If you have studied the Catholic Church & her Teachings from sources within the Catholic Church and as a result you did not become Catholic, Please Po

[ckempston]

I have wondered this myself. Can things not become skewed down through the ages? How do we know it is “ok” to follow such things?

You, like all Catholics and every other flavor of Christian, have to make a personal interpretation, as to whether you will believe these things. Ironically, Catholics denounce personal interpretation, but their position on this matter is internally inconsistent, as they have to “personally interpret” which church is the true church, at the very least.

 

[adrift]

No, they didn’t. They had some of the parts, but not the doctrine, nor the requirement that it be believed in order to be a “true” Christian.

OH! Jesus said that He and His Father were one. Sounds like the doctrine to me.

Where?

Revelations and Matthew.

I have forgotten nothing. I call Mary blessed, as she said I would. Beyond that, attention to her is neither required, nor appropriate.

This does not answer that you said Jesus told us to pay no particular attention to her. This is not born out by Scripture in context. Jesus paid attention even to the point of performing a miracle.

 

[ckempston]

OH! Jesus said that He and His Father were one. Sounds like the doctrine to me.

Do you seriously believe that that is all the Trinity doctrine entails? You are either being disingenuous, or are extremely misinformed.

Revelations and Matthew.

First of all, it’s Revelation (singular). Secondly, vague answer like this prove one thing - you can’t prove it.

This does not answer that you said Jesus told us to pay no particular attention to her. This is not born out by Scripture in context. Jesus paid attention even to the point of performing a miracle.

Actually, what I said was Jesus placed no special significance upon his mother (as related to our salvation). On the contrary, he said his mother and brothers and sisters are those who do the will of the Father.

And the fact that Jesus performed a miracle at the request of his mother is supposed to make us conclude…what exactly? Jesus performed miracles at the request of many people.

 

[Carlan]

Passing truth along is quite different from inventing new doctrines, which is what the Catholic church has done. Nobody in the first century ever heard of homoousious, the Queen of Heaven, the co-Redemptrix, Papal Infallability, or any other such man-made belief. Even if some Catholic doctrines are not contrary to the teachings of the Apostles, that does not make them true or necessary. Prior to his death on the cross, Jesus taught his followers to place no special significance upon his mother, which is the exact opposite of what Catholics do. How is this “teaching those same truths he revealed?”

Kempston, Referring to the Mother of Jesus as Queen of heaven and earth is not a Catholic doctrine and neither is the term co-redemptrix.
As far as the Trinity is concerned , the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the belief that three persons in one God is Catholic doctrine even tho’ the term was probably not used in the 1st century nor was the term trinity used in Scripture,that does not make it false doctrine. Perhaps you could look a little closer at the Capital ‘T’ 's of tradition and the small ‘t’ 's of tradition to get a better understanding of what is doctrine and what is not. Carlan

 

[ckempston]

Kempston, Referring to the Mother of Jesus as Queen of heaven and earth is not a Catholic doctrine and neither is the term co-redemptrix.
As far as the Trinity is concerned , the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the belief that three persons in one God is Catholic doctrine even tho’ the term was probably not used in the 1st century nor was the term trinity used in Scripture,that does not make it false doctrine. Perhaps you could look a little closer at the Capital ‘T’ 's of tradition and the small ‘t’ 's of tradition to get a better understanding of what is doctrine and what is not. Carlan

Oh, right, Popes teach it and write about it, but it’s not a “doctrine,” because it hasn’t been taught Ex-Cathedra (another meaningless concept because there is no clear definition of what this is or when it happens). How convenient. I may have confused co-redemptrix, Mediatrix of all Graces, or perhaps her sinlessness, Immaculate Conception, or Assumption there are so many man-made doctrines, I sometimes get confused - sheesh! I’m fairly certain at least a few of those are actual dogmas, but I forget which ones.

The problem is, and you have to admit that one day, co-redemptrix may indeed be an established doctrine. This is how it has worked throughout the ages, and will continue to work as Catholicism adds more “truths” to Jesus’ Truth.

 

[ckempston]

Kempston, Referring to the Mother of Jesus as Queen of heaven and earth is not a Catholic doctrine and neither is the term co-redemptrix.
As far as the Trinity is concerned , the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, the belief that three persons in one God is Catholic doctrine even tho’ the term was probably not used in the 1st century nor was the term trinity used in Scripture,that does not make it false doctrine. Perhaps you could look a little closer at the Capital ‘T’ 's of tradition and the small ‘t’ 's of tradition to get a better understanding of what is doctrine and what is not. Carlan

Forgot to respond to your comment on the Trinity - I find it hard to believe that two Catholics have so severely misrepresented what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. It is not merely that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it goes into great detail to describe the mechanics of the Trinity, how it works, and what the relationship of each member is to the other using very technical philosophical concepts, mostly from Aristotle.

 

[Carlan]

No, they didn’t. They had some of the parts, but not the doctrine, nor the requirement that it be believed in order to be a “true” Christian.

Where?

I have forgotten nothing. I call Mary blessed, as she said I would. Beyond that, attention to her is neither required, nor appropriate.

you can say as a person, attention to Mary the mother of God is not required, but to say it is not approprate, is being most disrespectul. As the Fathers choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Saviour, Mary deserves to be honored and revered. May I ask you, do you not give your mother attention? is attention and love shown to your mother not required or appropriate? Jesus loved his Mother and because our Savior loved her we as Catholic Christians love her and very much so. Do you mind? Carlan

 

[ckempston]

you can say as a person, attention to Mary the mother of God is not required, but to say it is not approprate, is being most disrespectul. As the Fathers choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Saviour, Mary deserves to be honored and revered. May I ask you, do you not give your mother attention? is attention and love shown to your mother not required or appropriate? Jesus loved his Mother and because our Savior loved her we as Catholic Christians love her and very much so. Do you mind? Carlan

It is inappropriate. Mary is presumably in heaven, but she can neither hear my prayers, nor influence the answering of them, because she is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

As the Father’s choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Savior, Mary deserves to be called Blessed, as she said, but nothing more.

Do* you *give my mother attention and love? No, you don’t. She’s not your mother.

 

[Carlan]

Forgot to respond to your comment on the Trinity - I find it hard to believe that two Catholics have so severely misrepresented what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is. It is not merely that there is a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but it goes into great detail to describe the mechanics of the Trinity, how it works, and what the relationship of each member is to the other using very technical philosophical concepts, mostly from Aristotle.

Kempston,Through God"s precious gift of grace and faith I accept all Catholic doctrine.
I accept the mystery of the Trinity without driving myself around the bend trying to figure it out philosophically. I’ll wait until I get to my resting place for that enlightenment.
I am not a philosopher, arm chair ,or otherwise . Iv’e never studied Aristotle so I can’t speak on such. Is an apology warranted from me for your opinion that I have severely misrepresented Catholic doctrine? In my humble opinion I think not. Carlan

 

[adrift]

Do you seriously believe that that is all the Trinity doctrine entails? You are either being disingenuous, or are extremely misinformed.

It is you who are being disingenuous or talking out of both sides of your mouth. You said

Nobody in the first century ever heard of homoousious,

Now you say that its not all that the Trinity entails. The Trinity is a doctrine that the first century Christians would have known. So although the term homoousios would not have been used, the doctrine it describes would have been.

First of all, it’s Revelation (singular).

This is a tacky comment.

Secondly, vague answer like this prove one thing - you can’t prove it

.
Your question was vague.

Actually, what I said was Jesus placed no special significance upon his mother (as related to our salvation). On the contrary, he said his mother and brothers and sisters are those who do the will of the Father.

And the fact that Jesus performed a miracle at the request of his mother is supposed to make us conclude…what exactly? Jesus performed miracles at the request of many people.

Jesus tells His mother “My hour has not yet come.” Yet He performs the miracle anyway. Mary did the will of the Father. So he isn’t trying to make His mother insignificant. Upon the cross Jesus’ concern is for His mother.

 

[Carlan]

It is inappropriate. Mary is presumably in heaven, but she can neither hear my prayers, nor influence the answering of them, because she is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

As the Father’s choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Savior, Mary deserves to be called Blessed, as she said, but nothing more.

Do* you *give my mother attention and love? No, you don’t. She’s not your mother.

you are correct about your Mom,don’t know her. But wrong about Mary being my Mother and yours. Jesus in his own words gave her to us at the foot of the cross in speaking to John.
/It is o.k. Kempston, to ask Mary or the other many Saints in heaven to intercede to the Father through our Lord Jesus the only Mediator for us in our need. By the way those souls up there with the Father and his Son are not dead they are more alive now than they were here below.Carlan

 

[ckempston]

It is you who are being disingenuous or talking out of both sides of your mouth. You said

Your comment above makes no sense. Homoousious is still only a small part of the Trinity doctrine. There was serious disagreement on defining the Trinity. As with most doctrines, it was put to a vote in council. These votes are perhaps the best evidence that those things Catholics claim were taught from the beginning were not.

Now you say that its not all that the Trinity entails. The Trinity is a doctrine that the first century Christians would have known. So although the term homoousios would not have been used, the doctrine it describes would have been.

Did I ever say that it was all the Trinity entails? No. As I pointed out above, the fact that there was disagreement in the church regarding something as simple as the nature of Jesus proves that there wasn’t some universal oral teaching handed down from the Apostles on the subject.

This is a tacky comment.

It’s a true comment.
.

Your question was vague.

Only to someone who’s again being disingenuous or purposely difficult. If you have evidence that you think is good, feel free to present it. Of course, you don’t have such evidence, which is why you haven’t presented it.

Jesus tells His mother “My hour has not yet come.” Yet He performs the miracle anyway. Mary did the will of the Father. So he isn’t trying to make His mother insignificant. Upon the cross Jesus’ concern is for His mother.

Of course Jesus was concerned for his mother. She was HIS MOTHER. Wouldn’t you be concerned with who would be taking care of your mother if you were dying? This is a display of Jesus’ humanity, not Mary’s importance to us.

 

[Carlan]

I have wondered this myself. Can things not become skewed down through the ages? How do we know it is “ok” to follow such things?

Because, Sckcd, We are the Body of Christ the Church which he instiututed when he returned to the Father and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.
The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. The Church is his Body he is the Head. When the Holy Spirit was sent He breathed His Breath into the Apostles and sent them forth to teach all men the truth.H e has done what the Father wanted down through the ages through his Church and he will continue to draw all men into truth until the end of time.:thumbsup:Carlan

 

[ckempston]

Because, Sckcd, We are the Body of Christ the Church which he instiututed when he returned to the Father and sent the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth.
The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. The Church is his Body he is the Head. When the Holy Spirit was sent He breathed His Breath into the Apostles and sent them forth to teach all men the truth.H e has done what the Father wanted down through the ages through his Church and he will continue to draw all men into truth until the end of time.:thumbsup:Carlan

Total misrepresentation of what the Scriptures say.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Jesus promised the Spirit would come and guide the Apostles into all truth. By the time the Apostles died, all truth required for us to obtain salvation and live godly lives was revealed. As Paul also points out to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known* the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus*. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Irenaeus even attests to the fact that the Apostles had perfect knowledge before they preached, and no one should presume to add to this teaching.

Against Heresies 3.1.1
*
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith*

Ouch! According to Irenaeus, everything that was preached in public was set down in writing, and is all we need for our plan of salvation. Double ouch!

Cont’d

For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

These quotes are quite damaging to the Catholic position that the Apostles teaching needs to be constantly explained, added to, and, I might add, mingled with pagan philosophy to somehow make it more clear.

So, not only is the Scripture plain when all truth would be revealed, but Irenaeus said the exact same thing.

 

[elvisman]

It is inappropriate. Mary is presumably in heaven, but she can neither hear my prayers, nor influence the answering of them, because she is neither omniscient nor omnipotent.

Since heaven in outside of time (2 Pet. 3:8), Mary - or any other saint - doesn’t need to be omnipotent or omniscient to hear our petitions.
Seems like you have a lack of understanding of the Scriptures.

As the Father’s choice from all time to be the mother of his only begotten Son and our Savior, Mary deserves to be called Blessed, as she said, but nothing more.

Do* you *give my mother attention and love? No, you don’t. She’s not your mother.

And YOUR mother isn’t the Mother of God - Mary IS (Luke 1:43)

 

[elvisman]

Total misrepresentation of what the Scriptures say.

John 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Jesus promised the Spirit would come and guide the Apostles into all truth. By the time the Apostles died, all truth required for us to obtain salvation and live godly lives was revealed. As Paul also points out to Timothy:

2 Timothy 3:14-17 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known* the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus*. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Irenaeus even attests to the fact that the Apostles had perfect knowledge before they preached, and no one should presume to add to this teaching.

Against Heresies 3.1.1

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith

Ouch! According to Irenaeus, everything that was preached in public was set down in writing, and is all we need for our plan of salvation. Double ouch!
For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed “perfect knowledge,” as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.

These quotes are quite damaging to the Catholic position that the Apostles teaching needs to be constantly explained, added to, and, I might add, mingled with pagan philosophy to somehow make it more clear.

So, not only is the Scripture plain when all truth would be revealed, but Irenaeus said the exact same thing.

To that, I would add:
1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

**Notice, the Scriptures themselves say the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT Scripture . . . **OUCH!!

They ALSO put Tradition on par with the Scriptures:

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

Irenaeus
**The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

---

OUCH!!

 

[O.S.Luke]

And I refuse to allow anti-Catholics to attack Christ’s Church.
As long as you wish to have charitable dialogue, it will go smoothly. BUT, when people come here thinking they can simply attack the Church and it will go unanswered – they have another thing coming. I will expose them for what they are: Anti-Catholics.

I was pointing out that Protestants were being attacked for answering the question posed (by invitation) by the OP.

Re: your earlier post:

I can have just as charitable a dialogue as the anti-Catholic allows.

As for your not responding to posts from educated Catholics – I’m sure it has more to do with your inability to control the conversation.

Where did I attack Catholicism? I’m not anti-Catholic.

 

[elvisman]

I was pointing out that Protestants were being attacked for answering the question posed (by invitation) by the OP.

Re: your earlier post:

Where did I attack Catholicism? I’m not anti-Catholic.

I wasn’t talking about you, personally. It was a hypothetical.

 

[Carlan]

T

To that, I would add:
1 Tim. 3:15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

**Notice, the Scriptures themselves say the CHURCH is the pillar and foundation of truth - NOT Scripture . . . **OUCH!!

They ALSO put Tradition on par with the Scriptures:

2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

2 Tim. 2:2
"What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also".

1 Cor. 11:2
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you".

Irenaeus
The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said (Against Heresies 1:10 A.D. 189]).
Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there should arise a dispute relative to some important question among us. Should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches? (ibid. 3:4).

---

OUCH!!

Thanks Elvisman, you know your stuff, keep up the good work.:thumbsup:Carlan

 

[elvisman]

T

Thanks Elvisman, you know your stuff, keep up the good work.:thumbsup:Carlan

Thank a - thank ya very much!