek the language of the New Testament.
This is very interesting. You are asserting that a teaching authority appointed by Christ was not necessary because the pastors and teachers knew the Greek Language of the NT? which pastors and teachers are those?

Where did the NT come from?
It makes the Vulgate more reliable but no infallible.
This is true in any case. It is not possible for Holy Scripture to be infallible. This is one of the main reasons why Sola Scriptura is a gross heresy.
No, but I believe there was a time in the Western Churches where Greek was devalued and the Latin text raised to a level it wasn’t at.
Yes, this is certainly true in the Latin Rite, and therefore, Reformation Europe.
Code:
Textual criticism, and in academia the Historical-critical method, so long as both are pursued with the inerrancy of the Bible (I.E even though Paul probably didn't write 2 Corinthians), it's still the Word of God.
Are you suffering some sort of misapprehension that Catholics did not practice textual criticism or the historical critical method in the study of the NT?
In the Roman Catholic view, absolutely. However I believe we are all Priests (1 Peter) so we all have the obligation to understand and interpret Scripture as best as we can, as all Scripture is useful for correcting error.
The Catholic view is not “Roman”

The NT priesthood is a fulfillment of the OT shadow. There is a Great High Priest who enters the Holy of Holies to make atonement for our sins, a ministerial priesthood, and the priesthood of all beleivers.

Yes, we all have an obligation to understand and interpret scripture, but doing it “as best we can” means congruity with the faith of those who wrote it. This congruity is found in the Apostolic Succession. The notion that scripture should be individually interpreted apart from the teachings of those who wrote it is absurd. It is also destructive, as it perpetrates division.
 
So, how can both be right?
Exactly. You have put your finger on why there needs to be an authority appointed by Christ. He knows the hearts of men.
Code:
And why, after 1,000 years, has Sacred Tradition not brought the unity that Christ called for?
There is perfect unity within the Sacred Tradition. Unity is broken when people depart from it.
So, your post seems to say you agree that Scripture and Tradition has been no more successful that sola scriptura in bringing about one true institutional Church on earth.
There is no need to “bring about” that which Christ has already established and is building. It is for us to enter into His work, not to extrapolate what we think it should be from the pages of scripture some 2000 years after he established His Church.
Code:
  For those of us who seek unity, it is clear we must rely more on the Holy Spirit than our own devices.
Indeed, this is a wise saying. There are as many personal interpretations as there are belly buttons. The HS will never guide an individual believer in a direction opposite to what He has already led the Church.
 
I am sorry, but I did not find the time to read the whole thread. I wish to answer to the OP however…

I used to be Catholic for most of my life, but now I am at odds with Catholic teaching. To rejoin the Catholic Church to to continue to claim to be part of her would not only be hypocritical on my part, but also denying my own faith. You might think this odd, but I can and will not submit my will to the Catholic Church’s teaching in the issues that they try to push on me dogmatically that I cannot agree on.

That I am at odds with the Catholic Church is based upon theological issues, including but not limited to, the following:

I do not believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity. (CCC 499 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s immaculate conception. (CCC [491](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/491 .htm), CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)
I do not believe in Mary’s assumption. (CCC 966, CCC 2177, CCC 2853 and others.)

I do not hate Mary. As a matter of fact I think she is a wonderful example to all of us who long to follow the Lord Jesus Christ.
I just simply refuse to believe that these things are true. Call it illogical, heretical or schismatic if you wish…
Not to derail, but I am interested in the fact that you “refuse to believe that these things are true.” Is there a basis for your denial?
 
It might be helpful to consider that all “denominations” were created by men, and represent a departure from the Church founded by Christ to a greater or lesser extent. They all have defined themselves AGAINST what they believe about Catholicism. Catholicism is not a denomination.
Well this is where the habitual rub between protestants and Catholics fall. Catholics want to believe denominations are manmade. To say so is to say that the Catholic Church is man-made then. 99% of protestants will testify that their faith was created by Christ. For you to say otherwise is tantamount to you trying to define my faith. I don’t define yours, so show some respect and don’t try to define mine.
 
Not to derail, but I am interested in the fact that you “refuse to believe that these things are true.” Is there a basis for your denial?
There is a basis for my denial. I would not believe that the sky is green just because somebody claimed it was. I do not believe these things to be true because I believe them to be unfounded, leading the simple minded into error and distracting myself from the glory of my Lord. I do not believe that Mary was conceived without sin and I choose to disbelieve. As much as others choose to believe I choose to believe not.
Looking back in history Mary has my respect and she is a wonderful example of the work that God can do in a simple maiden, but that is all there is for me. Mary is proof that God does not need to choose the highest levels of society to glorify Himself nor does He need to choose the most educated or best equipped for His holy cause. God does not choose the equipped, He equips the chosen.
Him choosing a young girl for the purpose of delivering His Son shows that His mercy and His grace are undeserved and cannot be merited. Mary gave her life over to the Lord for the purpose of Him working though her. She rightly called herself the handmaiden of the Lord, or for the purpose of a better translation, the slave of the Lord.
In as much as she gave herself for Him, we should all give our lives to be dead to the world and alive in Jesus Christ. That is why I gladly call myself a slave of the Lord and a slave of Jesus Christ.
I do not need to believe that Mary has been conceived any different than any other human being, that she never had sexual relationships with her husband or that she was taken into heaven with body and soul. I do not need to believe all that to be a follower of Jesus Christ and His slave.
If the Catholic Church wishes to force this kind of a belief on me, then so be it. I will not obey and I will not submit myself to the teaching of the Church in these and other aspects. I will submit to the Lord Jesus Christ only and I will serve Him only in everything. He saved me from myself. He saved me, even though I did not deserve it and He died a cruel death on the cross for my sins. I do not deserve His tender mercies, His grace, His forbearance, His lovingkindness and still He did all of this for me.
I don’t deserve anything but hell. I sinned against an infinitely holy God. I insulted the most glorious being in the entire universe. I deserve hell and I deserve only that. If God would execute perfect justice there would be no moderation, no mercy.
That is why I trust Him and Him alone. He bought me with a price and I am His slave.
 
Guanophore in black; Doki in color.

This is very interesting. You are asserting that a teaching authority appointed by Christ was not necessary because the pastors and teachers knew the Greek Language of the NT? which pastors and teachers are those?

Where did the NT come from? The Holy Spirit and the 1st century writers.

This is true in any case. It is not possible for Holy Scripture to be infallible. Now let me see if I understand: the CC in infallible in its teaching but the New Testament isn’t infallible?

The notion that scripture should be individually interpreted (ONLY the Holy Spirit can interpret the New Testament correctly) apart from the teachings of those who wrote it (the Holy Spirit wrote it as He inspirted the New Testament writers) is absurd.
 
There is a basis for my denial. I would not believe that the sky is green just because somebody claimed it was. I do not believe these things to be true because I believe them to be unfounded, leading the simple minded into error and distracting myself from the glory of my Lord. I do not believe that Mary was conceived without sin and I choose to disbelieve. As much as others choose to believe I choose to believe not.
Dear Janet,

These things are not unfounded. The Catholic Church takes great care in examing the writings of the Church Fathers and Church Doctors, before declaring any dogma of the Church.

Our Blessed Mother Mary herself revealed to St Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858 that she is the Immaculate Conception;

*Thursday, March 25, 1858. Bernadette joyfully rejoined the lady in the grotto. It had been 3 weeks since she saw Aquero and had not known whether she would ever appear again. This time she was determined to obtain the lady’s name, so that she could finally tell the priest. Bernadette was characteristically stubborn, and she repeated four times the question she had practiced so often, “Would you be so kind as to tell me who you are?” The answer finally came: “I am the Immaculate Conception.”

“I went every day for a fortnight, and each day I asked her who she was–and this petition always made her smile. After the fortnight I asked her three times consecutively. She always smiled. At last I tried for the fourth time. She stopped smiling. With her arms down, she raised her eyes to heaven and then, folding her hands over her breast she said, ‘I am the Immaculate Conception.’ Then I went back to M. le Curé to tell him that she had said she was the Immaculate Conception, and he asked was I absolutely certain. I said yes, and so as not to forget the words, I had repeated them all the way home.”
Bernadette planted a candle between two rocks as a gift, a sign of her prayer and the revelation, and then ran home. Running all the way, she repeated these strange words over and over so that she would not forget them. Of course the words were spoken in her native Bigourdan dialect and were completely unfamiliar, “que soy era Immaculada Councepciou.”

Fr. Peyramale said that a woman cannot have a name like that. “You are mistaken. Do you know what that means?” The priest was shaken, and unable to talk to Bernadette. He quickly sent her away, and she left without the privilege of understanding the meaning of the title. She was only told later that afternoon that the Blessed Mother carried that title.

"She could never have invented this … " wrote Fr. Peyramale to the bishop that evening.

The Church declared that Mary was the “Immaculate Conception” only four years earlier in 1854. The title would certainly have been unknown to Bernadette since it was not broadly discussed in the liturgy, and Bernadette still could not read or write. She was only then learning her catechism to prepare for first Holy Communion, a task undertaken typically by children six or seven years her junior. It was her poor health and her family’s poverty that had hindered her education. *

:blessyou:
 
There is a basis for my denial. I would not believe that the sky is green just because somebody claimed it was. I do not believe these things to be true because I believe them to be unfounded, leading the simple minded into error and distracting myself from the glory of my Lord. I do not believe that Mary was conceived without sin and I choose to disbelieve. As much as others choose to believe I choose to believe not.
Looking back in history Mary has my respect and she is a wonderful example of the work that God can do in a simple maiden, but that is all there is for me. Mary is proof that God does not need to choose the highest levels of society to glorify Himself nor does He need to choose the most educated or best equipped for His holy cause. God does not choose the equipped, He equips the chosen.
Him choosing a young girl for the purpose of delivering His Son shows that His mercy and His grace are undeserved and cannot be merited. Mary gave her life over to the Lord for the purpose of Him working though her. She rightly called herself the handmaiden of the Lord, or for the purpose of a better translation, the slave of the Lord.
In as much as she gave herself for Him, we should all give our lives to be dead to the world and alive in Jesus Christ. That is why I gladly call myself a slave of the Lord and a slave of Jesus Christ.
I do not need to believe that Mary has been conceived any different than any other human being, that she never had sexual relationships with her husband or that she was taken into heaven with body and soul. I do not need to believe all that to be a follower of Jesus Christ and His slave.
If the Catholic Church wishes to force this kind of a belief on me, then so be it. I will not obey and I will not submit myself to the teaching of the Church in these and other aspects. I will submit to the Lord Jesus Christ only and I will serve Him only in everything. He saved me from myself. He saved me, even though I did not deserve it and He died a cruel death on the cross for my sins. I do not deserve His tender mercies, His grace, His forbearance, His lovingkindness and still He did all of this for me.
I don’t deserve anything but hell. I sinned against an infinitely holy God. I insulted the most glorious being in the entire universe. I deserve hell and I deserve only that. If God would execute perfect justice there would be no moderation, no mercy.
That is why I trust Him and Him alone. He bought me with a price and I am His slave.
Alright. Is the fact that they are not in the Bible one of the reasons that you “choose not to believe?”
 
Dear Janet,

These things are not unfounded. The Catholic Church takes great care in examing the writings of the Church Fathers and Church Doctors, before declaring any dogma of the Church.

Our Blessed Mother Mary herself revealed to St Bernadette Soubirous at Lourdes in 1858 that she is the Immaculate Conception;
If you say so. I don’t have to believe what happened at Lourdes in 1858.
🙂
 
Is the fact that they are not in the Bible one of the reasons that you “choose not to believe?”
That’s what you said… (bold by me)… If you see it as a fact, why would you want to bring it up and debate me on it?
Well it would lead pretty far to go into that. Concerning the immaculate conception "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
 
That’s what you said… (bold by me)… If you see it as a fact, why would you want to bring it up and debate me on it?
Well it would lead pretty far to go into that. Concerning the immaculate conception "no direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.
I guess that it is the way you say “chose not to believe” as if the evidence is compelling but you will not accept it.

The Trinity is not directly, categorically in Scriptures. Modalism is not denied in scripture directly, stingently or categorically. Why are they different
 
Well this is where the habitual rub between protestants and Catholics fall. Catholics want to believe denominations are manmade. To say so is to say that the Catholic Church is man-made then.
Jesus established One Church. During the Reformation, men decided that the Church He founded was not functioning properly, so they decided to remake it according to their own notions of how it ought to operate. Each of the groups who "reformed’ named and identified themselves according to which part of the Catholic faith they rejected. This is what it means to “denominate”.

Unless you believe that Jesus had another incarnation around 1600 and while He was here, founded Lutheranism, Calvanism, and Zwinglism. 😃
99% of protestants will testify that their faith was created by Christ.
Well, of course they do! Most of them don’t even know they belong to a faith tradition that has departed from the Apostolic faith.
Code:
For you to say otherwise is tantamount to you trying to define *my* faith. I don't define yours, so show some respect and don't try to define mine.
No, these Reformers defined it for themselves. I am simply commenting on the historicity of the events. The faith you hold today comes down to you from your spiritual ancestors, who were all heretics, having separated from the Apostolic Faith.
 
Where did the NT come from? The Holy Spirit and the 1st century writers.
The Holy Writings came from the HS and the first century writers. All these writers were Catholic. The NT came from the Catholic Church, 300 years later. It was assembled by the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. If you don’ t believe that Teaching Authority existed, then you have no basis for your Bible.
Code:
 **Now let me see if I understand: the CC in infallible in its teaching but the New Testament isn't infallible**?
Correct. Teaching is an activity of persons, and therefore, subject to fallibility. Scripture does not have the ability to act, so it cannot be infallible.
Code:
(**ONLY** **the Holy Spirit can interpret the New Testament correctly**
This is true, and He chooses to do so through Jesus’ One Body, the Church. He will not reveal anything to an individual that is contrary to the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.

Dokimas;6444202 said:
the Holy Spirit wrote it as He inspirted the New Testament writers
)

Yes, it was an incarnational act. Men, (Catholic men) inspired by God, were moved by the HS. Those men had a faith. It was Catholic faith.
 
I guess that it is the way you say “chose not to believe” as if the evidence is compelling but you will not accept it.

The Trinity is not directly, categorically in Scriptures. Modalism is not denied in scripture directly, stingently or categorically. Why are they different
Oh, the quote that I forgot to close was from a Catholic encyclopedia…
“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
The arguments are not in any way convincing. I do not believe that Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
 
Oh, the quote that I forgot to close was from a Catholic encyclopedia…
“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
The arguments are not in any way convincing. I do not believe that Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
Then perhaps you have not delved enough into it. I find them very convincing arguments. It did take me a while to understand it all though.
 
The Holy Writings came from the HS and the first century writers. All these writers were Catholic. The NT came from the Catholic Church, 300 years later. It was assembled by the Teaching Authority appointed by Christ. If you don’ t believe that Teaching Authority existed, then you have no basis for your Bible.

Correct. Teaching is an activity of persons, and therefore, subject to fallibility. Scripture does not have the ability to act, so it cannot be infallible.

This is true, and He chooses to do so through Jesus’ One Body, the Church. He will not reveal anything to an individual that is contrary to the Sacred Deposit of the Faith.

Yes, it was an incarnational act. Men, (Catholic men) inspired by God, were moved by the HS. Those men had a faith. It was Catholic faith.
WOW; quite a confession. Sorry to say you’ve lost me.
 
Oh, the quote that I forgot to close was from a Catholic encyclopedia…
“No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.”
The arguments are not in any way convincing. I do not believe that Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”
Like I said, it was your choice of the word choose in the post that threw me.

Do you find strong proof that modalism is wrong? Or that the Mormons are not correct with their view of the Trinity?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top