Some help for our Protestant friends

[Lisdogan]

Hello. I can empathize with your anger and frustration when hitting that brick wall which is The One True Church. You do realize the Church has never condemned one person to the flames of hell, don’t you? And neither do I. What it does do is stick to its principles, truth and teachings in the matters of Faith and Morals. **The basic Doctrines and Dogmas of the Church have never changed. They can never be CONTRADICTED. Those who hold to these Doctrines and Dogmas are full members of the Catholic Church. ** Those members of other Protestant denominations who have been Baptized are also at least partial members of the true Faith. (See Pope John Paul II’s document on Ecumenism Et Unum Sint.) I, for one, cannot deny the Catholic Church holds as repository the whole true Faith. It has not changed since its inception by Christ. You say it has. I am not challenging you, but am asking for references, ie. which Dogmas, Doctrines do you think have changed? I think you will find none have.

I would love to see all faiths, all people united as one. That was Christ’s hope. And ALL are God’s children. That is why I think God has found a way for ALL of us, Catholic, or not, who want to follow Him in love to be with Him always, even if we don’t yet know of it.

And you are in my prayers today, here in the U.S.

Bless you for this. Lots to think about. Perhaps I just cannot, cannot, cannot commit to the absolute. I cannot say that I am right and you are wrong; that my house is the right colour and yours is the wrong colour; that a Buddhist is a lesser person than a Hindu is a lesser person than a Moslem is a lesser person than a Christian and so on. The nature of Being is far too complex for that, and our minds too undeveloped. (Did God make a mistake here, or do we just have to wait for a while until our brains develop enough to do what they need to be able to do?) Let us thank God that he gave us the concept of the ‘Mystery’ which gives us a bit of leeway.

 

[Teflon93]

Bless you for this. Lots to think about. Perhaps I just cannot, cannot, cannot commit to the absolute. I cannot say that I am right and you are wrong; that my house is the right colour and yours is the wrong colour; that a Buddhist is a lesser person than a Hindu is a lesser person than a Moslem is a lesser person than a Christian and so on. The nature of Being is far too complex for that, and our minds too undeveloped. (Did God make a mistake here, or do we just have to wait for a while until our brains develop enough to do what they need to be able to do?) Let us thank God that he gave us the concept of the ‘Mystery’ which gives us a bit of leeway.

God is the only absolute, which is why we follow Him.

If He says He will protect His Church, we believe Him.

Given that she has thus far survived 2,000 years, despite constant attacks, lends the comfort of experience to faith.

 

[Lisdogan]

Given that she has thus far survived 2,000 years, despite constant attacks, lends the comfort of experience to faith.

I am glad that you are comfortable.

 

[Always_For_Him]

Lisdogan,
You bring up a lot of good points of thought. I can tell your hunger for the Truth has you searching for it in such a fantastic and thorough way.

I can’t begin to answer all of your inquiries, thoughts and ideas. They are good ones, and I am enjoying pondering on and learning from your efforts. I am pretty new to the apologetics side of things, and I have much to learn. Growing up Catholic (although away from the Church for a while) and eventual study to answer my own questions, I have just know that I have to believe in the Catholic Church.

Breaking down every single minute belief into so much detail, brings in itself a set of problems. I know that you want your questions answered. Not growing up Catholic had left many “holes” for you. It is a deep faith full of knowledge and Truth. It takes a lifetime to get it, and even then you won’t get it all.

I have to take it on faith that all Church teachings and continuation of teachings was left in the hands of men who when teaching Christ’s Word are infallible men. I just have to trust and have faith that Jesus is upholding his promise to guide his Church and keep His Church one with Him. Otherwise, there would be absolutely nothing to believe in.

I admire your teancity, I wish I had as much. Sometimes, it comes across like you are in disagreement with what you debate here. I guess that is because you are. You were raised in a different faith and learned much different beliefs than what you are now being introduced to and learning.

Your statement, “Yes, I agree different interpretations of faith lie outside the paradigm of the Catholic Church, but that does not render them illegitimate. We could also say that the interpretations of the Catholic Church lie outside the paradigm of other Christian denominations. We could say that if we put all the interpretations on the table and agreed to allow for ‘strength in diversity’ (see previous post) we would have a universal church which is what Christ intended surely.” I am not broad minded enough to buy into this wholeheartedly. Maybe I am in error, but I just feel (I know personal) that the original Church had the original, correct interpretation as taught by Christ and no one and no Church that came along after Catholocism is going to have it. What does not render other Church’s interpretations outside of the Catholic Church wrong is those certain interpretations are in agreement with the Catholic Church’s interpretation. The Protestant Churches originally were based on a lot of Catholic dogma and doctrine. A lot of it has fallen away over the years. Some Truth as been retained, but just so differently.

This is where I have to say that Luther may not have originally set out to separate from the Catholic Church, but in the end he did. He didn’t just separate with a few ole changes. He went out with a bang, creating much heresy, new doctrine, added to Scripture, took away from Scripture and added his own and taught his own interpretation. That is nothing close to the Church founded by Jesus. In the beginning, no it was not necessary for Luther to leave the Church. Corrections had been made and were being made long before he left the Church. Trent should have helped. But, by that time he was really caught up in his own political power and ideology and wasn’t satisified with not getting his way. His revelations were not Jesus’ revelations to the Church. His revelations were 1500 years after Jesus’s Deposit of Faith. The Catholic Church didn’t listen or buy into his revelations because they were in error. I believe that the Holy Spirit had to have been guiding the Church then too. I don’t think the Holy Spirit is working part time at guiding and protecting the Church. It is always there, just like Jesus said it would be. It is my understanding that the real, valid issues for Luther were corrected long before he actually left the Church to found his own.

I hope everyone else goes to heaven. All we can do is try to teach them the Truth as it has been taught to us for 2,000 years. The Protestant Churches cannot say that. They start from a changed, individual interpretation mindset 500 years ago.

As I understand your inquisitiveness, I have to ask though, why is it that you question the Catholic Church on every little minute detail and ask for proof when you took on faith a man-created Church, based on individual/self interpretation of said men and everyone after them, a changed bible and doctrine, and more your whole life? We are the original, and everyone else is just a changed copy. Not every single thing can be proven. Some of what we have always practiced comes from Sacred Tradition. The Church has her history in all of it’s glory recorded for everyone to see, and through the years has consistently and thoroughly taught her knowledge and interpretation and has remained true to the Deposit of Faith left to us by Christ. That is enough for me. No one else got the Deposit of Faith from Jesus. No one else carried for the teachings as Christ commanded and recorded them into a Bible for all Christians. I trust the founders of the Church and the Church that has carried on the teachings, interpretation and tradition.

Your comment about worrying about how the Catholic Church may have changed, or it’s teachings may have changed over time is understandable. Things change over time and one might wonder how that may have affected the Catholic Church. But, the Catholic Church hasn’t changed anything. It is just that you have not been taught that. It seems as if you have been taught your whole life that we did, have, are wrong, create and change at a whim. That is blatantly wrong. Man-created practices are one thing, changes to doctrine in matters of faith and morals is another entirely. That has not changed. If any Church or Church teachings have changed over the years, it is with how the Protestant Churches have changed and splintered into thousands of different Churches in the last 500 years, with thousands of different interpretations and beliefs because that is what they personally believe.

You just have to have faith in the Church that God is leading you into.

 

[Always_For_Him]

It is hard when a blanket statement puts something in such a horrible light. The Protestant Churches in the last 500 years have changed their teachings and interpretations so much. It is individual interpretation that is a huge culpret. I know when I was away from the Church for a while that the minister, preacher, leader, Bible Study leader, etc… teach their own opinion/own individual interpretation of what they believe the Bible and Scripture is saying. It is always different. Individual opinion has most definitely become fact. It is personal opinion that they teach as Truth. That is WRONG. That is why everyone can’t just have their own personal interpretation and teach that. Over time it becomes Truth for that Church.

 

[Lisdogan]

Perhaps it might open the discussion here if one could set out reasons why one converted to Catholicism late in life, as part of a spiritual journey such as the Hindus make. What is right and wrong with regard to Biblical details, the nature of truth, and the inerrancy of the Catholic Church are matters that seem less important than practical matters related to the dailiness of being a Catholic Christian.

Perhaps my international career in development led me to conversion. There are a variety of reasons which are apparent to me now:

(1) I perceive the Catholic Church as the Mother Church. It is the repository, constant and reasonably consistent, through good and bad times, of the history of Christian faith, and the faith of others. No other church has this capacity. Although one may have to study long and hard to accept CC doctrines, they nevertheless represent the touchstone for other Christian denominations. In this role too, it is inevitably the lead player in ecumenism.

(2) I have worked closely and been friends with fine Catholics who have mentored and guided me. I am grateful and I am very aware that they carry something ‘special’ or ‘different’ with them in regard to the practice of faith in life.

(3) I respect the commitment of the Catholic Church to teaching the faith, within cultural contexts, to young people worldwide. The Church is a global educator, with regional and local variations, and as such a generator, promoter and perpetuator of humane values which we need if we are to survive the very difficult crises on our horizon. Challenging the HIV pandemic, for example, comes back in the end to promoting values of respect, honesty, gender rights etc in our communities. Schools, homes, parents are not currently on the mark in this regard, in the West and in Africa at least. The publications of the Church support its doctrines and practice within a global community which includes the Internet.

(4) The Church hierarchy and its administrative and religious outposts represent an international structure which is highly visible, reasonably well organised, and in many places committed to socioeconomic development. As such, it has the potential capacity to do much that is humane, at a time when it is imperative to focus on the wretched of the earth, when we are beginning to understand the nature of the divide between the 98% who are appallingly poor, and the 2% who corner global resources.

(5) The Church, and its clergy, have brought the comfort of faith and meaning of life to billions of people. I am not unaware of its shortcomings: in Quebec up to the 1960s for example, and the autocratic control and financial/economic devastation of the province by the Church; or the current crisis in the United States and Canada over the sexual predilections of its clergy; or the dismal history of the Crusades, the frailty of the Vatican, the sale of indulgences, and the corruption which invaded Church before the Reformation; or - like the Emperor of China - the assumption for centuries that the Church has uniquely set forth and manifested the One True Christian Faith.

But the Church’s fundamental care and compassion (especially after Vatican II), its practical response to human suffering, and its growing awareness of its responsibilities to individual and collective suffering make it a principal power for the relief of distress of those who have been deserted by both governments and leaders.

I have seen it: in China, in Burma/Myanmar, in Viet Nam, across Africa, so many people are beginning to attend mass that loud speakers are often installed so the whole congregation - half inside, and half outside - can participate. Awesome power recently generated.

That is why I am a Catholic: not the contentious bits about doctrine, but the what-I-can-do-as-a-Catholic-Christian bits. The Church sets out its principles; I have the rest of a lifetime to search, study, question, and worship. But there is little time to ensure that the purpose of Christ’s mission is accomplished.

Historically and doctrinally, it is useful to debate the issue of sola fide (post #1). We seem thus far to have failed to reach consensus on faith, works, obedience, truth, salvation.

For me, in the end, it comes down, not to my salvation, but to my pursuing Christ’s mission, completing his suffering, and being the best I can be as a useful Catholic Christian.

 

[Memaw]

You are a blessing in your own right!

What you are seeing in me is the difficulty of not being a cradle-Catholic. If you wish to convert to Catholicism, the brain kicks in overwhelmingly and it takes ages to get to the faithful heart. Plus you have to wade through all the formal doctrine/dogma stuff. You do not get the 11 years of mandatory catechism classes for young people. For adults in South Africa, we have only one year of adult enquiry classes for people like me who wish to become members. And so we flounder, and often feel we have to learn it all before we join the CC.

I just decided to take the plunge during my spiritual journey (sanyassi) following career burnout. Now I can move into the next phase of growing head and heart together.

In Christ

I am a bit like iblessem, I am a lifelong Catholic but I did not have the advantage of going to Catholic schools all my young life. I have always believed and trusted what the Church taught as my Mother taught me the faith. I don’t know how old you are but I do know that learning the Faith is a lifelong process. You don’t have to know it all at once as that would be impossible for anyone. But if you read good trustworthy Catholic books, especially the lives of Saints, (there great examples,) you will grow in your Faith. If you get EWTN Catholic cable network in Africa, that will help a lot too. I love reading about converts journey into the Catholic Faith. Three wonderful books about that are “Surprised by Truth”, vols. 1,2, and 3. by Patrick Madrid.

There is one correction I would make about Doctrine and Dogma. They are basically the same thing and MUST be believed by all Catholics, There is no “should” be believed about it. I will tell you what Fr. John Hardon says in his Catholic Dictionary;

Any truth taught by the Catholic Church as necessary for acceptance by the Faithful.The truth may be either formally revealed (as the Real Presence) or a theological conclusion (as the canonization of a saint), or part of the natural law (as the sinfulness of contraception). In any case, what makes it Doctrine is that the Church Authority teaches that it is to be believed. This teaching may be done either solemnly in ex cathedra pronouncements or ordinarily (in the ordinary way) in the perennial exercise of the Church’s magisterium, (teaching authority). Dogmas are those Doctrines which the Church proposes for belief as formally revealed by GOD.

The two Dogmas, the Assumption and Immaculate Conception, that were defined by the Pope, ex cathedra, have always been taught and believed by the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. They were nothing new or something the Pope just made up. It was to make it CLEAR to all Catholics that they must believe it.
We can and should always trust the Catholic Church to teach us the TRUTHS given by Jesus Christ. That will never change. The Church has so many beautiful devotions to help us grow in our love for and knowledge of the faith. God Bless you on your exciting Journey into the Catholic Faith. You will see the world thru the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Memaw

 

[iblessem]

Perhaps it might open the discussion here if one could set out reasons why one converted to Catholicism late in life, as part of a spiritual journey such as the Hindus make. What is right and wrong with regard to Biblical details, the nature of truth, and the inerrancy of the Catholic Church are matters that seem less important than practical matters related to the dailiness of being a Catholic Christian.

Perhaps my international career in development led me to conversion. There are a variety of reasons which are apparent to me now:

Lisdogan,

You remind me of St. Paul. He had so much knowledge of his Jewishness. He was so sure of it, he even persucuted the church. Then he met Christ on the Road and in a flash of light that knowledge and Spirit caused him great pains, but through his life’s journey and suffering the whole church has been blest with sound teachings for 2000 years.

The other apostles were kinda like cradle Catholics. They grew up with Jesus and their perspective was more or less that they were still Jewish, but they found the messiah.

St. Pauls questions and ministry changed forever all the twelve apostles and then the Church. Christ knew what he was doing back then with St. Paul and he knows what he is doing today, with you.

Have a Blessed and Holy Day,

iblessem

 

[elts1956]

Bless you for this. Lots to think about. Perhaps I just cannot, cannot, cannot commit to the absolute. I cannot say that I am right and you are wrong; that my house is the right colour and yours is the wrong colour; that a Buddhist is a lesser person than a Hindu is a lesser person than a Moslem is a lesser person than a Christian and so on. The nature of Being is far too complex for that, and our minds too undeveloped. (Did God make a mistake here, or do we just have to wait for a while until our brains develop enough to do what they need to be able to do?) Let us thank God that he gave us the concept of the ‘Mystery’ which gives us a bit of leeway.

Hello and another congratulations to you. How happy you must be.

I too have difficulty committing to the absolutes required by the Catholic Church. But I think if we regard the more/less issue, not as directed toward individual humans, but toward more or less knowledge, those issues become more comfortable. You notice I did not say more or less faith, because who am I that I could judge another’s faith in God? And I will not do so. All we can do as Catholics is offer a helping hand to others, keep our Faith and pray.

 

[Ronald_Cote]

My major contention is with the apparent insistence that the CC has exclusive rights to the on utter interpretation of scripture and the bible, dogmas, statements on purgatory, the Marian situation, holy communion, encyclicals, statements from prominent elders, vague and difficult church dictums, confession, extreme unction, baptism, venial and mortal sin, ad infinitum The sum total of this hodgepodge of CC regulation is to radically confuse the entire basic question of what it takes to get to heaven and what is required in prayer to have a person released from purgatory.
Basic foundational concerns also are generated such as : how can confession through a priest be effective when the scripture states that His shed blood was payment in full for the sins of the world. How can the power of a priest be equivalent or greater than that of our Creator. How can you distinguish the delineation between venial and mortal sin, is the transubstantiation real and what real purpose and role does it serve in one’s salvation. What purpose is served from the real breaking of the body and shedding of blood in every church every day and more often on Sundays. Wasn’t this greatest of sacrifices by our God sufficient even after claiming that it was done.
This confusing array of man made stipulations is cause enough to make the CC incomprehensible, diverting attention from developing a personal relationship with God, becoming what the bible calls “being born again” and foremost recognizing and realizing that His death on the cross provides us with the GIFT of salvation. A gift is free, if there was a price to pay, then it is no longer a gift, no matter the price.
“I owed a debt I could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe! Why doesn’t the CC recognize the value and significance of this free gift, stop complicating religion and put the CC on the footing of a level playing field forfeiting if it was the original religion and the purest form. Who cares? What matters

 

[guanophore]

My major contention is with the apparent insistence that the CC has exclusive rights to the on utter interpretation of scripture and the bible,

Do you accept other documents as “scripture” besides the bible?

Don’t you think the author of a writing is most qualified to understand what he meant when he wrote? Did you not know that the NT was written by Catholics?

dogmas, statements on purgatory, the Marian situation, holy communion, encyclicals, statements from prominent elders, vague and difficult church dictums, confession, extreme unction, baptism, venial and mortal sin, ad infinitum The sum total of this hodgepodge of CC regulation is to radically confuse the entire basic question of what it takes to get to heaven and what is required in prayer to have a person released from purgatory.

It is sad tht you think the development and definition of our faith “is to radically confuse”. This is certainly not the intention of the Magesterium. However, I will agree that the catholic faith does not lend itself to the intellectually or spiritually lazy. There is a greater volume of information out there to study than one could accomplish in a lifetime, and more devotional practices and lifestyles than any one person could ever hope to experience.

Basic foundational concerns also are generated such as : how can confession through a priest be effective when the scripture states that His shed blood was payment in full for the sins of the world.

Because the two are not separated from one another.

How can the power of a priest be equivalent or greater than that of our Creator.

None of us have any power at all except from God. In Him, we live, and move, and have our being. It is God that breathed upon the Apostles when giving them this power. The only other time He did so was to breathe into man the breath of life.

How can you distinguish the delineation between venial and mortal sin,

We have guidelines provided to assist us in understanding how to live the Christian life. However, in the sacrament, it is not necessary to do so.

is the transubstantiation real and what real purpose and role does it serve in one’s salvation.

I am a poor one to speak on this term, as it did not originate in the East. However, I find Jn. 6 sufficient to explain the role of Eucharist in salvation.

What purpose is served from the real breaking of the body and shedding of blood in every church every day and more often on Sundays.

Apparently you have been misinformed about the Divine Liturgy. There is no shedding of blood.

Wasn’t this greatest of sacrifices by our God sufficient even after claiming that it was done.

It seems that you do not understand the meaning of Jesus’ words from the cross, either.

This confusing array of man made stipulations is cause enough to make the CC incomprehensible, diverting attention from developing a personal relationship with God,

You are in error that these things are “man made stipulations”. Jesus institution of the Divine Liturgy was not created at all by “man”. Unless, of course, you don’t believe that Jesus is God. :bigyikes:

becoming what the bible calls “being born again” and foremost recognizing and realizing that His death on the cross provides us with the GIFT of salvation. A gift is free, if there was a price to pay, then it is no longer a gift, no matter the price.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

“I owed a debt I could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe! Why doesn’t the CC recognize the value and significance of this free gift, stop complicating religion and put the CC on the footing of a level playing field forfeiting if it was the original religion and the purest form. Who cares? What matters

What matters is that Christ poured out his body, blood, and soul to give birth to the Church. To abandon this gift that he paid for with his great suffering is to spurn HIm afresh, and crucify Him again.

 

[Ronald_Cote]

Guanophore, the bible is the inerrant word of God. To which we are not to add ‘one tittle or dot. but the CC adds as much as it please in the form of sacraments, indulgences etc., etc.
I do not accept other documents as scripture as this defies the tittel and dot concept. Apparently the CC believes that God was insufficient in inspiring His bible writers. Your concept seems to be that God missed a lot in presenting the Bible and has the CC to keep Him on track.
You say that in confession Christ and the priest are not separated. Where did you get this? No man cometh to the father except by me. Where and how does a priest fit in?
You stated that you are a “poor one to speak on the transubstantiation”. This statement floored me in that the whole mass is centered around it and the miracle it produces in changing bread to body and wine to blood. Is this not the foundation of the mass and to a larger degree the religion itself and you, and I’m sure others don’t understand. Wow, I find that astonishing!
Your other statement is that there is no shedding of blood. I wonder also where you dreamed that one up. There is non that cometh to the Father but by Me.
You claim that I do not understand the meaning .
Jesus words from the cross. Do you mean the when he said it was finished that the CC was going to fill the gaps that He forgot? Please correct me where I’m wrong. Does it mean when He said He was finished, He wasn’t finished? I’m sure that you will clarify this important point for me.
From all indications, you come across as an authority but many of your answers seem to come from guesses, speculation and wishful thinking. How about backing some of your contentions with scripture.

 

[Teflon93]

Guanophore, the bible is the inerrant word of God.

Where does it say this in Scripture? Where does it say in Scripture precisely what comprises Scripture?

In fact, the inerrant Word of God is Jesus Christ, not the Bible.

To which we are not to add ‘one tittle or dot. but the CC adds as much as it please in the form of sacraments, indulgences etc., etc.

Nonsense on stilts as you’ve been told many a time.

You will need to provide evidence as to where the Church has “added to” Scripture, which it defined in the first place.

We are not supposed to subtract from it either, which is precisely what Protestants have done.

I do not accept other documents as scripture as this defies the tittel and dot concept.

I think you are simply engaging in distortion.

Do you accept the Nicene Creed?

Apparently the CC believes that God was insufficient in inspiring His bible writers.

The Church teaches nothing but reverence for Scripture. I will post the Catechism, with the note that should you persist in such claims after I do so you will be lying about what she teaches.

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness, became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord’s Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God’s Word and Christ’s Body.66

104 **In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes it not as a human word, “but as what it really is, the word of God”.**67 "In the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107** The inspired books teach the truth**. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” **Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, “open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures.”**74

Your concept seems to be that God missed a lot in presenting the Bible and has the CC to keep Him on track.

No, our concept is that Christ founded a Church rather than wrote a book. Your concept is that because your forefathers disobeyed the Church you respect them more than the Church Christ founded. This is elevating your own tradition — one 1,500 years too late for Pentecost — over Scripture, which clearly teaches obedience to the Church.

You say that in confession Christ and the priest are not separated.

Where did you get this? No man cometh to the father except by me. Where and how does a priest fit in?

You apparently don’t understand “binding and loosing” nor “feed my sheep”. Look them up.

Then explain to us why you have a pastor. Since you can go straight to God, there is no need for such a person, is there?
Better offload that vestige of “Romanism” toute de suite so you can spend more time in Bible study.

You stated that you are a “poor one to speak on the transubstantiation”. This statement floored me in that the whole mass is centered around it and the miracle it produces in changing bread to body and wine to blood.

The whole Mass is in fact centered around the receipt of the Eucharist, not the process by which its consecration is explained. Transubstantiation is the explanation of the process. One need not be an expert in theology to take part in the miracle of the Mass, which is why there are 1.3 billion of us taking part in it. The Eucharistic mystery is precisely that. There is one “expert” on the subject—Christ.

Is this not the foundation of the mass and to a larger degree the religion itself and you, and I’m sure others don’t understand. Wow, I find that astonishing!

Your theology by subtraction eliminates such mysteries by ignoring them, regardless of what John 6 says.

You claim that I do not understand the meaning .
Jesus words from the cross. Do you mean the when he said it was finished that the CC was going to fill the gaps that He forgot?

You really don’t apply your criticisms of the Church to your own, do you?

If Christ’s “It is finished” means that no Christian need do anything else, then you can tear down your churches and stop reading your Bible. There is nothing more to be done but wait till he comes back. Oh, wait, the “It is finished” as you describe must preclude his return, since that would imply there is still something to be done by Christ.

Yes, I would say you don’t understand it.

Perhaps what Christ chose to do after his Resurrection might help you. His works didn’t stop with his death on the Cross. He spent an awful lot of time post-Resurrection building his Church.

Please correct me where I’m wrong. Does it mean when He said He was finished, He wasn’t finished? I’m sure that you will clarify this important point for me.

Obviously he wasn’t finished with his works on Earth, given the Upper Room, his conversion of St Paul, and his Second Coming. Take off the anti-Catholic blinders and think about what you write.

From all indications, you come across as an authority but many of your answers seem to come from guesses, speculation and wishful thinking. How about backing some of your contentions with scripture.

Guanophore is an orthodox Catholic. I have yet to see a post contradicted by the Catechism.

Why don’t you refer to it before spouting off ignorantly about what the Church believes and teaches? The great advantage of being Catholic is we know what we believe—it doesn’t change with pastor and/or youth minister or because somebody has a bestseller out which puts butts in pews.

We post plenty of Scripture in support of the Catholic faith. Plenty has been posted in this very thread. Try not to let your frustration with your side’s inability to carry an argument spill over into bearing false witness, which is a sin, you know.

 

[Teflon93]

And lest anyone still buy into the Reformation-era propaganda which circulates among the ignorant and incurious to this day, here is the Catechism on the relationship between Scripture and the Church:

. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 **Hence “access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful.”**110

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place - is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture."111

133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112

Indeed, I have heard more Scripture in any given Catholic Mass than I ever did in my 35 years of attending Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Pentecostal services. Every single Mass consists of the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of the Word includes extended readings of an Old Testament passage, a Psalm, an epistle, and a Gospel passage, plus a homily reflecting upon the readings. The entire Bible is covered in Mass every three years.

And as you can see from this board, there is no shortage of Catholics who can go toe-to-toe with any Protestant Scripture-slinger fresh from Bible study.

And that’s BEFORE bringing in the heavy artillery of the Catholic religious, many of whom have made a lifelong intensive study of Scripture in ways our interlocutors can scarcely conceive, having no equivalent to monastic life.

 

[Brian_Millar]

Well, here I am, defending the church yet again. The only authority I can claim is not based upon vast education, status or rank in the church, or any of the other tags both Catholics and Protestants insist they carry a label of, it is by the Holy Spirit that I exist and my deeply rooted relationship wtih him that I go by over all other matters, so please excuse me if I don’t quite fit into any mold that the mainstream worshipers represent.

There is nothing added onto, nor taken away from the word of God within the CC, there is a foundation that was layed out by Christ, then carried on and built upon with Peter, of whom Jesus appointed.

The cannon Protestants follow is the same one the Catholics do, there are some books ommitted from the protestant versions of their bibles, (talk about taking away from). There are rules that all churches have in place, the baptists for example do not believe in the drinking of alcohal of any kind for example (is this adding onto the bible, I wonder…) Christ put his Mother Mary into the care of the apostles as opposed to his blood relatives, stating that she is also their mother, this in turn means that she should be thought of in this regard from all believers to me, yet the protestants refuse to have anything to do with her, I rather like the idea of having a surrogate mother, my own has too many issues that hinder our relationship, at least I have Mary, thank God I am Catholic…

Before you start slamming the Church, you should at least attend a mass or two to see just how similar it is to the protestant churches, if you go to enough of them you will see how whole it is, that the protestant denominations are missing some vital elements, that the Church Christ established is his church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against her.

It is also good to educate yourself along the sacriments, indulgences, etc. before you make a decision as to their nature, for it is quite obvious you are only looking at it from the outside. Jesus said “do this in memory of me”, he didn’t say, well, here it is, get it while you can, it’s over, it’s finished. What he meant along the words, “it is finished” is the promise God made to us was finally fufilled, that his sacrifice is the final one, that there is no need to add onto it, thus we do not have animal/food sacrifices needing to be offered up to atone for our sins, he has finished his work, and has won the battle over evil once and for all.

Along confession, I’ll just put in into the context you can understand. Think of the priest as a person that is trained to hear them, that he knows how to handle dealing with this task, for it is part of his profession. Honestly, since Jesus said to confess to one another, taking this into literal context would mean, anybody, as long as you are confessing and repenting. The advantage of the priest hearing this is because he is the one that makes up the sermons, these clearly are reflecting upon the wounds and afflictions the parish faces. I’m still wrestling with how I’m going to confess to him where the current parish is screwing up big time, in particular the ushers, but that is another story for another time and thread and I have to simply absorb the damage they are causing to others for holding their stances of descrepencies.

So, ya see, we are alot more alike then we are disalike, that the CC is not some monolith, or icon, or strange way of worship, and especially after V2 did it’s thing, it’s a great deal more approachable by the protestants then it was before.

 

[TDiGaetano]

The 5 Solas of Protestant faith: (mmm Islam has 5 pillars)

Sola scriptura (“by Scripture alone”)
Is the teaching that the Bible is the only inspired and authoritative word of God, and that anyone reguardless of level of education and native language can fully understand.

Sola fide (“by faith alone”)
By having Faith in God, God declares us Justified, because of what Jesus did on the Cross.

Sola gratia (“by grace alone”)
Our Salvation comes by grace alone, an unearned gift from God for Jesus’ sake. This Saving grace is always efficacious without any cooperation by man.

Solus Christus (“Christ alone”)
is the teaching that Christ is the only mediator between God and man, and that there is salvation through no other.

Soli Deo gloria (“glory to God alone”)
that all glory is to be due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action, not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross, but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit.

In the bible and through tradition of mankind we know any number less then 7 to be incomplete.

To add to the list of Sola’s I think we should add:

Solus Amor (“By Love Alone”)
Love your fellow man as God has Loved you, for only how much you loved will remain with God in Heaven after the body dies.

Solus Famulatus (“By Obedience Alone”)
Be Obedient to God, and to anyone one who the Lord puts over and under you.