This is what I don't understand about Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
paperwight66 said:
This might help.

We don’t believe that the Real Presence means that Jesus is physically present in the usual sense. What we call the ‘accidents’ of the bread or wafer still exist - its taste, the space it takes up, its colour, smell etc. and these accidents are physical. This means that they are subject to change and decay as all physical things are, and also can’t be in more than one place at once. If a church is on fire and the Tabernacle is burnt, or if flooded, and the Tabernacle inundated, we don’t believe that God is burnt or drowned, as that would be a nonsense.

So no, God isn’t physically among us in the usual sense. What IS among us, is the presence of Jesus in a new and wonderful way, often summed up as Really, truly and substantially’. Underneath the ‘accidents’ Jesus is present, with these accidents, as it were, resting on Him.

Does that help at all?
Click to expand...
Compare what you have presented with post #51 on the thread Eucharistic Adoration and explain why I should not be confused. Thanks:o
 
Sy_Noe said:
I don’t understand why Catholics go around acting like they know the truth with such certainty and that their church is the one and only. Not when it takes faith to believe that. You can feed someone all the interpretations of the ECFs and so on. But without faith in them, there is no “certainty”.
Click to expand...
I don’t get this, but I know it is a common complaint against the Church. I don’t get it because what group goes around saying it has the falsehood? What group goes around saying it has either certainty or uncertainty about the falsehood? I can’t think of any that do so.

All groups claim to have the truth. That is what makes them a group, their corporate commitment to that truth. You will find, especially in our times, some groups that claim to not be dogmatic. Of course they are dogmatic, at least about their supposed lack of dogmatism. And usually they have plenty of other dogmas.

What this claim against the certainty of the Catholic Church usually really means is a rejection of a particular doctrine. For instance most Protestants decry the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the Immaculate Conception, but not its dogmatic teaching about the Holy Trinity. There are of course Unitarians, but even most Protestants would say they are not even Christians having rejected the Trinity.

All Protestant groups, or any groups that stood in opposition to the Church, started out as being very dogmatic in whatever it was they rejected about the Catholic Church. It is really only in our time that they have embraced this ‘open-minded’ approach to Christian differences. Unfortunately for the cohesiveness of their group open-mindedness about things leads to a lack of raison d’etre. A group needs a reason to be and this is some principle. Having the principle that everyone else is right defeats the purpose of having a group. Any such group that embraces this idea will soon enough cease to be.

It is true that the Catholic Church teaches truths that must be believed. But that is because she is a group, began as a group, and will always be a group.
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t get this, but I know it is a common complaint against the Church. I don’t get it because what group goes around saying it has the falsehood? What group goes around saying it has either certainty or uncertainty about the falsehood? I can’t think of any that do so.

All groups claim to have the truth. That is what makes them a group, their corporate commitment to that truth. You will find, especially in our times, some groups that claim to not be dogmatic. Of course they are dogmatic, at least about their supposed lack of dogmatism. And usually they have plenty of other dogmas.

What this claim against the certainty of the Catholic Church usually really means is a rejection of a particular doctrine. For instance most Protestants decry the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the Immaculate Conception, but not its dogmatic teaching about the Holy Trinity. There are of course Unitarians, but even most Protestants would say they are not even Christians having rejected the Trinity.

All Protestant groups, or any groups that stood in opposition to the Church, started out as being very dogmatic in whatever it was they rejected about the Catholic Church. It is really only in our time that they have embraced this ‘open-minded’ approach to Christian differences. Unfortunately for the cohesiveness of their group open-mindedness about things leads to a lack of raison d’etre. A group needs a reason to be and this is some principle. Having the principle that everyone else is right defeats the purpose of having a group. Any such group that embraces this idea will soon enough cease to be.

It is true that the Catholic Church teaches truths that must be believed. But that is because she is a group, began as a group, and will always be a group.
Click to expand...
Hi exnihilo,
At the risk of going slightly off topic, can you possibly expound on what I highlighted in red?

I am curious what the difference is between “belief” and “assent” for Catholics on such things as the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory, for example.

In other words, what are Catholics required to believe and what are things must they just be able to assent to in order to be considered a good Catholic?
 
Wannano said:
Compare what you have presented with post #51 on the thread Eucharistic Adoration and explain why I should not be confused. Thanks:o
Click to expand...
Certainly. Return to that thread, and you will see I have posted a fuller explanation there.
 
PJM said:
Sorry:blush:

I can’t speak for them:shrug:

What specifically do you wish to know as whether or not it’s an Infallible teaching? MAYBE I can help.

GOOD point!

GBY
Click to expand...
** one** example would be
Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an ** infallible** doctrine or not?

"When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. (These documents are carefully crafted. “Infallible is missing for a reason.) Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”–although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office. Canonists and theologians the world over argued that** the teaching was not infallible for a variety of reasons. -**”
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators, including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to state that the Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, is not infallible. In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
 
alwayswill said:
** one** example would be
Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an ** infallible** doctrine or not?

"When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. (These documents are carefully crafted. “Infallible is missing for a reason.) Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”–although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office. Canonists and theologians the world over argued that** the teaching was not infallible for a variety of reasons. -**”
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators, including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to state that the Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, is not infallible. In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
Click to expand...
This is rediculous. Not you my friend, but this argument, whoever wrote it.
 
PJM said:
The answer to your first question is The TRUTH which can only be singular per defined issue; hence there is but:

One True God [Isaiah 45:22]

Who can and does Have just One TRUE set of faith beliefs [Eph 4: 1-8]

& desired, founded and protects JUST the one Church He established [Mt 16:18]

And friend, you would be prudently advised to READ Hebrews 6:4-8; IF you would like an assist in translating this please send me a private message

GBY

Patrick
Click to expand...
And yet everything you say still requires faith. Faith in the Scriptures of course. Faith in an interpretation of those verses. Protestants do not share, for instance, the Catholic interpretation of Matt 16 and the rock. And in Matt 18:18 all of the disciples were given the power to bind and loosen which is the function of a key.
 
exnihilo said:
I don’t get this, but I know it is a common complaint against the Church. I don’t get it because what group goes around saying it has the falsehood? What group goes around saying it has either certainty or uncertainty about the falsehood? I can’t think of any that do so.

All groups claim to have the truth. That is what makes them a group, their corporate commitment to that truth. You will find, especially in our times, some groups that claim to not be dogmatic. Of course they are dogmatic, at least about their supposed lack of dogmatism. And usually they have plenty of other dogmas.

What this claim against the certainty of the Catholic Church usually really means is a rejection of a particular doctrine. For instance most Protestants decry the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on the Immaculate Conception, but not its dogmatic teaching about the Holy Trinity. There are of course Unitarians, but even most Protestants would say they are not even Christians having rejected the Trinity.

All Protestant groups, or any groups that stood in opposition to the Church, started out as being very dogmatic in whatever it was they rejected about the Catholic Church. It is really only in our time that they have embraced this ‘open-minded’ approach to Christian differences. Unfortunately for the cohesiveness of their group open-mindedness about things leads to a lack of raison d’etre. A group needs a reason to be and this is some principle. Having the principle that everyone else is right defeats the purpose of having a group. Any such group that embraces this idea will soon enough cease to be.

It is true that the Catholic Church teaches truths that must be believed. But that is because she is a group, began as a group, and will always be a group.
Click to expand...
Catholics and non-Catholics don’t define Christ’s Church in the same way. And rather than going around proclaiming only theirs is the one, there are non-Catholics who would include other faith communities even if they don’t agree on everything. And one reason the more open-minded groups exist is for seekers to seek.
 
alwayswill said:
** one** example would be
Is Ordinatio Sacerdotalis from 1994 an ** infallible** doctrine or not?

"When John Paul II ruled out the ordination of women in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, he used the expression “definitive,” but did not use the formula that would signal an infallible teaching; in fact the word “infallible” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. (These documents are carefully crafted. “Infallible is missing for a reason.) Cardinal Ratzinger, as prefect for the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith, argued in a response to a question about Ordinatio sacerdotalis that the teaching was part of the “deposit of faith” and therefore an infallible teaching of the “ordinary and universal magisterium”–although he knows full well that’s not how infalliblility works; something can’t be declared infallible by a Vatican office. Canonists and theologians the world over argued that** the teaching was not infallible for a variety of reasons. -**”
uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination

I have been astonished over the past few days at how many commentators, including Catholics widely known for their orthodoxy, have hastened to state that the Pope’s recent Apostolic Letter, “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, is not infallible. In fact, it is a textbook case of infallibility in action.

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT
Click to expand...
rcwitness said:
This is rediculous. Not you my friend, but this argument, whoever wrote it.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have distinguished which article I was referring to, when I said it’s ridiculous. The first article (uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/infallible-teaching-womens-ordination) is ridiculous.

Alwayswill, in all honesty, are you telling me you are confused whether the Teaching regarding ordination of women is unclear, or open to reform?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Catholics and non-Catholics don’t define Christ’s Church in the same way. And rather than going around proclaiming only theirs is the one, there are non-Catholics who would include other faith communities even if they don’t agree on everything. And one reason the more open-minded groups exist is for seekers to seek.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church includes as Christian all who have received Trinitarian baptism. It recognizes the Orthodox Church though they are in schism. So it does include others in a way even if they don’t fully agree.

The Church does say that it alone has the fullness of truth. Again I don’t see how this is really different from any non-Catholic group. They may recognize other groups but only in so far as they agree on what they have determined are the essentials. The recognition of another group’s legitimacy rests in the judgment of the group conferring legitimacy. Rejecting the Catholic Church’s claims is just asserting your own personal or group’s claim to that authority.
 
exnihilo said:
The Catholic Church includes as Christian all who have received Trinitarian baptism. It recognizes the Orthodox Church though they are in schism. So it does include others in a way even if they don’t fully agree.

The Church does say that it alone has the fullness of truth. Again I don’t see how this is really different from any non-Catholic group. They may recognize other groups but only in so far as they agree on what they have determined are the essentials. The recognition of another group’s legitimacy rests in the judgment of the group conferring legitimacy. Rejecting the Catholic Church’s claims is just asserting your own personal or group’s claim to that authority.
Click to expand...
There are non Catholics who regard all Christians as members of Christ’s church. Unlike Catholics, they don’t go around proclaiming that their particular faith community or denomination is the only one true church.
 
Sy_Noe said:
There are non Catholics who regard all Christians as members of Christ’s church. Unlike Catholics, they don’t go around proclaiming that their particular faith community or denomination is the only one true church.
Click to expand...
What does all Christians mean? There are criteria for who is a Christian whether that be from the Catholic Church’s perspective or from a non Catholic’s.

It is true many non Catholics don’t proclaim they are the one true Church. That seems to me more of a modern thing. Most Protestant groups started emphatically proclaiming they got it right. But even if they don’t proclaim it they believe it. That is they believe they have the right understanding of what Christianity is and who can be considered a Christian. The Catholic Church, from my perspective, seems more forthright about the matter.
 
exnihilo said:
What does all Christians mean? There are criteria for who is a Christian whether that be from the Catholic Church’s perspective or from a non Catholic’s.

It is true many non Catholics don’t proclaim they are the one true Church. That seems to me more of a modern thing. Most Protestant groups started emphatically proclaiming they got it right. But even if they don’t proclaim it they believe it. That is they believe they have the right understanding of what Christianity is and who can be considered a Christian. The Catholic Church, from my perspective, seems more forthright about the matter.
Click to expand...
I think that most non-Catholics proclaim they belong to the one true church and their denomination is a part of it.
 
Wannano said:
I think that most non-Catholics proclaim they belong to the one true church and their denomination is a part of it.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it more accurate to say, we, as a parish church are in complete communion with the universal Church head.?

As it is, denominations are NOT in complete communion with one another. We believe a complete Confirmation of sound doctrine is offered by Jesus, and it’s not apart from a visible leadership.

The denominations have a type (real, though imperfect) of communion with the Universal Church. It is through a valid reception of Baptism and the New Testament Scriptures.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Catholics and non-Catholics don’t define Christ’s Church in the same way. And rather than going around proclaiming only theirs is the one, there are non-Catholics who would include other faith communities even if they don’t agree on everything. And one reason the more open-minded groups exist is for seekers to seek.
Click to expand...
From the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:

“Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks.”

(I believe this statement bothers Catholics quite a lot … though I’m not sure whether we should get into the reasons why.)
 
rcwitness said:
Isn’t it more accurate to say, we, as a parish church are in complete communion with the universal Church head.?

As it is, denominations are NOT in complete communion with one another. We believe a complete Confirmation of sound doctrine is offered by Jesus, and it’s not apart from a visible leadership.

The denominations have a type (real, though imperfect) of communion with the Universal Church. It is through a valid reception of Baptism and the New Testament Scriptures.
Click to expand...
I like your words, “We believe”.
 
Peter_J said:
From the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church:

“Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks.”

(I believe this statement bothers Catholics quite a lot … though I’m not sure whether we should get into the reasons why.)
Click to expand...
Probably not. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top