SPLIT: Questions Catholics Will Not Answer.

[jmcrae]

This one is so difficult for Protestants it seems they would also have a lot of trouble with the Holy Trinity which many cults do. Hmmm

True; I find both the Trinity and the Eucharist equally difficult to explain, or even really to understand; some things, we just have to take on faith.

 

[Pier]

But why bother with the Bible if you don’t believe it?

I never said this, about myself or anyone else here…

Is this what you’ve been taught regarding the beliefs of Christ’s Church? It’s really too bad if that’s the case, because you are truly missing out.

 

[guanophore]

This seems to be someone’s opinion and there is nothing here to “back up” the answer. Just because someone wrote this doesn’t make it official. What Scripture does it refer to and on what authority is it claimed?

It is merely speculation since the Scriptures tell us nothing about Mary until she is approaced by the angel. A very good example of what I have been saying all along. Someone writes it down and you believe it with no authority of confirmation.

Yes, it is the opinion of Sacred Tradition, as the Apostles said in Acts “it seemed good to the HS and to us”. It is a Divine Revelation of God, just as are the Holy Scriptures, and the canon.

 

[guanophore]

So what Jesus is saying in these passages that support transubstantion is to be taken literally but the rest of the verse is not to be?

It’s literal. It is written by, for, and about Catholics, who believed and practiced the Real Presence. Masses were held secretively, and could not be attended by non-believers. Persons entering had to be known by the community, or sponsored by someone known, as Paul was by Barnabus. Catechumens were dismissed after the Liturgy of the Word, and were not permitted to be present for the “mysteries” until after they were initiated.

 

[Church_Militant]

i read your references and it still does not change the bare essential of what it takes to be saved as Paul states in Romans 10. How a person lives and follows Christ are also important but without explicit repentance of sins and believing Christ died for those sins and rose again you are not saved no matter how righteous and good a life a person lives.

I don’t see how you figure this. How Is A Catholic Saved? is quite clear in the passages that I cite and what specifically does Acts 2:38 say? "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Where is there not repentance in that verse? Where is that not taught in Catholic teachings on salvation? Romans 10, or 3, or 6 are not the only passages of the Word of God that deal with salvation, and the message preached by the apostles on the day of Pentecost is definitely at odds with those who preach Sola Fide, which is just another errant fruit of the fundamental error of Sola Scriptura.

Ja4 you have misrepresented my article and Catholic teaching. How is it that you attempt to oppose something that you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of? As John Martignoni says, "I don’t mind if you disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but at least be sure that what you argue against is really what we believe. This is just such a case…

You can persist in preaching that different and deficient gospel if you want to, but as I show in the two articles linked it definitely is different than what the Word of God teaches.

 

[Church_Militant]

Even though the witnesses are all dead it still does not change the facts and the support of those facts. This is how we must approach historical questions. For example the assination of Lincoln is still a fact even though all people who lived during the period are all dead. It was true then and it will be true a billion years from now that Lincoln was assinated in 1863.

Ja4, you really shouldn’t have said that because you have just made the best possible case for why you need to accept and agree with the ECF…for those very same reasons.

You believe in Lincoln without a problem and yet when the Catholic Church points out that the ECF do not share your beliefs and teachings, you want to reject them.

I doubt you can even see the fallacy in your own thinking as expressed in this post.

 

[Church_Militant]

You are assuming that the woman of Revelations 12:1 is Mary which a number of catholic scholars don’t share your belief.

Yet there are a number that do, and many others who say (as I do) that there are multiple meanings and fulfillments in that one verse as in many others in the Bible.

 

[EphelDuath]

I doubt you can even see the fallacy in your own thinking as expressed in this post.

He accepts external opinions when they support his arguments and reject them when they disagree.

In other words, what fallacy?

 

[Church_Militant]

Let me ask you. Her assumption is mentioned over 300 years after the event with no evidence to back this claim up. Does the mere fact this was mentioned over 300 years after the event with no documentation trouble you?

No… because the fact that it is discussed even that far back is still documentation.

There is a great deal of history that was not recorded until centuries later and yet people accept it.

Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

I’ll cross that bridge when and if I encounter it. To this issue, where there is documentation, that is irrelevant.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3239912]I don’t see how you figure this. How Is A Catholic Saved? is quite clear in the passages that I cite and what specifically does Acts 2:38 say? "And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Where is there not repentance in that verse?
Where did i say it does not?

Where is that not taught in Catholic teachings on salvation?

Where did i say it wasn’t?

Romans 10, or 3, or 6 are not the only passages of the Word of God that deal with salvation, and the message preached by the apostles on the day of Pentecost is definitely at odds with those who preach Sola Fide, which is just another errant fruit of the fundamental error of Sola Scriptura.

I did not intend to do an exhaustive study here on salvation but showing what the mimium requirements are.

Ja4 you have misrepresented my article and Catholic teaching. How is it that you attempt to oppose something that you do not even have a rudimentary understanding of? As John Martignoni says, "I don’t mind if you disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but at least be sure that what you argue against is really what we believe. This is just such a case…

These formuns are quite limited as you may know and i’m being brief with my answers and questions. I’m sure even in your article you have not given an exhaustive treatment of it either. If so, should i accuse you of misrepresenting the catholic church?

You can persist in preaching that different and deficient gospel

if you want to, but as I show in the two articles linked it definitely is different than what the Word of God teaches.

i’m still trying to understand what catholics believe about this. i know in most cases that what catholics believe about something in the catholic church is not always in harmony with the catholic church. This also includes priests i know.

 

[justasking4]

Yet there are a number that do, and many others who say (as I do) that there are multiple meanings and fulfillments in that one verse as in many others in the Bible.

Since there are multiple meanings here and i suspect this verse has not been infallibly interpreted that means catholics must do some “private interpreting”. Correct?

 

[justasking4]

Ja4, you really shouldn’t have said that because you have just made the best possible case for why you need to accept and agree with the ECF…for those very same reasons.

You believe in Lincoln without a problem and yet when the Catholic Church points out that the ECF do not share your beliefs and teachings, you want to reject them.

I doubt you can even see the fallacy in your own thinking as expressed in this post.

We have excellent documentation for the assination of Lincoln and for the resurrection. You don’t have any for Mary’s assumption that even comes close to the time when she would have died.

 

[Mannyfit75]

i’m still trying to understand what catholics believe about this. i know in most cases that what catholics believe about something in the catholic church is not always in harmony with the catholic church. This also includes priests i know.

If they ((the priests) are not in agreement with the Magisterium of the Catholic Church then they either have to refresh their memory and read the Catechism and Church documents. They should not follow beliefs which are contrary to the Magisterium.

The mind of the priests should one uniform to the teachings of the Church. They are not their own, they belong to the Church. More importantly, they belong to God.

 

[guanophore]

I do not receive the Eucharist at the Catholic Church since I respect its rules. However I am saying that Jesus could not mean all you have to do is eat and drink. Yet if we take His words here literally that is what He is saying. Since He can not be taken literally when He uses the word “anyone”, how can He be taken to be speaking literally in the rest of the sentence?

True, just as He did not mean believing with your heart and confessing with your mouth is all that you need, either. All the passages must be taken together as a whole. Anyway, no where does it say “ALL YOU HAVE TO DO” in that passage, as you interpret. He knows that the community of believers will do this, along with the other commandments He has given them.

 

[justasking4]

Church Militant;3239985]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Let me ask you. Her assumption is mentioned over 300 years after the event with no evidence to back this claim up. Does the mere fact this was mentioned over 300 years after the event with no documentation trouble you?

Church Militant
No… because the fact that it is discussed even that far back is still documentation.
It mentioned so far from the event itself that it doesn’t have any real historical grounding. It would be in the same category of the claims of Alexander the Great who it is reported centuries after his death that he was conceieved by the gods or something like that.

There is a great deal of history that was not recorded until centuries later and yet people accept it.

The farther away from an event the less likely it is true. Much embelishments happen over time. Alexander the Great is a case in point. So it is with the claim of Mary’s assumption.

Quote:
Would you believe if someone made a claim to today that a pope that lived and died 300 years ago was assumed into heaven because they found no evidence for his body?

Church Militant
I’ll cross that bridge when and if I encounter it. To this issue, where there is documentation, that is irrelevant.

i can understand why you would want it to be irrelevant but the fact remains it has no historical documentation close the event itself. This was supposedly a historical event and yet there is not historical support for it from 1st century.

If Christianity had this kind of support i suspect it would have died out long ago.

 

[Schabel]

I did not intend to do an exhaustive study here on salvation but showing what the mimium requirements are.

Your minimum requirements included “believe in your heart.”
The word pisteo, or a derivitive (such as pistis/pisteuein ), is what is translated “believe.”

Here’s something that Steve Ray says about this word (from his book on John’s Gospel):
In the New Testament, “believe” is often used as a synecdoche. A synecdoche is a part that represents the whole (as in “head of cattle”, where the word “head” is a synecdoche for the whole). When you order a hot dog, the waiter does not just serve you a plain hot dog; he also brings a bun, condiments, a plate, and so on. “Hot dog” can be a synecdoche for the whole meal. “Believe” and “receive” are synecdoches, words that represent all that is included and necessary to “be saved” and follow Christ. Mere belief—mental assent—is not enough (cf. Jas 2:18-26). Belief includes faith, obedience, following Christ, taking up our cross, confessing his name …
It means to trust Him. To OBEY Him.
So, by implication, it means to do all the OTHER things that He commanded, including being baptized, consuming Him in the Eucharist, loving God and our neighbor, performing good works, etc. etc.

 

[justasking4]

Your minimum requirements included “believe in your heart.”
The word pisteo, or a derivitive (such as pistis/pisteuein ), is what is translated “believe.”

Here’s something that Steve Ray says about this word (from his book on John’s Gospel):
In the New Testament, “believe” is often used as a synecdoche. A synecdoche is a part that represents the whole (as in “head of cattle”, where the word “head” is a synecdoche for the whole). When you order a hot dog, the waiter does not just serve you a plain hot dog; he also brings a bun, condiments, a plate, and so on. “Hot dog” can be a synecdoche for the whole meal. “Believe” and “receive” are synecdoches, words that represent all that is included and necessary to “be saved” and follow Christ. Mere belief—mental assent—is not enough (cf. Jas 2:18-26). Belief includes faith, obedience, following Christ, taking up our cross, confessing his name …
It means to trust Him. To OBEY Him.
So, by implication, it means to do all the OTHER things that He commanded, including being baptized, consuming Him in the Eucharist, loving God and our neighbor, performing good works, etc. etc.

i would agree.

 

[CentralFLJames]

The other problem with the catholic view is that it leads to unbilcal ideas and concepts. 1- If Christ is actually in the host that would mean the host God. If this were true then we should expect to see characteristics of God in it like intelligence, power, the ability to communicate etc.
2- If Jesus is in host then this means Jesus now has another nature of bread and wine.

These are just some of the problems associated with this and i don’t know if we should go into them here.

I suggest you take these problems up with God at the time of your death when He asks you why you tried to ignore and mock His truth and why you tried to mislead others from the truth.

Your logic is infantile and does not hold water with respect to the Trinity nor Christology. You need professional help - try reading some scholarly works on Christology and Eucharist if you want the truth.

BTW the entire concept of Protestantism (protest) is non-biblical no matter if protestants repacked God’s word in the flowery speech of King James. It’s genesis is still from the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit working through her and there is no one else on the planet with the same scriptural authority or teaching.

James
James

 

[Church_Militant]

That’s what i’m asking catholics. Must a catholic believe for example that Mary was assumed into heaven to be saved?

Keep arguing against it and I feel sure that you’ll find out, okay?

Seriously though, I have no problem whatever with the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, as I point out in the following article that I wrote about 2 years ago.
Reasons Why I Believe in The Blessed Virgin Mary’s Assumption

i think there are core teachings of the gospel that must be believed or that person is not saved. To reject I Cor 15:1-4 is a case in point.

And this is one of the very serious problems with n-C theology, they have established a literal “tradition of men” that significantly alters the salvation message that they preach and introduces error into their teachings.

I’m glad you chose that passage as an example. Now watch and read carefully.

Your citation:

1] Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.
3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures,
4] that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,

and the Catholic Church would agree with that so far as it goes, but let me show you where the real problem is in your theology.

You say:

i think there are core teachings of the gospel that must be believed or that person is not saved. To reject I Cor 15:1-4 is a case in point.

but I want to know by what authority you alter the gospel message and edit out as “not core” beliefs what follows after that passage?

It reads as follows: 5] and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.
6] Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.
7] Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
8] Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. Reading them in their context certainly shows that St. Paul included all of the latter in with the former as to things that Paul specifically says are, I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
2] by which you are saved, if you hold it fast – unless you believed in vain.
3] For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received,
I don’t think that you can justify this.

 

[justasking4]

CentralFLJames;3240057

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4

The other problem with the catholic view is that it leads to unbilcal ideas and concepts.
1- If Christ is actually in the host that would mean the host God. If this were true then we should expect to see characteristics of God in it like intelligence, power, the ability to communicate etc.

2- If Jesus is in host then this means Jesus now has another nature of bread and wine.

These are just some of the problems associated with this and i don’t know if we should go into them here.

CentralFLJames
I suggest you take these problems up with God at the time of your death when He asks you why you tried to ignore and mock His truth and why you tried to mislead others from the truth.
Yours and other responses i have encountered make me think this must be bad hair day for catholics. In stead of dialoguing on the issues i continually get insults----

Your logic is infantile and does not hold water with respect to the Trinity nor Christology. You need professional help - try reading some scholarly works on Christology and Eucharist if you want the truth.

i probably need professional help. Who doesn’t??
I interested though in what you and others think at this point. Thats why these forums are so good. It gives opportunity to discuss.

BTW the entire concept of Protestantism (protest) is non-biblical no matter if protestants repacked God’s word in the flowery speech of King James. It’s genesis is still from the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit working through her and there is no one else on the planet with the same scriptural authority or teaching.

James
James

:bowdown: