The Catholic Church

[ckempston]

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.

Add yourself to the list of people who don’t know what a non sequitur is. A non sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow from the premises. As I already explained to our logically impaired friend (no offense meant ), what he meant to say that was my response was irrelevant or off-topic (even though it wasn’t, he just didn’t get it - some people don’t get things when they have mental insufficiencies - no offense, again).

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.

Let me go back and see what you’re talking about.

 

[Cinette]

Hi John1 -

Here is something for you:

*" Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
*

• St Augustine

I used to question everything until I came across this quotation. Now all I need is Jesus’ promises.

blessings
Cinette

 

[ckempston]

Wrong, my friend.
That’s the problem with anti-Catholics. When condemning from scripture, they usually don’t read the passages in context.

I quoted several passages and pointed at the whole chapter, which is hardly “out of context.”

Here, in Romans 14, St. Paul is telling them not to judge a person’s personal practices – he is not referring to their spiritual practices. Read verse 1 with the next verse – in context:
“Welcome anyone who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions.
One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.”

He likewise talks about observing holy days. Let me ask you a question: are Catholics free to ignore things like Lent, and Holy Days of Observation? If not, then that contradicts this passage.

On the contrary, in If you bother to read Philippians 2:1-2, he says emphatically that we are to be of like mind and united in our practices:
“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

Differences of opinion on “disputable matters” are different from factions and divisions (such as exist throughout Protestantism). A difference of opinion is that one prefers a church service where musical instruments are used. A faction or division is where one condemns and separates himself from others on the basis that music is used, or not used, in service.

In 1 Corinthians 11:19, (which you quoted - wrongly, I might add) he is referring to a specific problem within the Church at Corinth. He is telling them that there are factions because some are right and some are wrong, He then goes on to tell them why.
As a matter of fact, in the following verses, he tells them that they are eating and drinking the Lord’s body and blood unworthily – a very Catholic teaching.

How do you “quote something wrongly?” You either quote it or you don’t. You should learn to express what you mean more clearly.

Secondly, I have no problem with this Catholic teaching. I went out of my way to distinguish between disputable matters and salvation issues. On subjects like holy days, what you eat or drink, and other disputable matters, Christians should be free to believe as they “are each convinced in their own minds.” As far as I can tell, Catholics are not free to believe anything.

EDIT to add:

PS - Your profile says “Reverting”. May I ask what you’re reverting to?

I was, for some time, considering some brand of catholicism, but find so many claims to be absolutely ridiculous and unfounded, I would be forced to check my brain at the door.

 

[sambos671]

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.

I think Ckempston and I discussed these issues at some point.

 

[sambos671]

He likewise talks about observing holy days. Let me ask you a question: are Catholics free to ignore things like Lent, and Holy Days of Observation? If not, then that contradicts this passage.

Quote:
On the contrary, in If you bother to read Philippians 2:1-2, he says emphatically that we are to be of like mind and united in our practices:
“If there is any encouragement in Christ, any solace in love, any participation in the Spirit, any compassion and mercy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking one thing.”

This is acutally a non sequitur (It doesn’t follow). The quoted passage would seem to indicate that if we are of one mind (ie participate in Holy Days not to do so would be not of one mind). And I do take offense to parking my brain at the door. (though I’m not angry or emotional in anyway about it) Actually, I think I’m better engaged with my thinking.

 

[Peter_J]

I quoted several passages and pointed at the whole chapter, which is hardly “out of context.”

He likewise talks about observing holy days. Let me ask you a question: are Catholics free to ignore things like Lent, and Holy Days of Observation? If not, then that contradicts this passage.

Differences of opinion on “disputable matters” are different from factions and divisions (such as exist throughout Protestantism). A difference of opinion is that one prefers a church service where musical instruments are used. A faction or division is where one condemns and separates himself from others on the basis that music is used, or not used, in service.

How do you “quote something wrongly?” You either quote it or you don’t. You should learn to express what you mean more clearly.

Secondly, I have no problem with this Catholic teaching. I went out of my way to distinguish between disputable matters and salvation issues. On subjects like holy days, what you eat or drink, and other disputable matters, Christians should be free to believe as they “are each convinced in their own minds.” As far as I can tell, Catholics are not free to believe anything.

You were making some good arguments there, but you kind of blew it with that last sentence. Catholics not free to believe anything? Please. Aren’t Catholics still free to eat meats or not, just as in Paul’s day? To drink wine or to “teetotal”? To accept or reject the “co-redemptrix” idea?

 

[ckempston]

You were making some good arguments there, but you kind of blew it with that last sentence. Catholics not free to believe anything? Please. Aren’t Catholics still free to eat meats or not, just as in Paul’s day? To drink wine or to “teetotal”? To accept or reject the “co-redemptrix” idea?

The list of what Catholics are free to do has been steadily decreasing for hundreds of years. Likewise, what they are required to do has been increasing for hundreds of years.

I asked a pretty simple question. Can you, or can you not, choose whether to observe something like Lent, or another holy day or season? Or is that a requirement?

If it is a requirement, then my statement is certainly not a non-sequitur. Paul said you have freedom. Catholic church says you do not.

 

[ckempston]

This is acutally a non sequitur (It doesn’t follow). The quoted passage would seem to indicate that if we are of one mind (ie participate in Holy Days not to do so would be not of one mind). And I do take offense to parking my brain at the door. (though I’m not angry or emotional in anyway about it) Actually, I think I’m better engaged with my thinking.

In your next post, you contradict yourself. Which is it? Are we free to believe or disbelieve some things? Or do we have to be of like mind?

 

[sambos671]

In your next post, you contradict yourself. Which is it? Are we free to believe or disbelieve some things? Or do we have to be of like mind?

Since you’re not invested in the CC I’ll put it this way. The NT church (as can be seen in the epistles) has always shown the necessity of right belief. We call it orthodoxy. You can believe what you want as long as it fits into the parameters of orthodoxy. I think you’re trying to indicate that there are more parameters of orthodoxy today than the Church at the time of the Apostles. And that is partly true for varying reasons. What was generally accepted then was taken for granted except those issues revealed in the letters. However, as time moved on people started teaching things which contradicted generally accepted beliefs which needed to be refuted. Paul didn’t have to argue homoosious over homoiosious because it never came up but once it did come up it had to be responded to. And as time moved on more things that attacked the generally accepted beliefs more things had to be addressed. Its a question of orthodoxy.

 

[ckempston]

Since you’re not invested in the CC I’ll put it this way. The NT church (as can be seen in the epistles) has always shown the necessity of right belief. We call it orthodoxy. You can believe what you want as long as it fits into the parameters of orthodoxy. I think you’re trying to indicate that there are more parameters of orthodoxy today than the Church at the time of the Apostles. And that is partly true for varying reasons. What was generally accepted then was taken for granted except those issues revealed in the letters. However, as time moved on people started teaching things which contradicted generally accepted beliefs which needed to be refuted. Paul didn’t have to argue homoosious over homoiosious because it never came up but once it did come up it had to be responded to. And as time moved on more things that attacked the generally accepted beliefs more things had to be addressed. Its a question of orthodoxy.

Again, we’re back to my favorite disease: explanationism, which I think I can Scripturally show is unnecessary, and contradictory to Jesus plain statement that “all truth” would be revealed to the Apostles.

 

[sambos671]

Again, we’re back to my favorite disease: explanationism, which I think I can Scripturally show is unnecessary, and contradictory to Jesus plain statement that “all truth” would be revealed to the Apostles.

Then Paul is guilty of “explanationism” with regard to the book of Galatians. Because he spells out what Salvation isn’t. Judaisers were trying to put people back under the Law Paul had to answer these people because of their wrong belief. So he deals with it. The Church carries on its mission to correct wrong beliefs. Orthodoxy was an issue for the church from the very begining. You might as well thow all of Christianity under the bus by that thought process.

 

[ckempston]

Then Paul is guilty of “explanationism” with regard to the book of Galatians. Because he spells out what Salvation isn’t. Judaisers were trying to put people back under the Law Paul had to answer these people because of their wrong belief. So he deals with it. The Church carries on its mission to correct wrong beliefs. Orthodoxy was an issue for the church from the very begining. You might as well thow all of Christianity under the bus by that thought process.

You cannot be serious. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent what I’ve said?

I made the claim: all truth would be revealed before the death of the Apostels (just according to Jesus).

Paul was an Apostle (although abormally born).

So, somehow, from this, you conclude that Paul (who was divinely inspired, and certainly writing before all the Apostles were dead) should not be able to instruct the churches and explain things???

 

[Cinette]

"For ckempston!

I was reading through the thread when I noticed your postings and looked at your profile which said revert. I am a revert and during the 27 years I was away from the Church the two youngest of my four children were not baptized. My third child later converted to a Protestant church.

Like you I was not properly catechized and realize now had I been I would never have left the Church. As I come to know more about the Catholic Church I have become more orthodox in my attitudes – I think orthodoxy is more of an attitude because when you believe totally you realize that there can be no compromise. I went from a Marxist revolutionary to an orthodox Catholic.

I found myself going to daily Mass and felt the need to receive the Eucharist as it is an unbelievably powerful and loving gift. For 4 ½ years I went to Perpetual Adoration (had to stop due to illness) and my hour was at 3am on a Friday but I would also fill in for people going on leave and even did a novena of 9 Holy Hours for a friend. The Adoration Chapel was about 20 kms from my home and it was dangerous but I was full of joy in the midst of my sorrow. I came back to the Church because I felt compelled to pray for peace and that is how it started. Some years later at the time of the Holy Hours I was going through an extremely stressful time and struggled to sleep. The worst happened but God gave us the courage to get through it. My atheist husband who came to believe in God through a Jew and attended Mass with me for 11 years converted 4 years ago and is also a daily communicant. We were talking about this only last night because of a programme on EWTN about miracles of the Eucharist – there is an exhibition going around to the Churches in America. Our experience with the Eucharist had a strong and profound effect on me and my husband agrees that it was the Eucharist that got us through an extremely difficult and painful period. There are many miracles I can speak of.

So, yes I believe that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Catholic faith. As I said on another posting I used to ask lots of questions – but, but, but,…… Then one day I came across this quotation which I also posted:

• " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." *

• St Augustine

That really had a profound effect on me and from that day I learned to trust in Jesus’ promise that He would be with us always and that the H Spirit would guide us into all truth. You speak of “explanationism”. Do you think the Catechism is unnecessary? I think it is a jewel. I accept that Jesus was the founder of our Church, I believe in Apostolic succession, the Magesterium, etc. I do not feel restricted at all. Do I understand the Eucharist? Do I understand the Trinity? Even the reason for God’s love (we are so unlovable!!) NO - but I believe it now (it took time) and I believe because I love, trust and have Faith in God.

You spoke of simple Faith. Did Jesus not tell us to be childlike? You are being argumentative and I feel that you are pursuing things that really are of little importance and have lost track of what is really important – the “meat and potatoes” of our Catholic faith.

May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide you
Cinette

 

[elvisman]

I quoted several passages and pointed at the whole chapter, which is hardly “out of context.”

St. Paul** is not referring to religious or spiritual practices but life practices. You are speaking out of context.**

He likewise talks about observing holy days. Let me ask you a question: are Catholics free to ignore things like Lent, and Holy Days of Observation? If not, then that contradicts this passage.

Are you reading this carefully or just looking at the words just to take a position?
In Colossians 2:16-17, St. Paul is speaking of being judged by not keeping the Mosaic Law. That is why he mentions things such as “food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath.”
We know this because he goes on to say, “These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.”

Differences of opinion on “disputable matters” are different from factions and divisions (such as exist throughout Protestantism). A difference of opinion is that one prefers a church service where musical instruments are used. A faction or division is where one condemns and separates himself from others on the basis that music is used, or not used, in service.

Where** are you getting this? You’re seeing things in the passage (Philippians 2:1-2) that just aren’t there.**

How do you “quote something wrongly?” You either quote it or you don’t. You should learn to express what you mean more clearly.

Secondly, I have no problem with this Catholic teaching. I went out of my way to distinguish between disputable matters and salvation issues. On subjects like holy days, what you eat or drink, and other disputable matters, Christians should be free to believe as they “are each convinced in their own minds.” As far as I can tell, Catholics are not free to believe anything.
I should have said used wrongly – not quoted wrongly. Again, you must have been poorly catechized because you have no idea what the Church teaches and what we are required or not required to believe.

I was, for some time, considering some brand of catholicism, but find so many claims to be absolutely ridiculous and unfounded, I would be forced to check my brain at the door.

Some brand? Which claims are “ridiculous and unfounded”?

 

[ckempston]

"For ckempston!

I was reading through the thread when I noticed your postings and looked at your profile which said revert. I am a revert and during the 27 years I was away from the Church the two youngest of my four children were not baptized. My third child later converted to a Protestant church.

Like you I was not properly catechized and realize now had I been I would never have left the Church. As I come to know more about the Catholic Church I have become more orthodox in my attitudes – I think orthodoxy is more of an attitude because when you believe totally you realize that there can be no compromise. I went from a Marxist revolutionary to an orthodox Catholic.

I found myself going to daily Mass and felt the need to receive the Eucharist as it is an unbelievably powerful and loving gift. For 4 ½ years I went to Perpetual Adoration (had to stop due to illness) and my hour was at 3am on a Friday but I would also fill in for people going on leave and even did a novena of 9 Holy Hours for a friend. The Adoration Chapel was about 20 kms from my home and it was dangerous but I was full of joy in the midst of my sorrow. I came back to the Church because I felt compelled to pray for peace and that is how it started. Some years later at the time of the Holy Hours I was going through an extremely stressful time and struggled to sleep. The worst happened but God gave us the courage to get through it. My atheist husband who came to believe in God through a Jew and attended Mass with me for 11 years converted 4 years ago and is also a daily communicant. We were talking about this only last night because of a programme on EWTN about miracles of the Eucharist – there is an exhibition going around to the Churches in America. Our experience with the Eucharist had a strong and profound effect on me and my husband agrees that it was the Eucharist that got us through an extremely difficult and painful period. There are many miracles I can speak of.

So, yes I believe that the Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Catholic faith. As I said on another posting I used to ask lots of questions – but, but, but,…… Then one day I came across this quotation which I also posted:

• " Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand." *

• St Augustine

That really had a profound effect on me and from that day I learned to trust in Jesus’ promise that He would be with us always and that the H Spirit would guide us into all truth. You speak of “explanationism”. Do you think the Catechism is unnecessary? I think it is a jewel. I accept that Jesus was the founder of our Church, I believe in Apostolic succession, the Magesterium, etc. I do not feel restricted at all. Do I understand the Eucharist? Do I understand the Trinity? Even the reason for God’s love (we are so unlovable!!) NO - but I believe it now (it took time) and I believe because I love, trust and have Faith in God.

You spoke of simple Faith. Did Jesus not tell us to be childlike? You are being argumentative and I feel that you are pursuing things that really are of little importance and have lost track of what is really important – the “meat and potatoes” of our Catholic faith.

May God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide you
Cinette

Thanks for sharing your reversion story. I’m not a revert, but have been in a process of trying to figure out where I belong for quite some time. I would tend to agree with you on the “meat and potatoes” and I have enjoyed reading the Catechism and find that I agree with practically everything therein. The problem for me is you can’t just take the “meat and potatoes” of Catholicism, you have to take the appetizer, the main course, the desert, and the after-dinner coffee as well.

 

[ckempston]

St. Paul** is **not referring to religious or spiritual practices but life practices. You are speaking out of context.

Observance of Holy Days are not religious or spiritual practices? I disagree. As Cinette pointed out in her last post, this discussion has become overly argumentative, and I of course, bear a brunt of the blame for this. I’m stopping here. I’ll pick up elsewhere if I find I can be productive and non-combative. Must be something I ate in the last couple days.

Are you reading this carefully or just looking at the words just to take a position?
In Colossians 2:16-17, St. Paul is speaking of being judged by not keeping the Mosaic Law. That is why he mentions things such as “food and drink or with regard to a festival or new moon or sabbath.”
We know this because he goes on to say, “These are shadows of things to come; the reality belongs to Christ.”

Where** are you getting this? You’re seeing things in the passage (Philippians 2:1-2**) that just aren’t there.

I should have said used wrongly – not quoted wrongly. Again, you must have been poorly catechized because you have no idea what the Church teaches and what we are required or not required to believe.

Some brand? Which claims are “ridiculous and unfounded”?

 

[ralphinal]

Observance of Holy Days are not religious or spiritual practices? I disagree. As Cinette pointed out in her last post, this discussion has become overly argumentative, and I of course, bear a brunt of the blame for this. I’m stopping here. I’ll pick up elsewhere if I find I can be productive and non-combative. Must be something I ate in the last couple days.

I think that you have been charitable. In fact, this thread has done pretty well all things considered.

 

[Peter_J]

The list of what Catholics are free to do has been steadily decreasing for hundreds of years. Likewise, what they are required to do has been increasing for hundreds of years.

I asked a pretty simple question. Can you, or can you not, choose whether to observe something like Lent, or another holy day or season? Or is that a requirement?

The question is pretty simple, but answering it is pretty difficult.

I guess I would say that I’m obliged to go to Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation (and on Sunday, of course), but I’m not obliged to regard that day as holier than any other day.

 

[ckempston]

I think that you have been charitable. In fact, this thread has done pretty well all things considered.

I have no problem with continuing the discussion. I simply want to keep it charitable, and want to attempt to understand and compare/contrast rather than attack anyone.

 

[Peter_J]

You cannot be serious. Are you purposely trying to misrepresent what I’ve said?

I made the claim: all truth would be revealed before the death of the Apostels (just according to Jesus).

Paul was an Apostle (although abormally born).

So, somehow, from this, you conclude that Paul (who was divinely inspired, and certainly writing before all the Apostles were dead) should not be able to instruct the churches and explain things???

Good point.