Syele's objections to Catholic doctrines

[jAlex]

Our friend Syele listed some of the Catholic Church’s doctrines he disagrees with. I would like to start a thread to clarify our understanding of the above mentioned doctrines.

I cannot accept:

1. Infalliability of any human (or group of them) other than Jesus. (He is allowed to be an exception only because He is also fully God.)
2. The need of a mediator between Jesus and His followers. Jesus IS our mediator!
3. Indulgences
4. Marian Doctrines (I believe Mary was an AWESOME Christian, but I think the Catholic Church takes her adoration too far.)
5. The designation between mortal and venial sins.
6. the Catholic definition of Justification.

Thanks,
Alex.

 

[Syele]

ooooOoo my own personal thread.

I hope you noted the explanation of those as well. They are written in a vague sort of way.

Oh and BTW I’m a She.

 

[jAlex]

ooooOoo my own personal thread.

I hope you noted the explanation of those as well. They are written in a vague sort of way.

Oh and BTW I’m a She.

Ok Ma’am! :tiphat: I’m glad I could dedicate you a thread. Let’s look forward to good explanations !

Alex.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Our friend Syele listed some of the Catholic Church’s doctrines he disagrees with. I would like to start a thread to clarify our understanding of the above mentioned doctrines.

Thanks,
Alex.

1. The Gospel writers were infallible when they wrote Scripture. And since Peter has two Epistles in the Bible, there is two examples of Peter the Rock being infallible.
2. Christ is our ONE mediator. The Bible does not say He is our SOLE mediator as non-Catholics often claim. He is our one mediator in the sense of primary–nothing in Scripture rules out sub-mediation.
3. When early Christians gravely sinned and repented, they embarked on very vigorous penitential practices lasting months or even years. By the power granted to the Church by Christ to bind and loose, the Church can remit the need for strenuous penitential practices through indulgences. It’s good news. Get some.
4. Need to narrow this subject down.
5. The Bible talks about some sins being deadly and others not. Of course one can debate the interpretation, but what else is new? The point is, it’s not made up on a whim.
6. Rather than just quote the CCC, I would need to see the specific objection.

 

[maurin]

Syele,

based on the first post of this thread:

1. whether or not you accept something is your own business. We accept Christ’s promise in Mt. 16:18-19, and 28:20.
2. see here:

catholicforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=93974&postcount=123

1. I’ll let someone else address
2. Adoration=Worship. If you believe we worship Mary, you may have invincible ignorance of the truth of our beliefs.
3. 1 John 5:16-17 makes it abundantly clear: “If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Again, you can believe what you want, but for us, we follow Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. They both have the same source. Jesus and the Apostles.

1. I’ll let someone else address.

feel free to follow the traditions of fallible men that came to be in the 16th century. As for us, we follow our Lord Jesus Christ and the Infallible Traditions of the Apostles, which includes Scripture as you have it.

 

[Syele]

Syele,

1. Adoration=Worship. If you believe we worship Mary, you may have invincible ignorance of the truth of our beliefs.
2. 1 John 5:16-17 makes it abundantly clear: “If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Again, you can believe what you want, but for us, we follow Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. They both have the same source. Jesus and the Apostles.

Ah And here we have reasons I hoped he’d add the explainations of the above list.

I don’t believe Catholics worship Mary. I simply believe Catholics ascribe attributes to her she did not have. There is a huge difference here.

My objection to motal sins is not that there are none, but more in what they are and how they are defined.

I will answer more indepth later, I have to cook l unch now.

 

[maurin]

adoration (Alex quoted you)= worship. Not a point one should fail to distinguish.

enjoy your lunch. I had a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. mmm mmm good!!!

m

 

[irishmac]

Dominus vobiscum

First of all, I want to thank God that we have such a place to communicate and discuss our beliefs. May the Lord grant us civility and humility in this discussion.

I would like to, for lack of a better word, “butcher” the first doctrine Syele holds opposition to. As we have seen in many threads discussing the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, Catholics derive this doctrine from the power Christ bestowed on Peter in Matthew 16.

And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

To me, this is the moment that Christ charges Peter with his role as the head of His Church. But, as we read in the Bible, Peter’s faith was sometimes weak. But Christ prayed that his faith would be the strength of many:

It is you who have stood by me in my trials;
29
and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me,
30
that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31
10 11 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32
but **I have prayed **that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Christ prayed that Peter’s faith would strengthen all of Christianity. Christ’s three-fold command to Peter, as in John 21:17, instills Peter as the chief Shepard after Jesus returns to the glory of Heaven:

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16
He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17
He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

So, the primacy of Peter was bestowed by Christ. Peter and the other Apostles each were given the ability and authority at Pentacost to begin to create a Church in accordance with the commandment Christ gave to Peter. And that Church was protected, as Christ promised in John 16:

5 But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming.

The Holy Spirit was also sent, in John 14:26, to:

The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name–he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you.
27
Peace 12 I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give it to you. Do not let your hearts be troubled or afraid.

Christ also promised that the Church here on Earth would speak the Truth, would speak with the Lord’s voice, in Luke 10:16:

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

The Gospels show us that Christ established an earthly Church with the power and the inerrancy of the Truth of Christ. As Timothy said, in the first letter of Timothy 3:15:

…But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.

Gosh…I hope this helps. And if my argument is pitiful, then sorry…I’m new

 

[jAlex]

I cannot accept:

1. Infalliability of any human (or group of them) other than Jesus. (He is allowed to be an exception only because He is also fully God.)

Catholics do not understand Papal infallibility (as you probably refer to the Pope here…) to mean that the Pope never makes mistakes! We understand it as to mean that he does not make mistakes in one case - when he speaks in matters of Faith and Morale.

The Catholic Church believes this based on the promise Christ made to Peter:
Mathew 18:
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

This infallibility is not the Pope’s personal quality, but it is a gift based on Christ’s promise.** His pronouncements have to be made in accord with the Magisterium in order to be infallible **- that mens he cannot just make up doctrines as he goes and expose them as true without consulting other bishops (a.k.a the Magisterium).

1. The need of a mediator between Jesus and His followers. Jesus IS our mediator!

Catholics too believe that Jesus is the only mediator!

The confusion, for Protestants, stems from the fact that Catholics also pray to Saints and - in greater proportion - to Saint Mary (as all the Apostolic churches do: Orthodox, Oriental, etc)

But we do not worship her. That is reserved for God alone.

For us *prayer does not automatically equal worship * as some think…

Technically speaking, the saints and Saint Mary especially, are not mediating anything - they are “interceding” - meaning that they are helping us in our prayer.

And we ask their help ( or pray to them) just as we would ask you, or anybody else to pray for us. In fact Jesus commends us to pray for one another - this is not an optional thing…
For us it seems natural that - just as somebody from this world can pray for us - the saints can help us even more! Because their prayers are more effective ( “The prayer of a rigtheous man availeth much”… ). It’s like they are magnifying glasses for our prayers.

1. Indulgences

Not much to say here. Can you elaborate?

1. Marian Doctrines (I believe Mary was an AWESOME Christian, but I think the Catholic Church takes her adoration too far.)

See the explanation I gave a couple of paragraphs above.

1. The designation between mortal and venial sins.

With what exactly is the objection here?

We separate sins in two categories :

• sins that are done with full consent of the will, in a grave matter (abortion for example ) and knowledge that it is offensive to God - this constitutes a mortal sin
• all the rest - are venials. That doesn’t mean we should not do anything about them.

In both scenarios we are required to go to confession. At least twice a year.

1. the Catholic definition of Justification.

Is this about faith vs. works?

Alex.

 

[jAlex]

Originally Posted by Image of God

You do misunderstand them. Who said the Pope himself was infallible? From the Catholic definition it says only when he speaks excathedra. It never said he was free from sin and error…that is what infallible means.

Who did? that is a good question. Don’t assume. I didn’t. “when he speaks excathedra” is a specific area where he IS considered infalliable. So you are saying that excathedra is not free of error? How about Bishops proclaiming doctrine at General Council? Falliable? No? well then they are infalliable at certian points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
Who said there is any other mediator besides Jesus. Saints are NOT mediators. They are people. And they are more innocent than you and I are because they are in heaven. Isn’t it correct to pray to a fellow human being? How much more human are they?

I wasn’t referring to saints. I was referring to Mary and Priests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
I never take my adoration of Mary to far. If you are in fact a sister or brother of Christ and she is his mother should we not honor her as a mother?

Wether you take you adoration too far is a matter of opinion and somewhat vague. I personally wouldn’t know since I don’t know you. However, The Catholic Church insists you believe some things about Mary that I don’t agree with and thing are “too far.” I do not believe she remained a virgin her entire life and I don’t believe she was totally and completely sinless. It follows from those that I don’t believe in her assumption. I also have some issues with her titles of Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
I beginning to think that our definitions are the EXACT same it is just the name.

Then you are mistaken. You include works were I say works are equally imporatant but fall in a different catagory. They are similar but the difference means the difference in HOW one loses their salvation. If they were EXACTLY the same why would have been a main point in the reformation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
The bible specifically says that there are deadly(mortal) sins in the letter of one John. If not mortal what does it mean? These are far from what the Cathechism teaches. In fact I think you do misunderstand them.

The punishment fo ALL sin is death. All sin seperates us from God. ALL sin displeases God. In order to achieve heaven by works we must be perfect in every way. Venial sins still count against you just as much. Mortal sins only cause more unpleasant concequences here on earth and harden your heart towards God more, making it harder to repent and increasing the seperation gap between you and God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
If you did not accuse me of calling you Calvinist check your post at 4:49 p.m on September 10. I am pretty sure you are Protestant. You obviously did not read the part above the doctrines if you think that is all I meant.

I felt that you were specifically targeting Calvinists. I also felt you didn’t understand the very people you were trying to converse with. I’m sorry that you misunderstood my posts. You don’t seem to have a clear understanding of protestant beliefs. IF you do you simply have not conveyed it well.

I understood that in an effort to convince those who are not Catholic that you wanted to know why doctrines and issues keep us from converting. I began with the doctrines you listed and attempted to show how I do not agree with the Catholic Church. One cannot convert to a faith they cannot wholly adhere to or they are a hypocrite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Image of God
I had already defined my doctrine of Sola Scriptura by the 2nd time you asked me. I have no intention of being mean. You clearly accused me…but then you explained yourself. I know you probably didn’t think you did, but I cannot know the feelings of heart. What you type I have to interpret it neutraly. Most of your saying are definite statements about things I never said so I take them as accusations.

Maybe I should refrain from talking to you more then. even after I explained myself you still keep going on about it. Most of what I’m saying is explaining my OWN beliefs not trying to accuse you of anything.

Here are some of your responses. Sorry I didn’t post them earlier

 

[John_Henry]

Our friend Syele listed some of the Catholic Church’s doctrines he disagrees with.

#6: The Catholic definition of justification is that, by God’s grace we are not only declared to be righteous, but we are in reality made righteous. St. Augustine has the classic definition of justification as “that by which we are made righteous.” As taught by the Fathers, justification is believed to occur at the moment of our baptism, and to involve an interior sanctification. The justification results from the free response of the repentant sinner to divine grace. Furthermore, justification/sanctification is also thought to continue throughout our lives as we cooperate with God’s grace (this would be St. James’ famous declaration that we are justified by our works).

 

[jAlex]

You do misunderstand them. Who said the Pope himself was infallible? From the Catholic definition it says only when he speaks excathedra. It never said he was free from sin and error…that is what infallible means.

Syele:

Who did? that is a good question. Don’t assume. I didn’t. “when he speaks excathedra” is a specific area where he IS considered infalliable. So you are saying that excathedra is not free of error? How about Bishops proclaiming doctrine at General Council? Falliable? No? well then they are infalliable at certian points.

A doctrine is proclaimed infallible ony when both the Pope and Magisterium (the body of Bishops) agree on it. You will not find a Catholic doctrine pronounced infallible only by the Pope.

Some like to argue that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was such a pronouncement . Nevertheless, if you do a research on this you will see that the Pope first sent a letter to all his Bishops and asked them to convey on the matter.

There is nothing that he will do without consulting his Bishops.

I also have some issues with her titles of Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix

Some groups proposed these titles for Mary but the Pope never approved a change in this matter. And I do not think he ever will…

In every church people come up with all kinds of ideas, but that doesn’t mean they are always good ideas - that’s exactly what the Church is there for - to sort out the matters.

Then you are mistaken. You include works were I say works are equally imporatant but fall in a different catagory. They are similar but the difference means the difference in HOW one loses their salvation. If they were EXACTLY the same why would have been a main point in the reformation?

As Catholics we believe that both faith and works are necessary.

Faith keeps you in the God’s Grace, and the works are the means by which you manifest your will vis-a-vis God : bad works puts your will above God’s, and good works conform your will to God’s will.
The salvation is possible only because of Jesus - trough faith, but the works are our “voting mechanism” vis-a-vis God. Good works are a “yes” and bad works are a “no”. It’s not that the works themselves will save us.
One loses his salvation by casting his “no” vote (aka doing bad works) without repenting. But Faith has to exist first of all as a prerequisite for these works to mean anything. That leads to these categories:

• Faith but no good works - (kinda you abstain from voting ) - not good
• Good works but no Faith - useless
• Faith and good works - it’s a winner - it gives you a chance for salvation as long as you persevere to the end.

Alex.

 

[Syele]

ok this thread is starting out a bit rocky.

1. The posts on what I disagree with, while true are out of context since they came from another thered where many things were already covered. I take fault for this since I was the one who directed jAlex to the previous thread when he asked what I had a problem with.
2. The OP is very vage on my disagreements with the church and lend themselves to the assumption that I simply don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches.
3. I think those 6 things are each fairly involved… It;s going to be awfully hard to cover them all at the same time.

So which one shall we start with?

 

[jAlex]

ok this thread is starting out a bit rocky.

1. The posts on what I disagree with, while true are out of context since they came from another thered where many things were already covered. I take fault for this since I was the one who directed jAlex to the previous thread when he asked what I had a problem with.
2. The OP is very vage on my disagreements with the church and lend themselves to the assumption that I simply don’t know what the Catholic Church teaches.
3. I think those 6 things are each fairly involved… It;s going to be awfully hard to cover them all at the same time.

So which one shall we start with?

I tried to respond to some of your questions in the other thread. Probably that’s what added to the confusion. Sorry for that!
But don’t worry!.. start with whatever subject you feel comfortable discussing. One at a tine .

Alex.

 

[Syele]

ok Start with #6. Justification.

imageofGod was trying to convince me that the Proestant and Catholic definitions for Justification are the same because both say works are required of Christians. But I think that only Faith is required for Justification… while Sanctification requires works. It’s my understanding that Catholics claim Justification requires both Faith and works and I have no idea what they require for sanctification.

 

[Syele]

As Catholics we believe that both faith and works are necessary.

Faith keeps you in the God’s Grace, and the works are the means by which you manifest your will vis-a-vis God : bad works puts your will above God’s, and good works conform your will to God’s will.
The salvation is possible only because of Jesus - trough faith, but the works are our “voting mechanism” vis-a-vis God. Good works are a “yes” and bad works are a “no”. It’s not that the works themselves will save us.
One loses his salvation by casting his “no” vote (aka doing bad works) without repenting. But Faith has to exist first of all as a prerequisite for these works to mean anything. That leads to these categories:

• Faith but no good works - (kinda you abstain from voting ) - not good
• Good works but no Faith - useless
• Faith and good works - it’s a winner - it gives you a chance for salvation as long as you persevere to the end.

Alex.

God’s family is not a democracy. The Bible consistanly uses family analogies for our relationship with God. He “Adopts” us as His Children. If i had an adopted child who made a mistake, I wo uld not disown them and throw them out of my house until they apologized. That dosn’t mean they’d get off scott free either. I have a very hard time believing that God would think of us as His children and then treat us worse than we treat our own children.

 

[mlchance]

It’s my understanding that Catholics claim Justification requires both Faith and works and I have no idea what they require for sanctification.

Start with the Catechism.

Justification and Grace: scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#1990

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jAlex]

God’s family is not a democracy. The Bible consistanly uses family analogies for our relationship with God. He “Adopts” us as His Children. If i had an adopted child who made a mistake, I wo uld not disown them and throw them out of my house until they apologized. That dosn’t mean they’d get off scott free either. I have a very hard time believing that God would think of us as His children and then treat us worse than we treat our own children.

How did you conclude, from what I wrote, that God treats us worse than we treat our children? … I’m not getting it…

Alex.

 

[jAlex]

If i had an adopted child who made a mistake, I wo uld not disown them and throw them out of my house until they apologized.

I can give you an example: the Jewish peope. The Old Testament shows that God actually exiled them from the land He gave them because they did not repent and continued to sin and disobey His commandments.

Alex.

 

[John_Henry]

ok Start with #6. Justification.

imageofGod was trying to convince me that the Proestant and Catholic definitions for Justification are the same because both say works are required of Christians. But I think that only Faith is required for Justification… while Sanctification requires works. It’s my understanding that Catholics claim Justification requires both Faith and works and I have no idea what they require for sanctification.

Catholics and Protestants have different views of “justification”. However, when you get past words to what both groups are trying to describe, one finds that differences, though real, are not as big as one initially thought. Let me explain.

In Catholic teaching, you could say that our view is that justification is broken into two components. Let’s call them “initial” and “subsequent”. There is an initial work of justification, which we understand to mean “making righteous”, which occurs without our works. We are in a state of sin, in Adam (so to speak), and God infuses his grace into us, bringing us into a state of grace, and transforming us into sons of God. There is nothing we can do to earn this grace, as we were previously “dead in our trespasses”, to quote Paul. It is a gift. This initial justification is understood to occur in baptism, after the person has been awakened to his sin and drawn to repentance by the work of the Holy Spirit. People often say that baptism is a “work”. It is only a work in the same sense that repentance and faith are “works”, meaning things that God has said we need to do to be justified and forgiven. An initial sanctification is also understood to occur in baptism (in fact, sanctification and justification are viewed as two aspects of the same process). One of several verses that is used to support this view is 1 Corinthians 6:11:

You were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

In any case, at this point, I am not trying to “prove” our belief from scripture, but simply to explain it.

Now, as I said, there is also, in Catholic understanding, a “subsequent” justification. This subsequent justification (which includes sanctification) is understood in a similar sense to the Protestant notion of sanctification. Having been justified, we are further justified as we cooperate with God’s grace in doing good works. It is in this sense that St. James (2:24) says:

You see that a man is justified by works…

So, in summary, we are brought from a state of “death” to a state of “life” without “works”. We grow in this freely received righteousness (justification) and holiness (sanctification) by cooperating with grace in bearing good fruit in works.

That’s the Catholic view.