J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Try again? Try what again? Both Peter and Paul gained their faith in Christ because God revealed the Truth to them. There’s quite a parallel. To deny that is, well, just…stupid.
- Status
M
MariaG
Guest
Your “aha” moment is anything but. You seem to think that because we look to a Pope for the final say that it somehow negates the everyday walk of faith.Talk about a “A-HA” moment right from the get-go! And whats sad about this, really, catholic apologetics approve of this kind of attitude from fellow catholics.
#1-Thats your carnal mind at work doing triple time. You ask yourself-“Why accept Gods Word through those who he spoke to and through when I can be safe and accept a religion that claims it is the one founded by Christ, even though their teachings contain some major differences by what the bible teaches?” Your carnal mind cannot trade all those recorded historical years of man serving God with their own hands(CC) for the truth of yielding to the sovereign God through Jesus Christ and accept his 1st hand living word that is contained in the Holy Bible.
**#2.Imagine if the Apostle Peter in Matthew16:16 asked the same question you did. His carnal mind would of told him the statement-“You are the Christ, the son of God” was coming from his own mind, not from God. But instead, he yielded to God, and the voice he heard in his head sounded like his, but through faith, he knew it came from God. Peter said what was in his head, and Jesus confirmed he was right. **
But to your credit and according to the catholic teachings, he didnt yield to God by faith and that is why you have a pope.
#3.Being Catholic is “LUCKY”?! Good job correcting that one CC apologetics!
#4.Yeah, why step out in faith when you can be “a good little ewe in the pew.”
It doesn’t.
What it does do is allow me to be able to “check” and see if I am really being led by the spirit or I have allowed my carnal self to deceive myself.
Kind of like Protestants and Artificial Birth Control. With no one final authority, they allowed something in the 1930’s that no Christians had ever taught was okay. They allowed the world to change Christian teachings of over 1900 years.
Did you know that many ABC pills are abortifacient? That is they work in several ways. One is to prevent ovulation. But the “backup” is that is an egg is released and ends up fertilized that the uterine wall is thickened and the fertilized egg, LIFE, is unable to attach to the uterine wall. Funny how so many Christians have problems with the morning after pill yet babies were being killed by Christians without even knowing it for decades.
Now there are openly gay bishops being ordained. Gay “marriages” being performed. What next? What will creep in to some Protestant beliefs and tried to be passed off as Christian? (I do recognize that many, many Protestant Churches do not agree with the above. That is not the point. The point is how one earth could ONE even think it was Christian to do so?)
That what the Magesterium does. It prevents the world from creeping into Christianity.
God Bless,
Maria
God Bless,
Maria
V
volzcpa
Guest
There is nothing that the Catholic Church teaches that is contrary to the Bible.
The Catholic Church does accept Christ’s living word that is contained in the Bible.
geno75 said:**#2.Imagine if the Apostle Peter in Matthew16:16 asked the same question you did. His carnal mind would of told him the statement-“You are the Christ, the son of God” was coming from his own mind, not from God. But instead, he yielded to God, and the voice he heard in his head sounded like his, but through faith, he knew it came from God. Peter said what was in his head, and Jesus confirmed he was right. **
The Catholic Church does teach the word of God which came through Jesus Christ.
geno75:
You are terribly misinformed about what the Catholic Church teaches.
geno75 said:#3.Being Catholic is “LUCKY”?! Good job correcting that one CC apologetics!
Again, you are twisting, to your own detriment, what is said.
geno75 said:
Let’s talk about stepping out in faith.
What Protestant organization has stepped out in faith and condemned contraception (which is condemned in the Bible)? The Catholic Church has.
What Protestant organization has stepped out in faith and condemned the homosexual lifestyle (which is condemned in the Bible)? The Catholic Church has.
What Protestant organization has stepped out in faith and condemned divorce (which is condemned in the Bible)? The Catholic Church has.
G
geno75
Guest
Where is the Mass taught and were was it practiced in the bible.
Jesus fulfilled holy days and feast days as well as the 10 commandments, but yet the CC says he instituted new ones.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
I suggest that you do a few things if you’re honestly inquiring about the origins of the Mass. First of all, I DARE YOU to attend a Mass if you’ve never done so. Also, pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church for yourself so you can see what the Church officially teaches about the Mass (and I’m sure it would help with other things too). Here’s your homework
:#1 - There is a free online course sponsored by the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology on the Bible and the Mass. All you have to do is sign up here. Then, go here and learn all about it. The companion book to this course is Scott Hahn’s The Lamb’s Supper, which can be purchased at your local Catholic (and some secular) bookstore or online here.
#2 - There is a free home course sponsored by the Catholic Home Study Service called “WE WORSHIP—A GUIDE TO THE CATHOLIC MASS” and you also get the book for free! You can go here for that.
#3 - You can get a free tape or CD called “The Mass Explained” from the Mary Foundation here. You may need to pay $1 for shipping or whatever, but that’s it.
I hope that you will do all of the above things with an open heart and mind if you’re truly looking for information on the Mass and why we do it.
God bless!
M
MariaG
Guest
Since I doubt, yet prayerfully hope, that you will read and actually research.
The simple answer to your question as to where was the Mass taught and practiced in the Bible would be the Last Supper where Jesus Himself taught the Apostles.
God Bless,
Maria
I
Ignatius
Guest
In particular a group of someones who learned at the feet of the Apostles and so were able to hand on the correct interpretation of Holy Scripture for future generations.How lucky we as Catholics are to have someone (or a group of someones) who can help guide us to better understand God’s word and teaching.
God Bless.
A
Alfie
Guest
If Catholic tradition is impossible to change and it has never changed after hundreds of years, then why do you need a pope…period?
M
Mickey
Guest
Because the Bishop of Rome is part of that Tradition.
M
maryj
Guest
Are you saying that the Apostles were not 100% led by the Holy Spirit? Because if you are not stating that, the next logical step here is …Then everything the Apostles taught was “Holy Spirit” lead. We believe in ONE, HOLY, Catholic, and here it comes APOSTOLIC church. We do not need to test that which is Holy, it is Holy, thus led by the HOLY SPIRIT. You know the Spirit of God, the one who spoke through the Prophets.
A
Angainor
Guest
Maybe John and Paul knew the Apostles wouldn’t be around forever.
M
mmortal03
Guest
Catholic tradition is not impossible to change. Doctrine HAS changed. Vatican II shows this.
M
mmortal03
Guest
Yep, they did, and that is why they made sure to pass down their authority within the Catholic Church.
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I’m really sorry, but this is only the umpteenth time. Catholic doctrine cannot and does not change! It can’t because we do not have the authority to alter the Deposit of Faith that was delivered to the Church by Our Lord. And it hasn’t changed. Vatican II (when properly interpreted…although I’m struggling with reconciling it on some points) did NOT change any doctrine. It didn’t even really address doctrine. It was a unique council due to its pastoral nature. Practices can change. Pastoral approaches can change. Doctrines can even develop, BUT THEY CANNOT CHANGE. :banghead:
mmortal03, my apologies for any apparent rage.
I see that you’re new here. None of it was aimed really at you, but more so at the poor catechesis that has lead to misconceptions such as this. BTW - nice birthday…almost the same as mine
M
mmortal03
Guest
Thanks for the information…I’d really like a good compare and contrast of doctrine and dogma then, because apparently I have been misinformed. I know that all dogmas are doctrines. Just not the other way around.NNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. I’m really sorry, but this is only the umpteenth time. Catholic doctrine cannot and does not change! It can’t because we do not have the authority to alter the Deposit of Faith that was delivered to the Church by Our Lord. And it hasn’t changed. Vatican II (when properly interpreted…although I’m struggling with reconciling it on some points) did NOT change any doctrine. It didn’t even really address doctrine. It was a unique council due to its pastoral nature. Practices can change. Pastoral approaches can change. Doctrines can even develop, BUT THEY CANNOT CHANGE. :banghead:
mmortal03, my apologies for any apparent rage.
Also, I did some searching around, and read that doctrine is “a truth whose acceptance is necessary for the faithful, whether or not infallibly taught. All the teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, including those parts not formally defined as dogma, must be accepted with a religious submission of intellect and will by all believers.”
The part about “a truth whose acceptance is necessary for the faithful, whether or not infallibly taught” sounds like a wrinkle in the arguments of this thread…because that would mean that there are things that we as Catholics must follow that even the Magisterium cannot be 100% sure about.
How can they know that something is a truth but then not be able to teach it infallibly?
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
Dogma is the highest form of doctrine and cannot develop (from what I understand). Practices or discliplines are not doctrines although they are usually based off of doctrines and reflect some type of official teaching. These can and do change. For example Vatican II changed certain aspects of the liturgy. This isn’t to say that practices and disciplines (sometimes called “lowercase-‘t’ traditions,” as opposed to Sacred Tradition) should necessarily be changed or eliminated without good reason. The rosary is a tradition, but there’s no reason to do away with it. As for disciplines like priestly celibacy, they can also change, although it would be very unlikely that this would change in the Latin Rite.
This post may help:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1351382&postcount=39
D
DARichards
Guest
This is interesting to me because this is one of the modes that my P.C.A. pastor tried to use to disuade me from joining the Catholic Church. He says that the Catholic Church doctrines contradict themselves. However, he didn’t give examples. How do the Protestants say that the doctrines conflict with themselves???
J
JSmitty2005
Guest
They don’t contradict. I’ve seen Protestants try to say that the Church used to teach that absolutely everyone that was not Catholic was going to Hell, but now the Church teaches that “as long as your’e good” you can go to Heaven. The Church has taught neither. The dogma of EENS hasn’t changed, but ambiguous documents and erroneous interpretations have lead to confusion on the subject. Protestants try to use that against us to say that the Church has changed. Extreme traditionalists (although I tend to lean in the traditional direction) claim that the Church is in heresy because of it’s supposedly “new” teaching on this subject by exploiting selective writings from the past (that were not always infallible). Finally, modernists and progressivists ignore the past and exploit documents of V2 or passages in the Catechism to justify their neopelagian/universalist interpretation with disregard to the Church’s perennial teaching and promote religious indifference and a false idea of tolerance and ecumenism.
D
DARichards
Guest
What is EENS??
M
mmortal03
Guest
Btw, sorry if I have been misinformed about what Vatican II actually did.
Also, just to make sure I am clear on this, from what it sounds like to me, pedantically speaking, doctrine as a whole CAN “change”, depending on how you define the word “change”. It would seem by how you put it that it would be more accurate to say that doctrine as a whole cannot be “reversed” and individual doctrines also cannot be “reversed”.
If doctrine can be developed, “developing” would imply an addition, and an addition would imply that a “change” occurred in the doctrine. So, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem more appropriate to say that doctrines cannot be “reversed” or “subtracted from”, than to say that they cannot change.
Either way, I wasn’t aware of this specificity that you have now made me aware of, when I made the statement above.
Also, just to make sure I am clear on this, from what it sounds like to me, pedantically speaking, doctrine as a whole CAN “change”, depending on how you define the word “change”. It would seem by how you put it that it would be more accurate to say that doctrine as a whole cannot be “reversed” and individual doctrines also cannot be “reversed”.
If doctrine can be developed, “developing” would imply an addition, and an addition would imply that a “change” occurred in the doctrine. So, correct me if I am wrong, but it would seem more appropriate to say that doctrines cannot be “reversed” or “subtracted from”, than to say that they cannot change.
Either way, I wasn’t aware of this specificity that you have now made me aware of, when I made the statement above.
- Status