Ralphy's Questions for Catholics

[CentralFLJames]

Tomster don’t expect Christian7801 to respond to your well written comments - he shows up as banned this morning…

Sigh, there seems to be a recent pattern increase in clusters of new “trial” member accounts with only a few posting histories getting themselves quickly banned. I suspect anti-Catholic trolls and sock-puppets are showing their hands…

James

 

[Tomster]

I don’t know what happned to your post but I wanted to reply to it Christian7801.

Catholics have a divine accreditation that stems from real divine apostolic authority. This is the crux of the problem for Protestants – utterly defunct and bogus authority. No Protestant minister, or preacher or pastor etc. has one iota of real and legitimate authority given by God to preach. Whereas EVERY Catholic deacon, priest and bishop is HAND SELECTED and APPROVED by a prior apostolic authority who was himself given that authority by someone in the apostolic succession WHO ACTUALLY KNEW AN APOSTLE OR CHRIST HIMSELF!

John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

No one can hijack ecclesial authority. It is GOD GIVEN. A physical 'laying on of hands" and apostolic blessing through a special priestly rite is required to receive the sacred anointing to teach and effect the sacraments (deacons can only preach and bless). This is assurances that no man will ever steal God’s Church by simply putting up a sheep-skin obtained through the simony of “higher education” and claiming himself his own authority or vicariously through some another ordinary man.

Jesus warned us about false shepherds and teachers:

*John 10:12
He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who is not the owner of the sheep, sees the wolf coming, and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. *

James

Just an observation James.

Is there any explanation, apart from the fallibility of even the most conscientious student, of the inconsistencies into which the private interpretation of Scripture has led the modern mind? I understand, that for the most part, we are dealing with Fundamentalists on these message boards. But I wonder if they understand the logical consequences of their plunge into that lonesome world of private interpretation? Let’s think about that for awhile. Let’s look at liberal Protestantism for a moment. Renan himself provides the clue: he propounds the dogma of rationalist unbelief, which has been accepted, consciously or unconsciously, by so many contemporary scholars. “The supernatural does not exist.” Between the spiritual world and the world of nature there is no break in continuity; the one is as susceptible of scientific investigation as the other. Without in any way begging the question, it may be observed that an a priori denial of such divine intervention into human affairs as is presupposed by the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation is a crippling limitation to impose on the mind intent on deciphering the New Testament. This was realized even in circles most opposed to the ecclesiastical magisterium of Catholicism. The reaction towards the traditional Christology exemplified in such writers as Barth and Brunner, though raising difficulties of another order, is a striking demonstration of the failure of liberal Protestantism.

The point of this rant leads to a question. Where does the private interpretation of Sacred Scripture lead the Fundamentalist? It is obvious to me they have painted themselves into a corner. The Fundamentalist has no conception, whatsoever, that the Church, the one Church that Christ founded, is LITERALLY Incarnational. Their theology is limited and restricted because of their self imposed and erroneous dogma of private interpretation of the Bible alone. They do not understand the Catholic vocabulary because their “dictionary”, if you will, varies from interpreter to interpreter. The have absolutely no idea of the difference between Salvation and Redemption. Sacraments? What are they? Latria and dulia? Huh? Legitimate, divine authority? “Where is that in the Bible?” I could go on. Generally speaking, taking it to its logical conclusion, the end result of Fundamentalism is liberal Protestantism, which is nothing more than believe what you want, so long as it isn’t Catholic.

 

[SteveGC]

Tomster don’t expect Christian7801 to respond to your well written comments - he shows up as banned this morning…

Sigh, there seems to be a recent pattern increase in clusters of new “trial” member accounts with only a few posting histories getting themselves quickly banned. I suspect anti-Catholic trolls and sock-puppets are showing their hands…

James

I agree, a well written post Tomster.

But you know, this is really no different from the reality of what happens when they remain on the forums anyway. They hardly read anything we take the time to write, so why should being banned make any difference? I’ll keep writing though…someone’s going to be in here reading this stuff, and I’m not about to let the anti-Catholic rhetoric take center stage.

 

[SteveGC]

Generally speaking, taking it to its logical conclusion, the end result of Fundamentalism is liberal Protestantism, which is nothing more than believe what you want, so long as it isn’t Catholic.

I think this sums up pretty much everything you’ve expressed. The determination to disprove Catholicism blinds them to the absurdity of their own theology. And Satan smiles.

 

[Tomster]

I agree, a well written post Tomster.

But you know, this is really no different from the reality of what happens when they remain on the forums anyway. They hardly read anything we take the time to write, so why should being banned make any difference? I’ll keep writing though…someone’s going to be in here reading this stuff, and I’m not about to let the anti-Catholic rhetoric take center stage.

Steve,

As I mentioned to James some time ago, my # 1 reason for being here is to help Catholics, to the best of my ability, who are new to the Church and for Catholics who, through really no fault of their own, have been poorly catechised the past fifty or so years.

Like you, I am not about to let anti-Catholic rhetoric take center stage either. I made a promise at my Confirmation. With God’s grace I will keep my promise to Him.

 

[jmcrae]

Eph 2:8,9 says that we are saved through faith, not through baptism. To be saved one must accept Christ as their personal Savior, how can a small child make such a decision. Ralph

First, I take issue with the idea that little children can’t have faith in God. My personal experience shows the polar opposite, and in Mark 10:13-16, Jesus also disagrees with this idea - indeed, He sets little children up as the exemplars of faith - we are commanded to have faith in the same way that little children have faith.

But if little children are incapable of having faith, then Jesus is talking complete nonsense, here, and commanding the ridiculous.

However, if we accept the idea that children can’t have faith (and that therefore it is useless to baptize them until they have reached maturity) then what happens to children who die before reaching maturity and acquiring faith in God? Are all children simply condemned automatically to Hell, until and unless they make an adult profession of faith?

 

[Saint_Sinner]

Since that is one of the qualification of an elder; then I think it is pretty safe to conclude that those appointed as elder, which are mature Christians, are able…wouldn’t you agree?

Maybe I wasn’t being clear. Where is the explicit scriptural support for your teaching. If you believe that the bible alone contains all the teachings of the church I would like to to help me to understand this belief.

Also, who appoints the ‘elders’ (in Greek, πρεσβυτερος [presbyteros]) and under what authority? How do we know from the bible that an elder teaches the true faith and not error? How do you know which elder to believe when there are so many different interpretations of scripture?

What about our elders (we call them priests)? Do they have this same mandate?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Just an observation James.

Is there any explanation, apart from the fallibility of even the most conscientious student, of the inconsistencies into which the private interpretation of Scripture has led the modern mind? …

Where does the private interpretation of Sacred Scripture lead the Fundamentalist?
…

The have absolutely no idea of the difference between Salvation and Redemption. Sacraments? What are they? Latria and dulia? Huh? Legitimate, divine authority? “Where is that in the Bible?” I could go on. Generally speaking, taking it to its logical conclusion, the end result of Fundamentalism is liberal Protestantism, which is nothing more than believe what you want, so long as it isn’t Catholic.

Where does it lead? It leads to self reliance and some form of self worship of course - the same place all pride leads to.

Systemically speaking it ultimately leads to pure anarchy and hyper-individualism. At some point the Protestant must think “hmm, I have a bible, why go to Church at all”? Other than social-networking opportunities there is no value to a Church if one has all he needs in his holstered KJV and a roof over his head. We are dealing with dungareed freedom lovers and a cowboys and Indians romanticism here…

Without Catholics Protestants have no unifying dogma - their identity is garnered through protest and is defined in the semantic of “in opposition to” rather than in the semantic of “in union with”. It’s a negatively formed construct that can’t grow and must turn on itself since the system needs an opponent to have an identity (and so can never win without loosing itself). Disintegration and fracture is all that can come of this sort of systemic error. Catholics simply need to do what we always have - persevere in the faith and outlive the heresies and convert who we can. Sin and deprivation of grace eventually forces some to seek the protection of The Church - but how many are lost in the interim?

It is extremely burdensome and frustrating to know one has the truth and not be able to get another person to open their eyes to the overwhelming rational evidence of it. It makes me wonder if the time would be better spent in prayer. Actually I am learning ever deeper aspects of my faith as I dig ever deeper to defend the faith - so that at least is good. But I sense that even Protestant converts to Catholicism have this same problem in relating themselves to those who they used to consort with. It’s literally as if there is a veil or curtain that just prevents some from seeing. It’s truly a spiritual struggle and war and not too often a war of wits and reason.

Identities are at stake and I can actually empathize with how assaulted a Protestant must feel in seeing everything he was taught to believe crumbles indefensibly under Catholic teachings. Its heart wrenching actually - no one wants to see that look of resignation where somone looses faith - even if the faith is deficient. In apologetic work there is a real risk of pushing somone out of Christianity altogether. No one likes to lose what they hold dear and some will be inclined to despair when confronted with challenges to their beliefs and just give up altogether.

James

 

[fbl9]

. Sin and deprivation of grace eventually forces some to seek the protection of The Church - but how many are lost in the interim?

It is extremely burdensome and frustrating to know one has the truth and not be able to get another person to open their eyes to the overwhelming rational evidence of it. It makes me wonder if the time would be better spent in prayer. Actually I am learning ever deeper aspects of my faith as I dig ever deeper to defend the faith - so that at least is good. But I sense that even Protestant converts to Catholicism have this same problem in relating themselves to those who they used to consort with. It’s literally as if there is a veil or curtain that just prevents some from seeing. It’s truly a spiritual struggle and war and not too often a war of wits and reason.

Identities are at stake and I can actually empathize with how assaulted a Protestant must feel in seeing everything he was taught to believe crumbles indefensibly under Catholic teachings. Its heart wrenching actually - no one wants to see that look of resignation where somone looses faith - even if the faith is deficient. In apologetic work there is a real risk of pushing somone out of Christianity altogether. No one likes to lose what they hold dear and some will be inclined to despair when confronted with challenges to their beliefs and just give up altogether.

James

very good post james,adressing the first bit i left…there once was a well known pentacostal in my home town who passed away,it was odd that i felt no sorrow,just empty,towards him and his family,i had to force myself to ask the Lord to have mercy on this man’s soul…a short time later i heard of a drunk driver killing someone i felt sorrow for that man(the drunk driver) and for the family of the one who was killed…

it seeems that there is something that blinds some people to the church…they have a need to tear down anything that is catholic,yet ignore blatant errors of other churhces

i struggle with that desire…to see the looks of resignation on anti-catholics…it is the fear of them completely losing any faith that helps keep this desire in check…a part of this desire stems from the fact that i did lose my catholic faith due to the lies of anti-catholics and more to blame was my sinful lifestyle.

 

[ralphy]

First, I take issue with the idea that little children can’t have faith in God. My personal experience shows the polar opposite, and in Mark 10:13-16, Jesus also disagrees with this idea - indeed, He sets little children up as the exemplars of faith - we are commanded to have faith in the same way that little children have faith.

But if little children are incapable of having faith, then Jesus is talking complete nonsense, here, and commanding the ridiculous.

However, if we accept the idea that children can’t have faith (and that therefore it is useless to baptize them until they have reached maturity) then what happens to children who die before reaching maturity and acquiring faith in God? Are all children simply condemned automatically to Hell, until and unless they make an adult profession of faith?

If you look up Romans Chap 10:17, you will see where faith comes from, so consequently new born children can not have faith. Mark 10:13-16 is refering to the mind set and the type of trust a little child has (total trust and acceptance),it does not mean that as adults we must become little children. From what I understand from scripture,when children reach the age of reason (that is when they understand what is said to them, and are able to reason for themselves),then they must decide to follow Christ or not to follow Him. If you would like to see more on the importance ,please read Rom 3:21-31. Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

If you look up Romans Chap 10:17, you will see where faith comes from, so consequently new born children can not have faith.

Let’s look at Romans 10:17

*So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. *

Where does hearing come from?

The Word of Christ.

Where’s the Word of Christ? Limited to a Book? Nope. It’s His entire essence…His entire divinity. It’s His Incarnation, His Message, His Teaching, His Appointments (of Apostles, of The Church), His Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and The very Invocation of His Name.

This is why faith is a gift of Grace, and not reliant on physical hearing. Through Baptism (and the faith of parents) faith can be infused into an infant without physically hearing a word, for Christ is not limited to human speech to communicate His Word (Himself). This is why faith can be infused in a mentally handicapped person, a deaf person, and on and on. You have to see beyond the written words on paper, ralphy. You have to see the essence of Christ, and what the apostles saw…a Messiah infinitely free from the confines of human frailty and limitations - such as infancy or handicap.

God Bless

 

[ralphy]

Let’s look at Romans 10:17

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Where does hearing come from?

The Word of Christ.

Where’s the Word of Christ? Limited to a Book? Nope. It’s His entire essence…His entire divinity. It’s His Incarnation, His Message, His Teaching, His Appointments (of Apostles, of The Church), His Passion, Death, and Resurrection, and The very Invocation of His Name.

This is why faith is a gift of Grace, and through Baptism (and the faith of parents) can be infused into an infant without PHYSICALLY hearing a word, for Christ is not limited to human speech to communicate His Word (Himself). This is why faith can be infused in a mental handicapped person, a deaf person, and on and on. You have to see beyond the written words on paper, ralphy. You have to see the essence of Christ, and what the apostles saw…a Messiah infinitely free from the confines of human frailty and limitations - such as infancy or handicap.

God Bless

My friend, I only quoted what God said. It is up to if you believe it or not.Don’t add or take away from it. He said this is where faith comes from. If you reject this statement, you are rejecting Him. Ralph

 

[jmcrae]

If you look up Romans Chap 10:17, you will see where faith comes from, so consequently new born children can not have faith. Mark 10:13-16 is refering to the mind set and the type of trust a little child has (total trust and acceptance),it does not mean that as adults we must become little children. From what I understand from scripture,when children reach the age of reason (that is when they understand what is said to them, and are able to reason for themselves),then they must decide to follow Christ or not to follow Him.

What happened to raising up the child in the way that he should go, so that he shall not depart from it?

Was there a moment when you decided to make a choice to be your native nationality (American, Canadian, Australian, British, etc.)? Not likely - you were raised up to be that nationality, and never questioned it, even though you know that other people don’t necessarily share the same one. We are all raised up from before we can talk, to be patriotic to our home country. It would be very strange if we were not. What if we waited until children were of the age of reason, and then allowed them to decide what nationality they should be?

We also don’t wait until the age of reason to let our children decide whether or not they will become educated, or whether or not they will eat good food and practice good hygiene - we get them going on these things even before we get them baptized.

It’s the same way for Christian children - if they are baptized and raised up in the Christian faith, it will not occur to them to have to “make a choice” - the choice has already been made. They simply follow the Christian lifestyle and believe in Christ because their parents have taught them so. I can’t think of even one good reason to do it any other way, as I see no benefit whatsoever in not being a Christian - why would I give someone I love, whose immortal soul is in my care, the opportunity to choose Hell?

Not in this lifetime, I think.

Over time, I would expect the child to enter into a more mature relationship with Christ, with personal prayer and deliberate acts of obedience and kindness, but I would not want him to ever think that he has to “make a choice” as if it were up to him, whether Christ loves him, or not. I would want him to understand that Christ already chose him in Baptism, and that he is forever united to the love of Christ - nothing can tear him away.

 

[SteveGC]

My friend, I only quoted what God said. It is up to if you believe it or not.Don’t add or take away from it. He said this is where faith comes from. If you reject this statement, you are rejecting Him. Ralph

Under that definition of adding, YOU just added to it Ralphy…

When you said, so consequently new born children can not have faith.

But actually, neither of us is adding. You are giving YOUR fallible interpretation of the passage, limiting it to JUST the one verse and taking it literalistically. Under your theory, no deaf or mute can have faith in Christ. This is clearly absurd.

Whereas, I align my interpretation with the teachings of the Church, who is possessor of Sacred Scripture interpretive authority, and who teaches Baptism infallibly.

So, you didn’t “only quote what God said”…you gave some interpretation. And I refuted it with a more proper interpretation.

God Bless

 

[ralphy]

Under that definition of adding, YOU just added to it Ralphy…

When you said, so consequently new born children can not have faith.

But actually, neither of us is adding. You are giving YOUR fallible interpretation of the passage, limiting it to JUST the one verse and taking it literalistically. Under your theory, no deaf or mute can have faith in Christ. This is clearly absurd.

Whereas, I align my interpretation with the teachings of the Church, who is possessor of Sacred Scripture interpretive authority, and who teaches Baptism infallibly.

So, you didn’t “only quote what God said”…you gave some interpretation. And I refuted it with a more proper interpretation.

God Bless

My friend I did not say that a a deaf person or a mute can not have faith, for they can learn sign language and understand . God said this is where faith comes from. No one needs interpretation for this verse, at least I would not think so, I thought it was straight forward and easy to understand. Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

My friend I did not say that a a deaf person or a mute can not have faith, for they can learn sign language and understand . God said this is where faith comes from. No one needs interpretation for this verse, at least I would not think so, I thought it was straight forward and easy to understand. Ralph

Most of scripture is NOT straight forward and easy. We really are all Ethiopian Eunichs in a very real sense. We need authentic teaching.

The history of sign language really only goes back a few hundred years. How about the deaf before then? How about the deaf and blind? They cannot see nor hear. How do we get them the “word”? This is why you can’t take everything literalistically…which is different from literally. Literalistically means just extracting only what the words say. Literally means taking everything in context, not just in the verse or chapter or book…but within the entire canon of Scripture, AND the entire body of Tradition.

God Bless

 

[CentralFLJames]

My friend, I only quoted what God said. It is up to if you believe it or not.Don’t add or take away from it. He said this is where faith comes from. If you reject this statement, you are rejecting Him. Ralph

Well ralphy, if you want to be 100% literal then shouldn’t we all be reading in the original Greek texts and hearing in that vernacular? When the bible says “love” in English did you know that that word is only an approximation of the many different kinds of love that are expressed in the original Greek (which has eros, agape and filia) and all mean VERY different things ranging from sexual to brotherly love? Or should we back convert all to the actual language that we know Jesus spoke - which was Aramaic and read it and hear it all in that vernacular?

You can’t insist on literal interpretation while ignoring the literal source itself - which is Greek. And the truth is many concepts between our cultures are just not linguistically reachable with any high level of fidelity.

Don’t you really in your heart think that God can speak to an infant or a mentally handicapped person in their own inner language of the heart Ralphy? Ever watch an infant in the cradle? They suddenly start smiling and getting happy all on their own with nothing apparently happening to cause it. Do you think they are thinking in “language” they can’t speak or understand yet? No - that is God speaking to them Ralphy and teaching them things that you have long forgotten - how to listen like a child instead of talking as if you were God. Maybe its time you should be listening to what He is trying to tell you through others.

If you won’t listen to reason - listen to your heart.

James

 

[fbl9]

If you look up Romans Chap 10:17, you will see where faith comes from, so consequently new born children can not have faith. Mark 10:13-16 is refering to the mind set and the type of trust a little child has (total trust and acceptance),it does not mean that as adults we must become little children. From what I understand from scripture,when children reach the age of reason (that is when they understand what is said to them, and are able to reason for themselves),then they must decide to follow Christ or not to follow Him. If you would like to see more on the importance ,please read Rom 3:21-31. Ralph

many hear the words of Christ being taught yet they don’t beleive so faith cannot be entirely sourced from just hearing.

 

[Saint_Sinner]

Hi Ralphy,
Any intention of engaging the discussion we began a while back?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4984355#post4984355
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4984703#post4984703
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4989737#post4989737

Maybe you can show me something new. I’m a relatively new convert to the Church. The reason I joined is that I became convinced that the Church had not erred in teaching faith and morals, ever. If the Church had truly ever taught a formal error, then I would leave. There would be no point in remaining. You have a grand opportunity to show me you are right and I was wrong. If you are concerned about Catholic christian souls please help me to understand your thinking.

Be advised though I really, really, did not originally want to join the Church. I was taught during my early life that the Church was the whore of Babylon and a great deciever. I was taught that the Pope was the Anti-Christ or his puppet. The mere thought of joining made me sick. If in all my studies had found one formal error I would never have joined.
But who knows maybe I missed something?

 

[ralphy]

Hi Ralphy,
Any intention of engaging the discussion we began a while back?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4984355#post4984355
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4984703#post4984703
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4989737#post4989737

Maybe you can show me something new. I’m a relatively new convert to the Church. The reason I joined is that I became convinced that the Church had not erred in teaching faith and morals, ever. If the Church had truly ever taught a formal error, then I would leave. There would be no point in remaining. You have a grand opportunity to show me you are right and I was wrong. If you are concerned about Catholic christian souls please help me to understand your thinking.

Be advised though I really, really, did not originally want to join the Church. I was taught during my early life that the Church was the whore of Babylon and a great deciever. I was taught that the Pope was the Anti-Christ or his puppet. The mere thought of joining made me sick. If in all my studies had found one formal error I would never have joined.
But who knows maybe I missed something?

There are so many things about the Roman catholic church that are not right, where do I start. They call the Pope “Holy Father” and that he is infallible. Do yo really believe that a human sinner could be called “Holy”, only God is Holy. Only God is infallible. Do you really believe that the Roman catholic church teaching supersedes the Bible (the word of God). Do you believe that a Roman catholic priest can (somehow) change a piece of bread and some wine into the body and blood of Christ. Do you believe that as the catholics say "The last supper was a real sacrifice in which Christ’s blood was poured out for our sins in the cup ,when the last supper was a Passover meal. Christ’s blood was poured out for our sins at the cross (1 Peter 2:24). Just one more out of many, the Roman catholic church says “the sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the sacrifice of the mass”. The Bible says "the sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Eph 1:7; Heb 1:3) The Roman catholic church relys heavily on “tradition” or “their” church teaching and in most cases causes the Bible to have very little effect. I will say again as I have said befor, in the last days our judgement will come from the “Bible” and not from tradition or other teachings. Make sure that you are standing on the “word of God”, the only solid ground. Ralph