Serious Problem on my journey to Catholicism

  • Thread starter Thread starter BigTurkey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
BigTurkey:
However, my problem is that Protestant Scholars (F. F. Bruce, Ferguson, Greg Boyd, James White, and others that I am reading) all claim that the canon was recognized by the church early on. The Catholic Church didn’t define the canon, they only recognized the canon, so they say.
Click to expand...
Early on, the canon as we know it today was in existence. But circulating with these inspired books were forged epistles, gnostic writings, and pseudo-gospels—but there was no set canon.

It was the Catholic Church that decided what was inspired and authentic and hence the canon was established.

Peace,
Mickey
 
40.png
BigTurkey:
It’s not that they say that the only thing anyone could ever read or consult to find truth is Scripture, but that the final authority is scripture. So, while there aren’t printing presses or many literate people, that doesn’t destroy the sola Scriptura principle. It just means that teachings on the Scriptures need to be oral for most people, but the Scriptures are still the final authority, not the oral teachings.
Click to expand...
Let me give you a statement:
I never said you stole the money.

Read that and think about how many different ways that statement could be interpreted. Only one, right?

Wrong, there are at least six different ways to interpret that statement.

That’s the thing, emphasis can be put on many different areas, so even your Sola Sciptura principle as stated above depends on the oral teaching or emphasis of the one who is reading it aloud to the masses.

I hope this makes a little sense.
40.png
BigTurkey:
Thanks though for your willingness to help me out. I’m so confused about what I believe these days 🙂 Some days I’m about ready to join the CC any day now, and others I think I will never join the CC and that I will remain Protestant. Any help I can get I will use.
Click to expand...
That’s what we are here for… If you’d like to PM or e-mail me, please feel free to do so. I hope I can help!! 👍
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
Further, no denomination has ordained more homosexuals than the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
LOL! I would really love to see those stats, and would love to see how they found that out about men who are supposed to be chaste. That really is a good one. The problem with this statement is that you failed to read that I said openly gay. 🙂

How would you go about getting stats from all of the priests in the Catholic Church all over the world? Just because there may be a small population of homosexuals who have infiltrated the Church, the number who have actually perpetrated crimes against anyone is about 0.5%.
 
Hi Micah,

I just want to encourage you to work from where you are.

What do you know without a doubt? That the Bible is God’s inspired word. Work from what you know to be true. You rest now on Scripture. But you rest on someones interpretation of it. Why not see what Catholic interpretation of Scripture is?

I am now a Catholic who worked from that very point. The only way **all **Scripture makes sense is through Catholic interpretation.

If you haven’t already, go here and read God’s word. You know it is true. Ask the Holy Spirit to lead you to all truth. It is all there.

scripturecatholic.com/index.html

You may wish to consider this also. Although Protestants like to talk about Scripture just being there, then how come we disagree on what *is *Scripture? Once again, I tell you to look at Scripture to find the truth. The link below is also from Scripture Catholic.
from** Scripture Catholic**
Of the approximately 300 Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, approximately** 2/3 of them came from the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) which included the deuterocanonical books that the Protestants later removed**. This is additional evidence that Jesus and the apostles viewed the deuterocanonical books as part of canon of the Old Testament. Here are some examples:
Click to expand...
scripturecatholic.com/septuagint.html

Although there is much merit in looking at history, for me, I had to stand on what I know to be true and work form there.

God Bless,
Maria,

ps
posted by Big Turkey
but the Scriptures are still the final authority, not the oral teachings
Click to expand...
Where in the Scriptures does it say this?

scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
 
40.png
Sherlock:
The Catholic Church certainly does have homosexuals in her priesthood—we would all agree there. However, the Church expects those to live chastely—no homosexual acts. Those who do so are breaking their vows.
Click to expand...
This is imprecise.

The priestly vow of celibacy is not a vow of “no sex”. It is a vow of no marriage. Since the Church recognizes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, a vow of chastity is in fact a vow of singleness.

However, the Church does not recognize (nor should it) a marriage between two people other than a man and a woman. If a priest is a homosexual of what import is a vow to not marry when he would be disinclined to marry a woman in any event?

Chasteness is not only “no marriage” it is also a vow to avoid relationships that would be tempting or improper - to remain personally, emotionally and intimately un-associated with a woman. This includes living with a woman spending an inordinate amount with women outside of the regular function of their clerical duties. This simply cannot work in the context of the Rectory for homosexauls - which is an entirely male residence.
This vow does not anticipate a homosexual orientation, since homosexuality itself is a sin.

While Canon Law does not explicitly mention homosexual priests, several voices in the Vatican have called for the cessation of ordination of homosexuals, the removal from the priesthood of homosexuals, and / or the excommunication of homosexuals in the priesthood.

I would agree that ordaining “openly gay” priests is wrong, I don’t see the Catholic Church’s de facto policy as being all that different than the Anglican Church’s (i.e. some of the laity are willing to put up with it as long as they are ‘chaste’ , some want them removed or prohibited from the clergy, some want them excommunicated.)

How is this policy materially different from the Catholic Church’s policy?

Blessings,
Richard
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
This is imprecise.

The priestly vow of celibacy is not a vow of “no sex”. It is a vow of no marriage. Since the Church recognizes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, a vow of chastity is in fact a vow of singleness.

However, the Church does not recognize (nor should it) a marriage between two people other than a man and a woman. If a priest is a homosexual of what import is a vow to not marry when he would be disinclined to marry a woman in any event?

Chasteness is not only “no marriage” it is also a vow to avoid relationships that would be tempting or improper - to remain personally, emotionally and intimately un-associated with a woman. This includes living with a woman spending an inordinate amount with women outside of the regular function of their clerical duties. This simply cannot work in the context of the Rectory for homosexauls - which is an entirely male residence.
This vow does not anticipate a homosexual orientation, since homosexuality itself is a sin.

While Canon Law does not explicitly mention homosexual priests, several voices in the Vatican have called for the cessation of ordination of homosexuals, the removal from the priesthood of homosexuals, and / or the excommunication of homosexuals in the priesthood.

I would agree that ordaining “openly gay” priests is wrong, I don’t see the Catholic Church’s de facto policy as being all that different than the Anglican Church’s (i.e. some of the laity are willing to put up with it as long as they are ‘chaste’ , some want them removed or prohibited from the clergy, some want them excommunicated.)

How is this policy materially different from the Catholic Church’s policy?

Blessings,
Richard
Click to expand...
As a Latin who mainly goes to a Ruthenian Catholic parish, I hope B16 leaves the option open for bishops to ordain priests who are married (and not just former protestant clergy, as it sort of stings of a double standard to his own flock). Then again, maybe I am just too used to my priest having 3 kids. I don’t really consider myself a ‘liberal’, and agree with the Church and all Her doctrines, but I really don’t see any reason that the Latin Church should not allow married men to become priests if it is okay with their bishops. But, until B16 makes the decision, I will go by what the pope says and not oppose his decisions.
 
40.png
BigTurkey:
Hey guys,

They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

My thought is that there is no FUNCTIONAL difference between having the ability to recognize the authority of Scripture and actually deciding it. Think about that statement. I believe that they recognized it as Scripture and in doing so revealed it as such and “bound it” in heaven and earth according to the will of God. This process manifest itself as the “decision” of a committee, but that does not weaken the force of what they did whatsoever. Without an infallible “decision” you have no Scripture, only competing opinions.

I understand that this does not destroy the Catholic claim, but it certainly takes away one of the main reasons that I started questioning my Protestantism.

It shouldn’t. The bible came OUT OF the Church, the Church did NOT come out of the bible. Again, pause for thought.

Also, how does the Catholic Church define Tradition? I mean, I know it is the oral teachings of the apostles that were passed down orally. I understand material sufficiency, but if that is true what did the Fathers pass down? The apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures?

I don’t know exactly - ohters will help. I can tell you when “interpetations” conflict over time, they are not from the holy Spirit, which is the Truth. Doctrine can develop, but it cant contradict itself - especially if one believes it is derived from a fixed entity such as Scripture. But Protestant doctrine has changed considerably over time. So much so, that almost all doctrine except Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura had to be relegated as insignificant. Faith alone is clearly taught as not being salvific (james 2:24). How odd for God to inspire such a statement that requires convoluted interpretations in order to substantiate Sola Fide. I don’t think a convoluted interpretation is required. Simply an adjustment on what “faith alone” means. When that happens, one returns to the Catholic understanding that one is saved by Grace, through faith working in love.

But why should I accept the Fathers? What reason do I have to believe that they infallibly passed along the oral Apostolic teachings? I mean, I have no problem ascribing some form of authority to them, but the authority on the same level as Scriptures?! I don’t know if I can do that, especially if, from what i have read of them, they don’t seem to say that their writings (or at least taechings that they all agree on) are on the level of Scriptures. If we don’t accept their writings or all the teachings they agree on as equal to Scriptures, then what is Sacred Tradition?

What you continue to fail to appreciate is that without the Fathers you do not have Scripture to rely upon. It is on the testimony of MEN that we have Scripture. God chose to reveal Scripture THROUGH THE CHURCH. He did not write anything in stone this time.

con’d
Click to expand...
 
Also, if the Scriptures are materially sufficient, then why do we need infallible Tradition and Magisterium? I mean, I know that we need an interpretation of the Scriptures, but don’t we need an interpretation of the teachings of the Church?

No. The teachings of Scripture are often vague and descriptive. the teachings of the Church are clear and affirmative. For example: Can an infant be baptised? Scripture is unclear. The magisterium is clear: YES! Is contraception sinful? Scripture is unclear. the magisterium is very clear: YES! I could go on and on with examples of vague, descriptive Scripture and clear, affirmative Church teaching on important issues (homosexuality, masturbation, Holy Eucharist, Sunday Mass, etc.) In addition, the Church can DIALOGUE with us in our language and culture to continue to clarify any ambiguities in its teaching. Scripture can not do this.

(Am I mistaken in saying that there is substantial disagreement among the laity about the ethics and teachings of the Church.) So, it seems like at some level fallibility has to enter in. So, why am I to assume that the Church’s interpretation is infallible?

There is no relationship between the cohesiveness of understanding among the laity and the infallibility of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture.

Also, I know that there are Scripture that the Catholics point towards (1 Tim. 3:15, etc.), but, from these verses, how do we get the specific Catholic teaching of infallibility? (Yes, I know that the catholics do not believe in formal sufficiency or in sola Scriptura; but should I be able to see the building blocks of the principle?)

Matt 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” That’s a building block. Peter can bind things on earth and in heaven. Nothing unclean can enter heaven.(Rev) It must follow that Peter is protected from erroneous binding or loosing in his capacity as ambassador of the Church. In addition, with the analogy to Isaiah 22 that Christ used, it is reasonable to assume that Peter is in charge until he dies and another takes his office. This is all perfectly logical and constructive.

Also, is infallibility considered a form of revelation?

Yes, I think so.

If not, then what is it? God guiding us into truth? Isn’t that a definition of revelation? If God isn’t revealing information to us through the ECF’s and the Magisterium, then why should I believe that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are infallible? But, if it is new revelation, isn’t that a contradiction of the CCC which teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles? CCC 66& 67.

Of course not. Look at what you wrote. Why did you add the word public in the last question? that is what distinguishes the revelation of the Apostles from the revelation of the Magisterium.

-Micah

Also, check out the Catholic Answers Library on the left side of the homepage at Catholic.com.

Phil
 
Thanks so much for your response. I don’t know how many of you have made the journey from Protestantism to Catholicism, but for those of you who have then you should know how I feel. One day you think the you converting to Catholicism is inevitable, the next day you think that you will never convert to it. It’s a confusing time filled with vague and confusing feelings against Catholicism that one tries to put into clear and understandable questions, but that turns out to be as difficult as the journey itself 🙂
40.png
Philthy:
Also, is infallibility considered a form of revelation?

Yes, I think so.

If not, then what is it? God guiding us into truth? Isn’t that a definition of revelation? If God isn’t revealing information to us through the ECF’s and the Magisterium, then why should I believe that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are infallible? But, if it is new revelation, isn’t that a contradiction of the CCC which teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles? CCC 66& 67.

Of course not. Look at what you wrote. **Why did you add the word public in the last question? **that is what distinguishes the revelation of the Apostles from the revelation of the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
A question I have about your response is this: are you saying that the revelation to the Magisterium is public? or is it private? If public, then how is it different from the revelations to the apostles? If private, then why is it binding upon Christians, since the Catechism says the private revelations are not binding (I don’t have the catechism in front of me, so I could be mistaken about this. I remember that it said something close to this)?

Thanks again for yours and everyone’s responses. Y’all are so helpful.

-Micah
 
40.png
Richard_Hurtz:
This is imprecise.

The priestly vow of celibacy is not a vow of “no sex”. It is a vow of no marriage. Since the Church recognizes that sex outside of marriage is a sin, a vow of chastity is in fact a vow of singleness.

However, the Church does not recognize (nor should it) a marriage between two people other than a man and a woman. If a priest is a homosexual of what import is a vow to not marry when he would be disinclined to marry a woman in any event?

Chasteness is not only “no marriage” it is also a vow to avoid relationships that would be tempting or improper - to remain personally, emotionally and intimately un-associated with a woman. This includes living with a woman spending an inordinate amount with women outside of the regular function of their clerical duties. This simply cannot work in the context of the Rectory for homosexauls - which is an entirely male residence.
This vow does not anticipate a homosexual orientation, since homosexuality itself is a sin.

While Canon Law does not explicitly mention homosexual priests, several voices in the Vatican have called for the cessation of ordination of homosexuals, the removal from the priesthood of homosexuals, and / or the excommunication of homosexuals in the priesthood.

I would agree that ordaining “openly gay” priests is wrong, I don’t see the Catholic Church’s de facto policy as being all that different than the Anglican Church’s (i.e. some of the laity are willing to put up with it as long as they are ‘chaste’ , some want them removed or prohibited from the clergy, some want them excommunicated.)

How is this policy materially different from the Catholic Church’s policy?

Blessings,
Richard
Click to expand...
I understand that celibacy refers to the state of not being married, contrary to many people’s thinking that it refers to chastity. However, chastity, the right ordering of sexuality, applies to everyone. For the unmarried person (be he a priest or a layman), chastity requires abstinence from sex and from those things that would normally lead to sex in thought, word, or deed. The point is: it’s wrong. The Anglicans have, by their ordaining an openly gay man, declared that chastity is no longer required. This is a serious and radical departure from orthodox theology.
You ask how the Anglicans’ policy is “materially different” from the Catholic position: it’s very simple—the Catholic Church will NEVER ordain a man such as Gene Robinson, who is openly and actively gay and also open about what his ordination signifies. It will not happen—ever. That’s a significant material difference, and one that gives me comfort.
 
A question I have about your response is this: are you saying that the revelation to the Magisterium is public? or is it private? If public, then how is it different from the revelations to the apostles? If private, then why is it binding upon Christians, since the Catechism says the private revelations are not binding (I don’t have the catechism in front of me, so I could be mistaken about this. I remember that it said something close to this)?
Click to expand...
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this or not, but the Church’s decisions on matters of faith and morals are quite public. Usually they are the result of much study, prayer, and discussion amongst theologians and Church leaders. Nothing is kept hidden from anyone during this process. If that were the case no one would be able to take the comments of theologians out of context to challenge Church teaching, would they?

Most decisions are made and announced at Church councils, such as the councils that gave us the title of Mary as Mother of God to support the full divinity and humanity of Christ, or the one in the 4th century in which the books of the Bible were determined (and solidified by the Council of Trent many centuries later in answer to the Protestant challenge, not because the Church wasn’t sure). Sometimes a pope will announce a doctrine to be on the level of a dogma, but that is quite rare.

Private revelations are apparitions or interior locutions or spiritual insights and it is these that are not binding on the faithful. The Church is very careful about what it teaches as doctrine and dogma just so there can be no misunderstanding.
 
40.png
BigTurkey:
Hey guys,

I know all of you are probably tired of me asking so many questions. I also know that you are tired of unlearned Protestants questioning the validity and the veracity of Sacred Tradition, but I have some serious questions that are retarding my journey to Catholicism…

Well, I hve been reading more and more Protestant works on the origins of the bible. They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures (which is a thought that I had which started my journey), instead, we just have to recognize the authority of the Scriptures. What are y’alls thoughts on that?

I understand that this does not destroy the Catholic claim, but it certainly takes away one of the main reasons that I started questioning my Protestantism.

Also, how does the Catholic Church define Tradition? I mean, I know it is the oral teachings of the apostles that were passed down orally. I understand material sufficiency, but if that is true what did the Fathers pass down? The apostolic interpretation of the Scriptures?

But why should I accept the Fathers? What reason do I have to believe that they infallibly passed along the oral Apostolic teachings? I mean, I have no problem ascribing some form of authority to them, but the authority on the same level as Scriptures?! I don’t know if I can do that, especially if, from what i have read of them, they don’t seem to say that their writings (or at least taechings that they all agree on) are on the level of Scriptures. If we don’t accept their writings or all the teachings they agree on as equal to Scriptures, then what is Sacred Tradition?

Also, if the Scriptures are materially sufficient, then why do we need infallible Tradition and Magisterium? I mean, I know that we need an interpretation of the Scriptures, but don’t we need an interpretation of the teachings of the Church? (Am I mistaken in saying that there is substantial disagreement among the laity about the ethics and teachings of the Church.) So, it seems like at some level fallibility has to enter in. So, why am I to assume that the Church’s interpretation is infallible?

Also, I know that there are Scripture that the Catholics point towards (1 Tim. 3:15, etc.), but, from these verses, how do we get the specific Catholic teaching of infallibility? (Yes, I know that the catholics do not believe in formal sufficiency or in sola Scriptura; but should I be able to see the building blocks of the principle?) The way I understand it, not every Papal Bull is infallible? The consensus of Bishops aren’t infallible. Where do the early Church Fathers say that they Pope, only when speaking ex cathedra is infallible?

Also, is infallibility considered a form of revelation? If not, then what is it? God guiding us into truth? Isn’t that a definition of revelation? If God isn’t revealing information to us through the ECF’s and the Magisterium, then why should I believe that Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are infallible? But, if it is new revelation, isn’t that a contradiction of the CCC which teaches that public revelation ended with the apostles? CCC 66& 67.

Anyway, I am so sorry that I just rambled on. I figured it would be easier for me to have my questions answered if I posted them all at once, since they are all interrelated (at least in my mind). Thanks in advance.

-Micah
Click to expand...
Micah, did you pray before you started to stray? Don’t make the same mistake I made.
 
I was listening to Father Mitch on EWTN radio the other night. Dr. Scott Hahn has just written and published a new book that covers the questions Micah has asked - isn’t that wonderful? The book is available on his website and can be used in conjunction with his other book The Lamb’s Supper.

He speaks to the idea that the Church was using Holy Scripture long before it was gathered together into a specifc canon and made into a book that could be called The Book, or The Bible. He also, apparently, addresses the question of Tradition vs. tradition, i.e. why some things are Sacred Tradition and others are wonderful traditions within the Catholic world that have survived despite people trying to kill us and destroy His Bride, the Church since its inception.

While our Protestant Brethren may argue over semantics, the reality is there was only One Church in the first century…anything else was heresy and regarded as such. As we grew in faith and age so did the need to organize how we celebrate our Eucharist.

What I find fascinating as I read and study more is the fact that, except for language differences, if I was to stumble back in time to the Catacombs I would know the Mass when I see it…because it was then what it is now - and that is something you cannot take away from a Catholic Christian.
 
40.png
LSK:
While our Protestant Brethren may argue over semantics, the reality is there was only One Church in the first century…anything else was heresy and regarded as such. As we grew in faith and age so did the need to organize how we celebrate our Eucharist.
Click to expand...
So the “unbelieving Jews” were “heretics” since they rejected the “Christ.” Not so. The Christians were a but a sect of 1st Century Judaism. If Jesus established a Church, why didn’t he immediately denounce Judaism as heretical? He didn’t. He continued to keep the Law. He did not say, “Since I am the fulfullment of the Law, I no longer keep it.” On the contrary, he taught his disciples to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, while he warned them not to be hypocritical dichotomizing what they professed from how they lived. (i.e., “I am a Catholic, but I am pro-abortion rights.”, Mario Cuomo, et al.)
 
40.png
Tibbar:
Micah, did you pray before you started to stray? Don’t make the same mistake I made.
Click to expand...
What mistake is that? And what do you mean by me straying? Straying from Protestantism? Straying from my looking to Catholicism? I’m not offended or anything at you saying that I’m straying, I just want to know what you mean.

Thanks

MIcah
 
What writings are considered infallible?

Also, a related question I have is this: how do the teachings of the ECFs become Sacred Tradidion? (How do they, not how did they…I’m not questioning why there is Sacred Tradition, I’m asking how something comes to be considered sacred Tradition.)

A specific example: how did the Assumption of Mary become regarded as Tradition? Are there quotes from teh ECFs that talk about this?

Thanks again

-Micah
 
40.png
Tibbar:
So the “unbelieving Jews” were “heretics” since they rejected the “Christ.” Not so. The Christians were a but a sect of 1st Century Judaism. If Jesus established a Church, why didn’t he immediately denounce Judaism as heretical? He didn’t. He continued to keep the Law. He did not say, “Since I am the fulfullment of the Law, I no longer keep it.” On the contrary, he taught his disciples to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, while he warned them not to be hypocritical dichotomizing what they professed from how they lived. (i.e., “I am a Catholic, but I am pro-abortion rights.”, Mario Cuomo, et al.)
Click to expand...
No, you are confusing the unbelieving Jews with heretics here. No one can be a heretic unless he first stated his belief in a particular religion. Jews who did not become Christian, who never embraced the Christian faith to begin with, cannot be termed heretics. You are arguing against no one and nothing here, I’m afraid.
 
Hello Big Turkey … be careful the next few weeks. 😃

Anyway … I am Catholic and am wondering why someone who believes the Bible is the Word of God questions how the Bible originated. If the men who took writings throughout salvation history were not inspired by God to include what needed to be included and exclude what needed to be excluded then the Bible would not be trustworthy. Is yours a question on the trustworthiness of the Bible? The foundation on which the Bible stands is Christ himself since Christ himself is the Church. The two cannot be separated. Catholics submit to the authority of the Church because the Church is Christ’s mystical body. The stumbling block I see in your questions is authority.

Does it stand to reason if two Bibles exist then one must be in error? One must posses either false teachings or less truth than the other. If you know and trust the authority on which the Bible was created then that source must be trusted for all truth. Once you find that truth there is no longer any need to search for it.
They claim that the Catholic Church didn’t decide the canon of the Scriptures, instead they merely recognized the authority of the books of the bible and put them together in a canon. So, we don’t have to accept the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to accept Scriptures
Click to expand...
This is like saying we have to accept the decision of the Supreme Court but we don’ t have to recoginze the authority of the Supreme Court. The authority is implicit in the rendering of a decision.

This is why I see a deeper question on authority.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top