B
benedictus2
Guest
Stunted is good. I will use that from now on.
- Status
B
benedictus2
Guest
If the correct understanding of the Trinity is not necessary then we would not have called Trinitarian heresies, heresies.
And if you say that it does not matter whether what one believes is a heresy, then Truth does not matter.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Non-sequitur means does not follow. Now why did I say your post is a non sequitur?
Elvisman said: “***You’re both wrong. The Church was never meant to stay as it looked in the New Testament. ***It grew - much like an acorn that grows into an oak. “
***You said: “****The same person who said a good tree could not bring forth bad fruit. *
Matthew 7:18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”
So how does your reply follow from elvisman’s post? He was not even talking about fruit (good or bad) of the tree, but how an acorn grows into an oak, that the Church was never meant to stay the same as it was in the New Testament.
Above, you just did the same thing again quoting Galatians. The fruit of the Spirit was not even under discussion here. I think you mentioned this in support of the point that the Church could not be the church because it bore bad fruit which is different to the point that elvisman is making.
It is only in your perception that the doctrine is complicated. That you fail to understand some doctrines does not necessarily mean that they are complicated. It could be due to a deficiency in understanding on your part. The complexity of any given idea is dependent on someone’s intelligence. What is complex to some is a piece of cake for others. And I am not saying that to belittle your intellect in anyway or to say that I understand them any more than you.
Also, doctrines do not need to be completely grasped before it can be believed. That is what faith is about. Believing in something you do not fully understand. Belief is possible without full comprehension. But a good dose of humility is required.
It is YOUR opinion that the doctrines are “not spiritual maturing but going beyond what is written”. I can only say that you arrived at this conclusion out of ignorance. And I do not mean that in any derogatory way. If you do finally “revert”, in a few years time when you have done a thorough study of the doctrines, then perhaps you would think again about this post of yours. I know you will then think otherwise as many converts and reverts have done.
B
benedictus2
Guest
That is a very arrogant reply. If you can’t understand it, no one should even bother trying either. What you say goes. If you don’t think it is worth analyzing and explaining, then that’s the way it should be. No one should even attempt to do it either.ralphinal:
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
*So how is Jesus God, the Father God and the Holy SPirit God? Can we accept modalism?
Can a CHristian deny that Jesus is God?
Are we even monotheistic? *
“It’s a mystery.” Why couldn’t we just leave it at that? As I’ve said elsewhere, the Catholic church has a disease. I’ll call it, “explanationism.”
You are not the Catholic Church.
J
John1
Guest
Thank you my friend.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Only to a certain extent. We don’t read the Old Testament in isolation. Perhaps Jews do but then, they are still waiting for the Messiah.
The Old Testament makes much more sense when you shed the light of the New Testament on it. That is why much of the Liturgical readings juxtapose the old and new to show how the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old. If you just accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament you will be missing a huge chunk of of the Truth and that is that Jesus is the promised Messiah.
It is in interesting that a prominent rabbi during Nazi occupation of Italy, Rabbi Zolli, as a child, saw in Christ the suffering servant of Isaiah. He, his wife and daughter later on converted to Catholicism.
J
John1
Guest
Hi,
Years ago when I was in thr RCIA class there were so RCC doctrines that I didn’t agree with, and there are some that I still don’t agree with. Which ones really doesn’t matter, not at all saying that doctrines don’t matter, but the point is that if, in my heart I was not doing the right thing before God, then it would be wrong for me to participate in that particular activity. In other words, how could I reconcile in my heart, doing something that I felt was wrong, just because other people were doing it. Now I wasn’t saying that the others should not do something that they felt justified before God in doing, I just didn’t want to be forced into doing something that I wasn’t sure about. I remember I was asked at one point why I decided to refrain and I explained it just about the same way. I don’t think anyone was offended. I am a memeber of the RCC. Lately, someone said, not word for word but basically, that if I didn’t agree with all the RCC’s doctrines and their interpretation, that I wasn’t a real Catholic. I was a little offended at first, but then I remebered that everyone has their own opinion, whether I think they are correct or not, and their opinion doesn’t change my relationship God. I do think it is “anti-Christian” to insult and demean fellow Christians, and enemies for that matter, who oppose your position on Christian teachings. We all know were not supposed to hate each other, but to have Christian love for on another, because that’s how the world will know that we are Christians. With that said and not wanting to be pegged as a hypocrite, I know that sometimes I fall into the “Devil’s trap” and start trading insults, or worse, with other Christian. When I read “The History of the Church”, in regards to agreeing on doctrines, I realize that there was a lot of fighting, even among the early Christians. There’s even evidence in the Bible, in some of Paul’s, Peters, and John’s letters of some heated disputes, i.e. Paul and Barnabas. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if all the doctrines are really correct if they came to be after such “anti-christian” behavior. I know the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into the truth, and every followers of Christ is garaunteed the Holy Spirit, but if we are not following Christian behavior when trying to find out the truth of a certain doctrine, reconciling, or establishing a doctrine, then how can we be sure that it was the Holy Spirit that led us to the conclusion.
Years ago when I was in thr RCIA class there were so RCC doctrines that I didn’t agree with, and there are some that I still don’t agree with. Which ones really doesn’t matter, not at all saying that doctrines don’t matter, but the point is that if, in my heart I was not doing the right thing before God, then it would be wrong for me to participate in that particular activity. In other words, how could I reconcile in my heart, doing something that I felt was wrong, just because other people were doing it. Now I wasn’t saying that the others should not do something that they felt justified before God in doing, I just didn’t want to be forced into doing something that I wasn’t sure about. I remember I was asked at one point why I decided to refrain and I explained it just about the same way. I don’t think anyone was offended. I am a memeber of the RCC. Lately, someone said, not word for word but basically, that if I didn’t agree with all the RCC’s doctrines and their interpretation, that I wasn’t a real Catholic. I was a little offended at first, but then I remebered that everyone has their own opinion, whether I think they are correct or not, and their opinion doesn’t change my relationship God. I do think it is “anti-Christian” to insult and demean fellow Christians, and enemies for that matter, who oppose your position on Christian teachings. We all know were not supposed to hate each other, but to have Christian love for on another, because that’s how the world will know that we are Christians. With that said and not wanting to be pegged as a hypocrite, I know that sometimes I fall into the “Devil’s trap” and start trading insults, or worse, with other Christian. When I read “The History of the Church”, in regards to agreeing on doctrines, I realize that there was a lot of fighting, even among the early Christians. There’s even evidence in the Bible, in some of Paul’s, Peters, and John’s letters of some heated disputes, i.e. Paul and Barnabas. Sometimes I can’t help but wonder if all the doctrines are really correct if they came to be after such “anti-christian” behavior. I know the Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us into the truth, and every followers of Christ is garaunteed the Holy Spirit, but if we are not following Christian behavior when trying to find out the truth of a certain doctrine, reconciling, or establishing a doctrine, then how can we be sure that it was the Holy Spirit that led us to the conclusion.
B
benedictus2
Guest
This is not quite correct. Not every follower of Christ is guaranteed the Holy Spirit. How else would you explain the thousands of protestant Churches with varying interpretations of the Bible. If they are all guided by the Holy Spirit then we have one mighty confused spirit who does not know what he is doing guiding us.
There are also those who have used twisted reasoning from the Bible to support their stand on divorce, contraception and homosexuality. Could we say that they are being guided by the Holy Spirit? The promise given is to the Church.
It is true however, that the Holy Spirit does guide us when we read the Bible but we cannot claim that individually, we are always guided by the Holy Spirit.
**
** but if we are not following Christian teachings, when trying to find out the truth of a certain doctrine, reconciling, or establishing a doctrine, then how can we be sure that it was the Holy Spirit that led us to the conclusion.****
You are confusing orthopraxis (right conduct) and orthodoxy (right doctrine) here. Christ did not say, if you are good disciples and are nice to each other, then I will send you the Holy Spirit to guide you into truth.
If a murderer says that murder is a sin, does that put into question the truth of his statement? That would be falling into the fallacy of ad hominem.
That is why one really needs to pay attention to this promise of Christ. He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the Church into Truth. Not to guide her into charity or goodness or kindness. No, to guide her into Truth. And the reason for that is because what we hold to be truth is what informs our action. Orthopraxis follows from orthodoxy. If we think adultery is okay, then we will commit adultery. If we think a white lie is okay, then we will tell that white lie. We will do all sorts of evil if we can rationalize it as truth. Truth matters. That is why His promise is Truth.
I am not sure how many times the devil gets a mention in the Bible but the one time I do remember is that Jesus called him the Father of Lies.
B
benedictus2
Guest
Reply part 2,
There is a certain truth to that statement. To be Catholic is to give assent to what the Church has set out as dogma whether we can understand it or not.
I think you lean too much on your own understanding which St Peter has counselled against. This is understandable if you came from a Protestant background. To a protestant, the “I” is paramount. I decide. I will be guided byt the Spirit. I, I ,I. In effect, one is set up as his/her own magisterium.
When one becomes Catholic, one is supposed to dethrone the "I’ in matters of doctrine on faith and morals in favour of the magisterium of the Church. But that takes a lot of humility.
To do otherwise is to say that one’s piddly little brain is more capable of comprehending the entire Scripture and the economy of salvation, better than all the Church Fathers, Doctors of Church, Saints and Theologians who have gone before us, combined.
If one believes that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded on Peter, and to whch He gave the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail, then it follows that whether one understands every minute detail of her doctrine or not, one can be assured that what the Church teaches is indeed true. To say that one doctrine is surely not true would be to say that the gates of hell has indeed prevailed because the devil is the father of lies.
Once you become a Cafeteria Catholic who picks and chose the doctrines you want to believe, then you really are not Catholic because it is not the Church you believe but yourself. It is still the same I/Me/Myself that guides your belief rather than the Church that Christ has founded.
I think you will need to pray for the humility to accept what the Church teaches even though you do not fully understand them yourself.
St Augustine said faith is believing what we do not see (comprehend). The gift of faith is seeing (comprehending) what we believe.
Pray for faith.
J
John1
Guest
Hi Benedictus2,
I appreciate your reply, I really do, but at this point for me I still have problems accepting some of the doctrines of the RCC, and that’s not saying necessarily that they aren’t true. I can’t reconcile them in my heart. I humble myself to Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to the Sacred Scriptures, and to some of the Sacred Traditions. Maybe it’s a process, maybe God has put this concern in my heart for a purpose, but like I said before, that’s between me and God. I’m not in anyway trying to say that you should question what the Church says or that you should deny the Holy Spirit in your walk. I guess I haven’t come to trust the RCC like you do. Maybe one day I will, or maybe not. I am however confident in my Lord and savior Jesus Christ, even if I may know just a little of His fullness. Even though I’m a member of the RCC, I (personally) can’t condemn the Protestant Churches, in a real sense that’s where I started my walk with God, and where I was first introduced to the Sacred Scriptures and to some of the Sacred Traditions. I guess I’m confused, but I thought that the Pope said that the Catholics and the Protestants should strive for Christian unity along with the Orthodox. I am fairly new to this forum, and I enjoy reading other peoples opinions. One thing I’ve noticed is that there’s a lot of bad feelings toward Protestants and I don’t understand why. Even if I do become a “real” Catholic one day, I hope I never have those bad feelings towards our Protestant brothers and sisters, and I hope that God will give me the grace to always have brotherly love for my Catholic brothers and sisters. Jesus is Lord! Peace be with you!
B
benedictus2
Guest
The bad feelings about Protestants stem from the lies that protestants spread about the Church. Not sure if you know of Jack Chick and other such publications. There’s heaps of them. Anti-Catholic websites abound as well.
Lorraine Boetner is another one and I think most of what Protestants know about Catholicism came from him.
Also, how about Protestants calling the Church the Whore of Babylon and the Pope the anti-Christ.
Your post above still seems to me that you lean too much on your own understanding.
Here’s a little story of mine.
A few months back, another poster by the name of Sandusky told me that the Catholic Church believed in pre-destination. Now I did not know that. But I follow the link she supplied and yes it is true that the Church does teach pre-destination. My heart sank. As I read St Thomas my heart sank even deeper because I felt his concept was very close to Calvininism.
So I thought should I believe in pre-destination or not. At that moment I had a choice to either believe what the Church teaches or not. But what came back to me was the reasoning that I have always used here at CAF. Either the Church is who she claims to be or not. If she is who she claims to be, then Christ has preserved her from error, therefore I can believe what she teaches even though I do not understand it myself. Also, I thought, am I seriously pitting my tiny brain against the likes of St Thomas, St Augustine and Molina? Am I saying that I know better than the Church of Christ herself? Why isn’t that the height of pride?
So I said to God, in humility, I believe that what His Church teaches is true even though I do not understand it myself.
The funny thing is after I prayed that, voila!, I got it. I was actually able to understand it in the way that it made sense to me. A few days later, a new insight came again for a deeper understanding of this doctrine.
You say that you are humble before Christ and Scripture. What you must remember is that Jesus did not go around with a secratary in tow saying write this. What did He do? He founded a Church to whom He gave the promise of leading into all truth.
So long as you make yourself the magisterium (and you do that when you decide what doctrine is to be believed or not) then you truly do not believe in the Church and so, do not truly believe either in Christ’s promise that He will guide her into all truth which means she will not teach error.
That is why I always say, one needs humility.
Put it another way. Say you are a learner pilot and you took off on a flight by yourself. You know a fair bit having read the manual and gone on a few lessons but you are still way far away from being an expert. Suddenly you hit turbulent weather and you are about to crash. You radio for help and the guy at the other end starts giving you instructions which to your poorly trained mind seems to contradict what you have learned so far. You just don’t get why he would be giving you instructions that seem contrary to the books you’ve read. Now you know that the guy at the other end is the best pilot in the world. He has received a lot of awards and has helped stir many like you into safety.
Do you follow all his instructions or not?
C
Cinette
Guest
I was not intending to post on this thread - just here to learn and observe. However I couldn’t resist asking a question. (I am reading this thread in portions as I have a lot of work right now so if you have clarified this then I apologise - don’t have time to read ahead)Hi Benedictus2,
I apologize for interrupting your discussion, but would you please refrain from using the word “retarded”? It’s become a very offensive term, especially for the people who have mentally handicapped loved ones. I realize that you didn’t mean anything offensive, I’m just asking.
Thanks
Are you serious about the use of the word retarded? Are you a Moderator perhaps? Because if Benedictus cannot use the word “retarded” who can?
If someone has a mentally handicapped child or mentally challenged child - where is the offense?
Perhaps it is best to remove the word from the dictionary.
R
ralphinal
Guest
The issue with the word use my have to do with how it is read. If I say that something retarded the growth of my tomatoes last year, that should not be offensive. If I say that my tomato plants were retarded, it changes the meaning of the sentence. In one, I am saying that the growth was hampered or stunted, in the other I am using the word as an perjorative.I was not intending to post on this thread - just here to learn and observe. However I couldn’t resist asking a question. (I am reading this thread in portions as I have a lot of work right now so if you have clarified this then I apologise - don’t have time to read ahead)
Are you serious about the use of the word retarded? Are you a Moderator perhaps? Because if Benedictus cannot use the word “retarded” who can?
If someone has a mentally handicapped child or mentally challenged child - where is the offense?
Perhaps it is best to remove the word from the dictionary.
Does that help?
C
Cinette
Guest
C
Cinette
Guest
The Catholic Church believes that at the moment of consecration the bread and wine are transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus. The appearance is the same but the “substance” has changed. This is why we hold such great reverence and respect for the Eucharist and keep the consecrated Eucharist in the Tabernacle, and why we pray and meditate in Adoration before the Eucharist… because we believe what Jesus said in John 6. We believe because we have Faith in Jesus and we love Him. Speaking for myself I can’t say I understand. It is a mystery.
I was told by a Lutheran Minister that they believe that it is only the body and blood at the moment it is received by the communicant. What is left behind is fed is just bread and wine and fed to the birds. That is their belief and is very different from ours.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi John.
It would be difficult to judge this situation, not having been there. I would say that there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with saying to a fellow Catholic "If you’re Catholic, you’re supposed to believe ______ " (e.g. the 4 Marian dogmas).
At the same time, however, I can certainly see how such an occasion could turn into “bullying”.
C
ckempston
Guest
Well, you didn’t provide the context. Go back and provide the whole quote, and you’ll see what I responded to. A non sequitur is an argument. I think you’re trying to say my response was off-topic or irrelevant, not a non sequitur. I stand by my statement that you don’t know what it means.
Then why are you saying it? That’s pretty disengenuous of you.
I agree.
Boy, you keep claiming that you don’t mean offense, but you sure keep saying offensive things.
Fortunately for both of us, spiritual maturity is defined in the Bible:
Hebrews 6:1 Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.
“Therefore” means the Hebrew writer was making a conclusion based on his previous statement. He describes what spiritual maturity is NOT, which happens to include teachings about doctrines. At the end of chapter 5, he writes:
Hebrews 5:13-14 Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
Maturity is the ability to distinguish good from evil, not the ability to describe substance, essence, natures, accidents, and all of Aristotles other teachings.
P
Peter_J
Guest
True. But also keep in mind that the Decree on Ecumenism warns us against a “false conciliatory approach” or “false irenicism” (depending which translation you read). Mind you, this cuts both ways: I wouldn’t want to use a false conciliatory approach towards Protestants and/or Orthodox, and I wouldn’t them want to use a false conciliatory approach towards us.
Definitely. I guess mainly it’s just a result of our fallen human nature.
C
Cinette
Guest
Thank you Ralphinal, I accept your explanation. In the meantime I read the posting suggesting that stunted may be more appropriate and think that is a better word also.
E
elvisman
Guest
Thank you, Benedictus for at least getting ckempston to respond to something I said – even though it was through a third party.
Benedictus is correct – your response was a non-sequitor.**
Now that this is settled, ckempston – are you ever going to respond to my Posts 83, 98 & 100?
I have requested this twice already because I think hit-and-run apologetics is beneath you.
Benedictus is correct – your response was a non-sequitor.**
Now that this is settled, ckempston – are you ever going to respond to my Posts 83, 98 & 100?
I have requested this twice already because I think hit-and-run apologetics is beneath you.
- Status