Protestant saying hello

[justasking4]

cascherman;3448669]
Justasking,

I see all these long explanations from Catholics to all of your questions. They include evidence and quotes and real reasoning. As far as I can tell you come back with not things that have evidence but non-Catholic rhetoric like,“you are not in total error, but some Catholics do not hold their leaders accountable” and your opinions that, quite frankly, are up to your own interpretation of the Bible.

i have responded to many many people on this forum. I’m not just dialoguing with one person but many. I also do not want to assume what a person believes but ask them so as to have a better understanding. Secondly, how do you as a catholic hold your leaders accountable for what they teach? Is there a system set up in your church to address these things or must you accept them because they say the Holy Spirit is guiding them ?
In regards to my interpreting the scriptures you to must interpret them with your own fallible understanding. What you share about them is your opinion also. In fact on this issue of interpretation, catholics don’t get much help from their church on this since it has interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses. That’s not much help when you want to know what speciifc verses mean.

See here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Are these “traditions” true though? If so, how do you know?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What were some of the factors that led to you coming to the catholic church?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Also, how well did you know the scriptures and doctrines of the Baptists?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. They tell essentially the same kind of thing here when it comes to specifics and challenges. Have you ever dialogued with a Mormon or Jehovah Witness?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
How do you know this? What is your criteria that you use to determine this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Does this mean you will accept anything your church says to you?

You are sending us off on these homework missions. People find the answers for you and present an argument with evidence and you just ask another question. What are your intentions here, I’ve been following your argumentation and it just jumps around with one rhetoric to the next. Very meaningless stuff that has, unlike many other responses, any real evidence, mostly opinion.

I’m amazed you would actually put this in writing— If you look at these quotes in context you will find that i’m responding to a number of different issues and posters. These questions are asked so that i can understand what each of these posters mean or how they think. There is no “homework missions” here but can be answered without doing any leg work.

Enough questions. Many have asked you question after question and you respond with another question.

Since i have posted quite a lot i could have missed it or considered not important. Why don’t you give me a couple of questions you want me to answer for you?

Let’s get down to it, what is your issue with traditions passed down from person to person?

To know speciifcally what they are and there origins. Secondly is to understand how they impact doctrine. Do you believe all traditions have been true and benefical?

Better yet, prove to us from the Bible that Christ did not organize a visible Church for believers to turn to that could be kept from error.

No doubt He did establish a visible church that has the responsibility to teach the truth of Christ. It also has a responsiblity to defend against error. In both of these cases it has failed at times by allowing false teachers and teachings into the church. We also know that it has allowed evil men to lead the church. It has also engaged in evil with the inquisitions.

The evidence points to a visible authority in the apostles and their successors.

Depends what you mean by successor. For example are these successors also considered apostles?

---

Pax,
Chris

 

[justasking4]

Yes.

Yes.

Their discipline of the Mass is slightly different; for example, they receive Holy Communion from a spoon rather than by hand, as we Latin Rite (aka “Roman”) Catholics do. They also have different kinds of music, and their priests dress a bit differently - but yes, it is a Mass, and it is both licit and valid in the Catholic tradition, and it is in full communion with the Pope.

Yes.

Then what is the difference? Is is substantial and if so what makes it so?
It seems to me that for discussion sakes were basically talking about the same thing. Correct?

 

[jmcrae]

i have responded to many many people on this forum. I’m not just dialoguing with one person but many. I also do not want to assume what a person believes but ask them so as to have a better understanding. Secondly, how do you as a catholic hold your leaders accountable for what they teach? Is there a system set up in your church to address these things or must you accept them because they say the Holy Spirit is guiding them ?

That’s what the Catechism is for. If they are teaching contrary to the Catechism, then it is a false teaching.

How do Protestants determine whether their leaders are interpreting the Scriptures correctly? They have no standards with which to compare.

In regards to my interpreting the scriptures you to must interpret them with your own fallible understanding. What you share about them is your opinion also. In fact on this issue of interpretation, catholics don’t get much help from their church on this since it has interpreted infallibly less than 20 verses. That’s not much help when you want to know what speciifc verses mean.

Actually, it is very helpful, since we also have the Catechism to help us out.

I’m amazed you would actually put this in writing— If you look at these quotes in context you will find that i’m responding to a number of different issues and posters. These questions are asked so that i can understand what each of these posters mean or how they think. There is no “homework missions” here but can be answered without doing any leg work.

If the Catholic faith were based on “whatever I happen to think at any given moment,” then there would be no homework to do, but since we have to present the beliefs of the Catholic Church, and not our own personal opinions, then we do, in fact, have to look things up for you, to make sure we are giving you the Church’s teachings and not our own opinions or misunderstandings.

On the plus side, everyone is learning their Catechism.

No doubt He did establish a visible church that has the responsibility to teach the truth of Christ.

He also empowered it to do so, by protecting it from the ability to formally teach error. (Individuals can be mistaken about what the Church teaches, and they can also sin, but the Church itself cannot be mistaken about anything with regard to faith and morals.)

Depends what you mean by successor. For example are these successors also considered apostles?

No; they are Bishops, priests, and deacons.

 

[guanophore]

You claim to be Byzantine in your profile. For simplicity sake do you believe the following:
1- the pope is head of the church?

No

2- the mass?

Yes, but the Eastern Rites don’t call it that, it is called Divine Liturgy. I also attend daily Mass in a Roman parish because the times are better.

3- all or most catholic doctrines and practices?

Catholics of all Rites share the same doctrine.

Practices vary by culture.

4- most or all the sacraments?

All Catholics practice the same 7 sacraments, however, they are often performed differently. For instance, the Eastern Rites chrismate infants and give them communion.

Secondly, i also address others through my posts also. I suspect most people on the forum are roman catholics or close to it and have a good idea what i’m addressing.

I have a good idea what you are addressing. I think you do it in a prejudiced manner.

Third, i suspect you also know that there are various degrees of protestants in beliefs also and i do not subscribe to. However, if someone describes such a protestant belief that i don’t subscribe to i don’t imply or call them bigots. Your name calling is just another indicator of a failed argument on your part.

I have not called you a “bigot” ja4, although it may be that you are. I have never met you, so for all I know you are just role playing on here. What I do know is that your posts contain attitudes and beliefs that come across as bigoted.

I really don’t think you and others really don’t know that much about it by your responses. If on the other hand this is as clear as a catholic can get about Sacred Tradition then its really not that substantive.

Certainly not for you, ja4. In the olden days, you would never have been allowed anywhere near the congregation of the faithful, due to your hostility toward The Way. You would probably have been assumed to be a spy or an infiltrator, just as Paul was thought to be when he tried to join the disciples. Persons who were faithless about the Traditions as you are were not permitted to attend or participate. You would be permitted to enter catechism, but if you continued in the hostility, you would have been barred from that as well. Times have changed!

Its not arrogance but an understanding doctrines and comparing those doctrines and practices to what the scriptures say. Celibacy is just one of the many problems.

To me, it seems arrogant that you think your personal understanding of biblical doctrine should erase 2000 years of scholarship and practice. If you have so many problems with celibacy, then you are either not called to it, or you were called to it and refused the calling and it is eating at you. Either way, blaming this discomfort on others hardly seems an appropriate response.

I’m in good company. Jesus and His apostles were also thought of as false teachers.

And worse! However, if you were in union with Jesus and the Apostolic doctrines, you would not be so hostile to us. As it is, you are perpetrating new doctrines that have only emerged in the last 150 years in the US and are far removed from what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Do all the other rites share the same pope? Do they celebrate the Mass? Do they all have priests that forgive sins?

yes

 

[jmcrae]

Then what is the difference? Is is substantial and if so what makes it so?
It seems to me that for discussion sakes were basically talking about the same thing. Correct?

His objection was that you were calling him a “Roman” Catholic. We are all Catholics; some of us are also Roman (which is Latin Rite). (And as it happens, he is not Roman; he belongs to the Byzantine Rite.)

Makes sense, now?

 

[guanophore]

Huh? Perhaps you didn’t read the passages carefully. Paul is referring to his own and to Silvanus and Timothy’ traditions. Paul is no ordinary man in the sense of being of the world but of Christ.

Paul did have some traditions (customs) but he was talking about the paradosis (the handing down of the Sacred Teachings)

" For **I delivered to you **as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve." 1 Cor 15:3-5

This is the transmission of Sacred Tradition. The Teachings are delivered as they were received.

“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thess 2:13-14

The Word of God is not Paul’s personal “customs”. It is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith.

Huh??? I’m making the point from Scripture that Paul was referring to his own “traditions” (whatever they may have been) and not to all the other traditions that were perhaps in place then and certainly not to many of the catholic traditions of today which he was totally unaware of.

Since the Sacred Traditions were delivered to Paul, and he in turn delivered them to the bishops, I think he was totally aware of them.

I can agree with this.

Good. Now we have a clear understanding of what is meant by Sacred Tradition.

It is the leadership that is responsible for this rule that has a grounding in doctrine.

Of course! Jesus and Paul both make it clear that there are advantages and benefits to the celibate life. However, those who live under the rule are only those so called, and gifted with the appropriate graces. Those that are not are exempt.

I don’t expect you to see the harm. However the apostles did in false teachings and practices. We see this in 2 Corinthians 11:3 where he writes these words—But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
That’s what harmful about these doctrines and practices. They lead people astray from the simplicity and devotion to Christ.

If you are not able to wear the brown scapular, or pray to your guardian angel without it intervering with your relationship with Christ, then it would be better not to do so. However, these are personal devotional practices, and are not binding on any of the faithful. There is no need to criticize others over their prayer life.

i don’t think this is correct. As far as i can remember the canon for the reformers came later. Maybe i’m wrong.

The proclamation at Trent was made to settle disputes, as are all proclamations. This is the same with the Apostles Creed, the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc. These things were believed since the beginning, but never required defintion or development until there was a problem.

And the roman church wanted to protect some of its theology by elevating these books to full canon status. Even in this council there were doubts about these books.

No, ja4. If you go back and look at the source material, you can see that this is the collection that was used by Jesus and the Apostles long before the Church was even born, and several centuries before the Roman Rite developed. You can’t blame that on the Romans! This is an example of that prejudice I was telling you about. You blame all kinds of stuff on the Romans that are not even Roman!

How do you know when your church is speaking by the HS?

What is said is consistent with the Sacred Traditions, brought to us through the Apostles and their successors!

 

[guanophore]

No doubt He did establish a visible church that has the responsibility to teach the truth of Christ. It also has a responsiblity to defend against error. In both of these cases it has failed at times by allowing false teachers and teachings into the church. We also know that it has allowed evil men to lead the church. It has also engaged in evil with the inquisitions.

If this is true, then Jesus lied about remaining with them until the end of time. It means He is too weak or careless to watch over His word to perform it. It means the father did not answer His prayer to send the HS, or that the HS is also weak and was unable to guide them into all truth. I think your God is too small!

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3451457]
Originally Posted by justasking4

No doubt He did establish a visible church that has the responsibility to teach the truth of Christ. It also has a responsiblity to defend against error. In both of these cases it has failed at times by allowing false teachers and teachings into the church. We also know that it has allowed evil men to lead the church. It has also engaged in evil with the inquisitions.

guanophore
If this is true, then Jesus lied about remaining with them until the end of time.

This does not necessarily follow. Just because a church may have errored does not mean Christ is not present. We can see some examples of this in Revelations 1-3. Keep in mind that the Spirit abides in the believer and not in the church per se. I can’t think of a passage that says He is in the church but that He is in believers.
Secondly and this point seems to be forgotton by many is that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Jesus never promised to “divinely” protect the church from these false teachers and teachings.

It means He is too weak or careless to watch over His word to perform it.

Why do you say this?

It means the father did not answer His prayer to send the HS, or that the HS is also weak and was unable to guide them into all truth.

Not so. It does not follow that even with the problems in the church that Christ is not guiding.

Was the HS to weak to stop the protestant reformation and its effects?

I think your God is too small!

i hope not.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3451413]

Originally Posted by justasking4
I don’t expect you to see the harm. However the apostles did in false teachings and practices. We see this in 2 Corinthians 11:3 where he writes these words—But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
That’s what harmful about these doctrines and practices. They lead people astray from the simplicity and devotion to Christ.

guanophore
If you are not able to wear the brown scapular, or pray to your guardian angel without it intervering with your relationship with Christ, then it would be better not to do so. However, these are personal devotional practices, and are not binding on any of the faithful. There is no need to criticize others over their prayer life.

The Scriptures don’t approach it like you do here. If read the writings of Paul and John they are absolutely relentless against any kind of false teachings and practices. They knew how deadly these things could be to the soul. Also read Acts 15 in how the early church went head on against false teachings.

 

[justasking4]

jmcrae;3451235]
Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh? Perhaps you didn’t read the passages carefully. Paul is referring to his own and to Silvanus and Timothy’ traditions. Paul is no ordinary man in the sense of being of the world but of Christ.

jmcrae
Yes, but he is still a man. If he has his own self-invented traditions, then these would be “man made traditions” and not from God. It doesn’t matter how good or Christlike the man is, if he is inventing his own tradtions in the place of God’s word.

I would agree. However he was being used by Christ in a way that ordinary men were not used. The mere fact he was an apostle of Christ with the authority of Christ sets him apart from all other men.

Quote:
Huh??? I’m making the point from Scripture that Paul was referring to his own “traditions” (whatever they may have been) and not to all the other traditions that were perhaps in place then and certainly not to many of the catholic traditions of today which he was totally unaware of.

jmcrae
You are making assumptions, here. There is clear historical evidence that all of the practices of the modern day Catholic Church were either in place or under development during the lifetime of St. Paul. He would certainly have been aware, for example, of people praying to the martyrs, of people collecting and using relics, of people making an early form of the Sign of the Cross (they crossed their foreheads in those days, rather than their whole bodies) and so on.

This would be an interesting discussion to have sometime.

Quote:
Here is what i wrote in context.–What “apostles” said this? The only place i’m aware of is Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and I Corinthians 11:2 . These are traditions that Paul refers to his own and not the other apostles. Even here we don’t know with certainty what they were. All we have are his writings and his writings don’t reflect in many respects roman catholic doctrines and practices.

jmcrae
If they are only his own local traditions, then why does he exhort the whole Church to follow them as the Word of God?

I don’t think these were just “local traditions” of his but meant for the entire church. I supect that these “traditions” he refers to can be found in his writings i.e. the NT letters. i have no proof but its specualtion on my part.
If I’m right about this then these were meant for the entire church. An apostle is in a very specialized position that no other men had. Being an apostle of Christ and His ambassador means that He speaks for Christ which means its as if Christ Himself is speaking.

 

[jmcrae]

I would agree. However he was being used by Christ in a way that ordinary men were not used. The mere fact he was an apostle of Christ with the authority of Christ sets him apart from all other men.

Yes, which means that any traditions he had would not be optional for the Church, nor would they be limited to his own time and place - they would be for the whole Church in all times and all places.

I don’t think these were just “local traditions” of his but meant for the entire church. I supect that these “traditions” he refers to can be found in his writings i.e. the NT letters. i have no proof but its specualtion on my part.

We know that he didn’t write them down because he specifically says, “Either by letter, or by tradition.” Which means that the Tradition was not written down at that time. (And probably never was written down.)

If I’m right about this then these were meant for the entire church. An apostle is in a very specialized position that no other men had. Being an apostle of Christ and His ambassador means that He speaks for Christ which means its as if Christ Himself is speaking.

We agree. Which means that the True Church is the Church that follows these traditions, in addition to reading the Scriptures. Right?

Since it would be a sin to not follow Christ’s traditions.

 

[guanophore]

This does not necessarily follow. Just because a church may have errored does not mean Christ is not present.

Do you mean to tell me that you believe Jesus would be right there, and allow them to fall into error? :bigyikes:

What would be the point of promising “I will be with you until the end of the Age” if He was just going to sit back and twiddle His thumbs, and let them all fall away? Why pray for Peter’s faith, that he may not fail, then later, let him fail?

We can see some examples of this in Revelations 1-3. Keep in mind that the Spirit abides in the believer and not in the church per se. I can’t think of a passage that says He is in the church but that He is in believers.

The HS is in believers, but in a mystical way, the HS is also the Soul of the CHurch. This is what makes us One Body, and what makes the Church Holy.

“…God is really among you.” 1 Cor 14:25

Secondly and this point seems to be forgotton by many is that false teachers would come into the church itself and decieve many. Jesus never promised to “divinely” protect the church from these false teachers and teachings.

He did, ja4. This is what He meant when He said;

13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16:13-15

Or do you believe that the prophetic words of our Lord and Savior have not power in them? Is He just talking to hear the sound of HIs own voice?

You are right, there are individuals who fall into error, and there are some in the flock that fall in after them. However, if we stay united with the Apostolic succession, then we will be guided into ALL TRUTH! Note that every single heresy and schism occurs when people abandon the apostolic succession.

Why do you say this?

Which do you think it is? Is Jesus a liar, or a weakling? The Father did not listen to HIm? The Father did not send the Spirit? HIs prophesy never came true?

Not so. It does not follow that even with the problems in the church that Christ is not guiding.

Problems have to do with individuals who fail to cling to the Truth that has been revealed. The Church does not teach errors, but individuals fall into error, and sometimes take others with them.

Was the HS to weak to stop the protestant reformation and its effects?

I think not. God never promised that individuals who separated themselves from the Apostles Teaching would be preserved from error.

i hope not.

How do you account for your perspective that He did not keep His promises? Is there another explanation than weakness or lying?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3451335]No

Yes, but the Eastern Rites don’t call it that, it is called Divine Liturgy. I also attend daily Mass in a Roman parish because the times are better.

Catholics of all Rites share the same doctrine.

Practices vary by culture.

All Catholics practice the same 7 sacraments, however, they are often performed differently. For instance, the Eastern Rites chrismate infants and give them communion.

I have a good idea what you are addressing. I think you do it in a prejudiced manner.

What can i say? Instead of assuming the best in people its easier to assume the worst so you can make the kinds comments you do towards me…
i just thank God we don’t live next door to each other-- i’d be toast by now…

I have not called you a “bigot” ja4, although it may be that you are. I have never met you, so for all I know you are just role playing on here. What I do know is that your posts contain attitudes and beliefs that come across as bigoted.

So far as i can tell you are the only one i have seen you use this term against me. Actually this might not be to bad. i suspect others hate me more than you do----

Certainly not for you, ja4. In the olden days, you would never have been allowed anywhere near the congregation of the faithful, due to your hostility toward The Way. You would probably have been assumed to be a spy or an infiltrator, just as Paul was thought to be when he tried to join the disciples. Persons who were faithless about the Traditions as you are were not permitted to attend or participate. You would be permitted to enter catechism, but if you continued in the hostility, you would have been barred from that as well. Times have changed!

Have things changed for the better?

To me, it seems arrogant that you think your personal understanding of biblical doctrine should erase 2000 years of scholarship and practice. If you have so many problems with celibacy, then you are either not called to it, or you were called to it and refused the calling and it is eating at you. Either way, blaming this discomfort on others hardly seems an appropriate response.

We are having a discussion and we have different opinions about things. We should be able to discuss things without this kind of rethoric.

And worse! However, if you were in union with Jesus and the Apostolic doctrines, you would not be so hostile to us. As it is, you are perpetrating new doctrines that have only emerged in the last 150 years in the US and are far removed from what Jesus and the Apostles taught.

Huh??? The pope comes out in 1950 to proclaim the assumption of Mary which was not only totally unknown to the apostles but for centuries and you say i’m perpetrating “new doctrines”? :crying:

So where are we at? I’m generalizing when i use the terms catholic and roman catholic or rome. If you want me to be more specific in your case i probably won’t be able to do since there are probably disctinction that i don’t know. I don’t intend to offend you but i suppose that won’t help much when it happens.

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptures don’t approach it like you do here. If read the writings of Paul and John they are absolutely relentless against any kind of false teachings and practices. They knew how deadly these things could be to the soul. Also read Acts 15 in how the early church went head on against false teachings.

Yes, exactly. And since the Successors of the Apostles have allowed these, that is how we know they are not false. They may not commend themselves to you, as devotional practices, but they work well for others. The Church still goes head on against false teachings. Why do you think you get so much resistance here?

I would agree. However he was being used by Christ in a way that ordinary men were not used. The mere fact he was an apostle of Christ with the authority of Christ sets him apart from all other men.
I don’t think these were just “local traditions” of his but meant for the entire church. I supect that these “traditions” he refers to can be found in his writings i.e. the NT letters. i have no proof but its specualtion on my part.
If I’m right about this then these were meant for the entire church. An apostle is in a very specialized position that no other men had. Being an apostle of Christ and His ambassador means that He speaks for Christ which means its as if Christ Himself is speaking.

Yes, they were, and that is why we guard the Apostolic Succession so carefully. Those duties and charisms were entrusted to faithful men, who were able to teach others also. That is why He who hears the teaching of the Church hears Jesus.

 

[jmcrae]

Huh??? The pope comes out in 1950 to proclaim the assumption of Mary which was not only totally unknown to the apostles but for centuries and you say i’m perpetrating “new doctrines”? :crying:

What do you mean, the Assumption was “unknown” to the Apostles? They were there; St. Thomas witnessed it; how could they have “not known” about it? They were the ones who told everybody, in the first place.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3451660]
Originally Posted by justasking4
This does not necessarily follow. Just because a church may have errored does not mean Christ is not present.

guanophore
Do you mean to tell me that you believe Jesus would be right there, and allow them to fall into error?

What would be the point of promising “I will be with you until the end of the Age” if He was just going to sit back and twiddle His thumbs, and let them all fall away? Why pray for Peter’s faith, that he may not fail, then later, let him fail?

Let me answer in this way. Are you familar with the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:24-30? I think the principle i.e. letting the tares and wheat grow together for a time that Jesus speaks of here is applicable to the church also.

Peter did fail. he was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-21.

Secondly, evidently Jesus did allow the church to fall into error during the reign of evil popes and the inquistions. Either He allowed it or was incapable of stopping it.
Which do you think is correct?

 

[justasking4]

Originally Posted by justasking4
Huh??? The pope comes out in 1950 to proclaim the assumption of Mary which was not only totally unknown to the apostles but for centuries and you say i’m perpetrating “new doctrines”?

jmcrae
What do you mean, the Assumption was “unknown” to the Apostles? They were there; St. Thomas witnessed it; how could they have “not known” about it? They were the ones who told everybody, in the first place.

If i’m not mistaken the first mention of her assumption was 377.
Where is it written that St Thomas witnessed it?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;3451713]
Originally Posted by justasking4
The Scriptures don’t approach it like you do here. If read the writings of Paul and John they are absolutely relentless against any kind of false teachings and practices. They knew how deadly these things could be to the soul. Also read Acts 15 in how the early church went head on against false teachings.

guanophore
Yes, exactly. And since the Successors of the Apostles have allowed these, that is how we know they are not false. They may not commend themselves to you, as devotional practices, but they work well for others. The Church still goes head on against false teachings.

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Another example where the roman catholic church has failed (don’t know about yours) was teaching that Musliums worship the same God as Christians do. This is such a clear false teaching in the catechism:
• 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

Why do you think you get so much resistance here?

Catholics have been told by their church that it can never be wrong in matters of faith and morals and when given example after example from scripture and history and doctrines that indeed it has i expect to get strong resistence and insults…

 

[jmcrae]

Let me answer in this way. Are you familar with the parable of the wheat and tares in Matthew 13:24-30? I think the principle i.e. letting the tares and wheat grow together for a time that Jesus speaks of here is applicable to the church also.

This is referring to individuals within the Church; not to the Church itself.

Peter did fail. he was rebuked by Paul in Galatians 2:11-21.

For not following his own infallible proclamation. Remember, there was nothing in writing at that time to say that Gentiles and Jews could dine together. It was only Peter’s own proclamation that they could, that made it possible. After making this declaration, he refused to dine with Gentiles when other Jews were present (contrary to his own infallible decree to the Church) and that’s what he was rebuked for. Not for making a false decree.

Secondly, evidently Jesus did allow the church to fall into error during the reign of evil popes and the inquistions. Either He allowed it or was incapable of stopping it.
Which do you think is correct?

Again, we are speaking of the behaviour of individuals; not of the Church. The Church remained consistent throughout that whole period that murder is always a sin.

 

[Deconi]

Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. Another example where the roman catholic church has failed (don’t know about yours) was teaching that Musliums worship the same God as Christians do. This is such a clear false teaching in the catechism:
• 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

Catholics have been told by their church that it can never be wrong in matters of faith and morals and when given example after example from scripture and history and doctrines that indeed it has i expect to get strong resistence and insults…

The Mind of God is not for you to decide, pilgrim. Some of us, Catholics, like you, also question this position. But it is The Church who HOLDS and Professes it!

When we exmaine it, IT IS TRUE! God made man; ALL man. ALL humanity. Therefore, He Wills that ALL humans be saved!

How we differentiate about our understanding of Him is ours, not His, nor The Church!

Muslims profess to hold the faith of Abraham. Abraham belived in God, the same God WE do! Therefore, any Muslim who believes in the same God as Abraham did, believes with us, in The One True Maker of ALL THINGS.

In spite of our reservations, The Church, again, is proven correct. How you interpret that snippet of the ‘Cat’ is yours alone.

Whilst we have reservations about some of the tennets of Islamic practice, the “faith of Abraham” is something we share. If you think God does not wish the Muslim saved, nor the Bhuddist, nor the Hinduist, then sadly again, your belief system is incomplete and partial.

The problem in the Mohammedian system is that Christ is not God, but a prophet. Like your system, it is incomplete and partial in different aspects. What The Church professes is that Jesus Christ, is THE SAME GOD that Abraham believed in. The question for Islam, as well as Judaism, is the realisation of this Truth. Jesus Christ and Abraham’s God, is One and The Same!

Unlike your ‘Christian’ view, it is not my god is better than yours!! Christ came for all as God wishes for all. Not just for Christians. Those who find or arrive at that realization, become Catholic in their Christianity, as that is what The Catholic Church professes.

Those who search Scriptures only, will inevitably find some snippet that they interpret to the contrary and believe it, without having a church to take their interpretations to, as mandated in that same Scriptures. They then ‘point the finger’ and say,“See? See the warnings in Scriptures about what you have done?”…without realizing the Scriptures may have been referring to themselves!!