Protestant vs. Cafeteria Catholic?

[MarkInOregon]

Whose soul is in a better position, or which is more desirable to be?

A “Cafeteria Catholic” baptized in the faith, who attends mass every Sunday, but who picks and chooses Catholic Dogmas freely (same sex marriage,sex before marriage, etc. etc.) almost making God in their own image? or

A devout Protestant who sincerely believes the Catholic Church is a distortion of Christ’s message but who takes the bible seriously and truly believes in the grave evils of the aforementioned sins.

I ask this because I think for far too many Catholics, Catholocism is just a cultural thing, almost on par with being Irish or Italian, and so they count themselves Catholic without having much of a serious faith to back up the claim.** I notice this is practically never the case with serious evangelicals/baptists.**

Any ideas?

So you’re comparing cultural catholics to serious evangelicals/baptists/devout protestants? Wouldn’t a better comparison be to serious/devout Catholics? What if you compared serious/devout Catholics to cultural Christians – plenty of them exist also. It should also be noted that as a protestant you can search out and find a church that has conformed it beliefs to the beliefs you may hold regarding many of the controversial issues.

I never understand why people want to do this --compare apples to oranges.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Re yon “authoritative source”. As the Apostle’s Creed says, I believe in the Holy Spirit. Born again and belong to Christ, not to bible-thumping nor even unto CCC-thumping Texans. Serously, isn’t it in RCIA that you don’t get to test the convictions of other Christians, Baptist or Catholic, that only the King judges? As the great philosopher Miley Cyrus writes “Remember only God can judge ya”. Can I hear an amen.

Whoa Lone Ranger!

We are not talking about judgment here. This is a favorite mantra of yours, that if we don’t agree with Protestants it follows that we are judging them. I am asking civil questions to which I request civil answers. You don’t answer my questions in the previous post. Instead you go ultra on the offensive.

All I asked was, in essence, how do you know your own moral voice makes sense to you?

Do you consult no one but yourself in that matter? Are you the supreme authority on matters moral or theological? I guess you see where we are headed. For this moral and theological license to exist for every single person who is free to agree or disagree with every other person (thus creating theological anarchy - which Protestantism in general certainly is) someone must grant that license. Did Jesus grant it? Where in Scripture? Does Scripture grant it? Where? Did the Council of Jerusalem conclude in Acts that they had no authority to finally license every person to draw his own conclusion about food and circumcision? Or did that Council establish the orders for everyone else to follow because the bishops, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry, had that authority granted to them.

So when you say this: But Paul says, in 1 Cor 1, that this would be impossible, that human wisdom alone could never discover what was revealed by grace. you are speaking like a traditional Catholic. You are not entitled to usurp the grace granted to the bishops to rule on matters theological. And the “rationalist” reason why you are not granted this authority by the bishops is that you and I and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry is prone to error and does not enjoy the same hotline to God that God opened to the bishops.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then it flew over my head and you’ll have to spell out why you think adultery has anything to do with soul liberty (aka soul competency), the human right to freedom of religion, and me saying “when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”.

Very well, then let me get out my spoon…

Per you: “when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”

So if the harlot that Christ saved from certain stoning decided that prostitution did not violate her conscience, is her prostitution no longer sinful, despite rebuke from God-incarnate Himself on the matter?

In a broader spectrum, are we then free to believe something clearly contrary to the deposit of faith (like homosexuality) is actually “ok” if our conscience tells us it is?
And if that person happens to be Catholic, is it then fair to say that their affirmation of homosexual marriage is a “Catholic” view; since someone who holds that view also verbally claims to espouse Catholicism.

---

In my view, of course not. To label any of that person’s various personal views as “Catholic” on the basis that they also generally affirm Catholicism is unambiguously fallacious.

In your view? Apparently that’s a rational approach…

 

[inocente]

Whoa Lone Ranger!

We are not talking about judgment here. This is a favorite mantra of yours, that if we don’t agree with Protestants it follows that we are judging them. I am asking civil questions to which I request civil answers. You don’t answer my questions in the previous post. Instead you go ultra on the offensive.

All I asked was, in essence, how do you know your own moral voice makes sense to you?

Do you consult no one but yourself in that matter? Are you the supreme authority on matters moral or theological? I guess you see where we are headed. For this moral and theological license to exist for every single person who is free to agree or disagree with every other person (thus creating theological anarchy - which Protestantism in general certainly is) someone must grant that license. Did Jesus grant it? Where in Scripture? Does Scripture grant it? Where? Did the Council of Jerusalem conclude in Acts that they had no authority to finally license every person to draw his own conclusion about food and circumcision? Or did that Council establish the orders for everyone else to follow because the bishops, not every Tom, Dick, and Harry, had that authority granted to them.

So when you say this: But Paul says, in 1 Cor 1, that this would be impossible, that human wisdom alone could never discover what was revealed by grace. you are speaking like a traditional Catholic. You are not entitled to usurp the grace granted to the bishops to rule on matters theological. And the “rationalist” reason why you are not granted this authority by the bishops is that you and I and every other Tom, Dick, and Harry is prone to error and does not enjoy the same hotline to God that God opened to the bishops.

Hmm. I think you still misunderstand since you put rationalist in air quotes and are not using it in the same sense as me. I mean rationalism vs empiricism as in a priori vs a posteriori, Continental vs British schools, plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

Paul isn’t talking of secret knowledge. Public revelation ended with Christ, the wisdom is already revealed and he states explicitely it is available to everyone - 1 Cor 1:26-31. And he says no rationalist philosopher could ever have the wisdom to deduce what was revealed by grace. You asked me “what authoritative source do you have” and I said the Holy Spirit. As Jesus says in John 14, “The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you”. Compare with 1 Cor 1:21 “For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe”.

 

[inocente]

Very well, then let me get out my spoon…

Per you: “when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes”

So if the harlot that Christ saved from certain stoning decided that prostitution did not violate her conscience, is her prostitution no longer sinful, despite rebuke from God-incarnate Himself on the matter?

As I highlighted religious beliefs first time around this loop, either you keep missing religious or you think adultery was a religious duty or something.

Soul liberty is basic Christian concept.

Btw which translation are you using that says prostitution and not adultery?

*In a broader spectrum, are we then free to believe something clearly contrary to the deposit of faith (like homosexuality) is actually “ok” if our conscience tells us it is?
And if that person happens to be Catholic, is it then fair to say that their affirmation of homosexual marriage is a “Catholic” view; since someone who holds that view also verbally claims to espouse Catholicism.

---

In my view, of course not*. To label any of that person’s various personal views as “Catholic” on the basis that they also generally affirm Catholicism is unambiguously fallacious.

In your view? Apparently that’s a rational approach…

If you’ve finally assimilated that soul liberty is about freedom of religious belief, then you are free to believe what you want without coercion, but if you want to join a religion then must obviously must be true to that religion. For instance a Baptist obviously has to accept Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Public revelation ended with Christ, the wisdom is already revealed and he states explicitely it is available to everyone - 1 Cor 1:26-31. And he says no rationalist philosopher could ever have the wisdom to deduce what was revealed by grace. You asked me “what authoritative source do you have” and I said the Holy Spirit.

Revelation did not end with Christ. If it did, we would not be able to apply Christ’s wisdom to issues on which he did not comment … such as same-sex marriage. And we only know about the wrongness of that because the Church guides us to the understanding and application of Christ’s wisdom.

If you were to say the Holy Spirit tells you same-sex marriage is O.K., and I was to say the Holy Spirit told me it is sinful, the only conclusion to be drawn by your logic is that the Holy Spirit is lying to one of us.

And so it is that all Protestant denominations differ from each other and claim the Holy Spirit has inspired them all to contradict each other since they believe there is no authority other than the Holy Spirit.

This, I think, is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.

 

[inocente]

Revelation did not end with Christ.

:ehh:

From the CCC:

*"God has said everything in his Word

65 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2: In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say

66 …] no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith."*

*If it did, we would not be able to apply Christ’s wisdom to issues on which he did not comment … such as same-sex marriage. And we only know about the wrongness of that because the Church guides us to the understanding and application of Christ’s wisdom.

If you were to say the Holy Spirit tells you same-sex marriage is O.K., and I was to say the Holy Spirit told me it is sinful, the only conclusion to be drawn by your logic is that the Holy Spirit is lying to one of us.

And so it is that all Protestant denominations differ from each other and claim the Holy Spirit has inspired them all to contradict each other since they believe there is no authority other than the Holy Spirit.

This, I think, is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit.*

:ehh:

*"There will be no further Revelation

CCC 66 …] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."*

 

[Peter_J]

:ehh:

From the CCC:

"God has said everything in his Word

65 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2: In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say

66 …] no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith."

:ehh:

"There will be no further Revelation

CCC 66 …] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

So that’s what the CCC says, eh?

Cardinal Newman – who is perhaps the best remembered out of clergy of the First Vatican Council, which defined Papal Infallibility in 1870 – had this to say: “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum”.

Interesting to compare.

 

[Vonsalza]

Soul liberty is basic Christian concept.

Btw which translation are you using that says prostitution and not adultery?

Seriously?

So, to you, adultery is a concept subject to clear definition by scripture. However, from your many posts, your views on homosexual marriage are not. They are more subject to your “soul liberty”, despite scripture also addressing this topic.

How how do you reconcile the obvious contradictions among your views? When is something subject to the authority of scripture versus when is it subject to your “soul liberty”???



This nonsense should be good…

 

[inocente]

So that’s what the CCC says, eh?

Cardinal Newman – who is perhaps the best remembered out of clergy of the First Vatican Council, which defined Papal Infallibility in 1870 – had this to say: “the proposition defined will be without any claim to be considered binding on the belief of Catholics, unless it is referable to the Apostolic depositum”.

Interesting to compare.

I’d have thought the Church always taught that Christ fulfills the Law (Matt 5:17) and therefore public revelation ended with Christ. As that quote from St. John of the Cross in CCC 65 continues “Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty”.

And as CCC 67 says “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.”

But read CCC 11 and you’ll see that other council mentioned earlier .

 

[Charlemagne_III]

:ehh:

From the CCC:

"God has said everything in his Word

CCC 66 …] Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries."

I don’t know how it is that you are always using either Aquinas or Paul or the CCC against the members of this forum. As I’ve told you so many times I cannot count them all, it is a failed strategy that gets you nowhere except to reveal that you hope to divide and conquer.

Yet when you are asked to explicitly answer points made on scripture you evade them altogether. Let’s take this case in particular.

Jesus urges Christian unity.

“That they may be one, even as we are one, Christ cries out to his Father; (John 17:11) that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee; that they also may be in us.” (John 17:21) This exhortation to unity flows in a constant stream from the lips of Jesus, for every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (Matthew 12:25) It is a teaching which is converted into a vehement desire: And “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16)

Please explain how the plethora of Protestant denominations, all claiming to be informed by the Holy Spirit yet constantly at odds with each other, answers Christ’s call for unity.

 

[Vico]

Whose soul is in a better position, or which is more desirable to be?

A “Cafeteria Catholic” baptized in the faith, who attends mass every Sunday, but who picks and chooses Catholic Dogmas freely (same sex marriage,sex before marriage, etc. etc.) almost making God in their own image? or

A devout Protestant who sincerely believes the Catholic Church is a distortion of Christ’s message but who takes the bible seriously and truly believes in the grave evils of the aforementioned sins.

I ask this because I think for far too many Catholics, Catholocism is just a cultural thing, almost on par with being Irish or Italian, and so they count themselves Catholic without having much of a serious faith to back up the claim. I notice this is practically never the case with serious evangelicals/baptists.

Any ideas?

Cafeterian because the sacrament of Confession is available for absolution even with improper contrition. The non-Catholics do not know if they are absolved since there may not be perfect contrition.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’d have thought the Church always taught that Christ fulfills the Law (Matt 5:17) and therefore public revelation ended with Christ.

What Christ taught was what was needed and had to be taught during his life on earth.

But he did not tell us that Church he has built upon the rock called Peter will be given enduring powers to teach and reveal, and that he will protect the Church from doctrinal corruption of its revelations.

Matthew 16:17

“17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”…”

Does the CCC repudiate this? Good luck finding where it does.

 

[inocente]

Seriously?

So, to you, adultery is a concept subject to clear definition by scripture. However, from your many posts, your views on homosexual marriage are not. They are more subject to your “soul liberty”, despite scripture also addressing this topic.

How how do you reconcile the obvious contradictions among your views? When is something subject to the authority of scripture versus when is it subject to your “soul liberty”???



This nonsense should be good…

I see you finally agree it was adultery, not as you previously said “harlot”, “whoring”, “prostitution”. You say “harlot” but Jesus says “neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Sin. The passage you keep referring to but apparently can’t quite recall is about sin, whereas my post which started this bizarre detour to the far side was about religious belief. I said “But when it comes to sincere beliefs, there’s a little thing called Dignitatis Humanae. As you’re a lapsed Baptist, you will also know it as soul liberty - that when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes.”.

You can read Dignitatis Humanae here - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html

Why you would put a basic Baptist concept in air quotes, “soul liberty”, as if you think I made it up is very strange given your sig. I think you said you were Southern Baptist, which I assume is one of those American denominations. They say “We believe that the concepts of soul competency and the priesthood of all believers are cherished Baptist principles”. You can read up on it at their website - sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmfeedback.asp

The same principle is in UDHR Art 18 here - un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

Now I gave up on you on a previous thread because of your constant insults and weird faux-logic, please try to summon up your neurons.

 

[Peter_J]

I’d have thought the Church always taught that Christ fulfills the Law (Matt 5:17) and therefore public revelation ended with Christ. As that quote from St. John of the Cross in CCC 65 continues “Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty”.

And as CCC 67 says “Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.”

But read CCC 11 and you’ll see that other council mentioned earlier .

OIC, you mean Vatican ii.

To be honest, I rather like citing Vatican II, given the large number of traditionalist Catholics on CAF.

III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.15

12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

 

[inocente]

I don’t know how it is that you are always using either Aquinas or Paul or the CCC against the members of this forum.

Here’s you in post #56: “But you see, we are open and unafraid through the CCC to declare what we are obliged to believe in if we want to call ourselves authentically Catholic.”

Then just one day later, in post #65, you say “Revelation did not end with Christ”.

So I point out that’s not what the CCC says. Not what Jesus says in Matt 5:17 either.

Can you please explain again how come you are open and unafraid through the CCC to declare what you are obliged to believe?

*“That they may be one, even as we are one, Christ cries out to his Father; (John 17:11) that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee; that they also may be in us.” (John 17:21) This exhortation to unity flows in a constant stream from the lips of Jesus, for every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. (Matthew 12:25) It is a teaching which is converted into a vehement desire: And “I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” (John 10:16)

Please explain how the plethora of Protestant denominations, all claiming to be informed by the Holy Spirit yet constantly at odds with each other, answers Christ’s call for unity.*

I’d have thought they’re all Christians and so all have one Shepherd. Suggest you ask the Shepherd.

Mañana, fiesta time.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I’d have thought they’re all Christians and so all have one Shepherd. Suggest you ask the Shepherd.

Don’t have to ask the Shepherd. But you may ask why the Shepherd is so concerned about unity when Protestantism is the very essence of a religion divided and conquered just by its own devices.

By the way, where is that Protestant equivalent of CCC I asked you about?

 

[inocente]

Don’t have to ask the Shepherd. But you may ask why the Shepherd is so concerned about unity when Protestantism is the very essence of a religion divided and conquered just by its own devices.

By the way, where is that Protestant equivalent of CCC I asked you about?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. - John 14

All together now:

Catholic version (well, ecumenical) - youtube.com/watch?v=WmxXwAgkhWQ (words)
Evangelical version (well, ecumenical) - youtube.com/watch?v=6qydwzaeVa0 (words)

 

[Vonsalza]

I see you finally agree it was adultery, not as you previously said “harlot”, “whoring”, “prostitution”. You say “harlot” but Jesus says “neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Sin. The passage you keep referring to but apparently can’t quite recall is about sin, whereas my post which started this bizarre detour to the far side was about religious belief. I said “But when it comes to sincere beliefs, there’s a little thing called Dignitatis Humanae. As you’re a lapsed Baptist, you will also know it as soul liberty - that when it comes to religious beliefs, each person must be free and is responsible to God alone for what in conscience he believes.”.
You can read Dignitatis Humanae here - vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html
Why you would put a basic Baptist concept in air quotes, “soul liberty”, as if you think I made it up is very strange given your sig. I think you said you were Southern Baptist, which I assume is one of those American denominations. They say “We believe that the concepts of soul competency and the priesthood of all believers are cherished Baptist principles”. You can read up on it at their website - sbc.net/bfm2000/bfmfeedback.asp
The same principle is in UDHR Art 18 here - un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
Now I gave up on you on a previous thread because of your constant insults and weird faux-logic, please try to summon up your neurons.

You absolutely did not answer the question.

Why is adultery not subject to “soul liberty”, but homosexual marriage is, per you views?

How do you reconcile the glaring contradiction?

 

[inocente]

You absolutely did not answer the question.

Why is adultery not subject to “soul liberty”, but homosexual marriage is, per you views?

How do you reconcile the glaring contradiction?

Don’t know why an ex-Baptist uses air quotes as if I invented it, or why you have so much difficulty understanding such a simple concept.

“We affirm soul competency, the accountability of each person before God. Your family cannot save you. Neither can your church. It comes down to you and God.” - sbc.net/aboutus/positionstatements.asp

Catholics should follow Church teaching on civil marriage. I’m not a Catholic and there isn’t anything about civil marriage in the NT, so I followed my conscience on the morality. Soul liberty tells me I’m not accountable to you for my decision, but only to myself and God. Now this is all off-topic and I’ve done my best so if you really still can’t understand, ask another Baptist.