Traditions of men - us vs them

[mikekle]

When I was younger, I was good friends with a Pentecostal man and his family, he was brought up catholic, but when he first went to a Pentecostal church, he never went back to the CC. While I have not seen them for many year or been to one of these services in awhile, I can say, the year or so I was involved, I did truly feel like it I was on the right path, versus being in the CC.

Actually I still think about this alot, I have alot of respect for Pentecostals, I met quite a few of them, and from what I saw, for the most part, they lived their faith, while in my current CC parish, most of the people seem to just ‘go thru the motions’ every sunday and leave their faith at the door when they leave.

The thing that noticed as well, after the services, people would gather outside, or all meet at a local restaurant to eat together, and during these times, they actually talked about the faith, the bible, God, etc. where as most catholics that talk after mass, usually the topics are work, school, kids related, nothing much about the bible, or how they are living their faith.

Another thing Ive noticed about my CC parish, at least with people I know, they actually expect mass to take a certain amount of time and if it goes longer, they usually will get up and leave or get kind of annoyed about it, versus the Pentecostals, their services only list the start times, can go for an hour or it could be 4 hours, no one seems to mind though.

I may be reading the wrong ‘signals’, but I truly feel like alot of catholics at my parish and people from other CCs Ive met, are really only catholic because they were brought up this way, and their parents engrained it into them, and they do the same thing with their kids, but they dont really live the faith (if that makes any sense), like they only go to mass thinking they are somehow doing what God wants them to do and thats where it ends.

I struggle with this alot, I felt like a better person when I was at the Pentecostal church, I felt like I was in a place that God wanted me to be in, Ive never felt this at any CC, Im not sure why this is, but I definitely notice a difference.

 

[mdcpensive1]

When I was younger, I was good friends with a Pentecostal man and his family, he was brought up catholic, but when he first went to a Pentecostal church, he never went back to the CC. While I have not seen them for many year or been to one of these services in awhile, I can say, the year or so I was involved, I did truly feel like it I was on the right path, versus being in the CC.

Actually I still think about this alot, I have alot of respect for Pentecostals, I met quite a few of them, and from what I saw, for the most part, they lived their faith, while in my current CC parish, most of the people seem to just ‘go thru the motions’ every sunday and leave their faith at the door when they leave.

The thing that noticed as well, after the services, people would gather outside, or all meet at a local restaurant to eat together, and during these times, they actually talked about the faith, the bible, God, etc. where as most catholics that talk after mass, usually the topics are work, school, kids related, nothing much about the bible, or how they are living their faith.

Another thing Ive noticed about my CC parish, at least with people I know, they actually expect mass to take a certain amount of time and if it goes longer, they usually will get up and leave or get kind of annoyed about it, versus the Pentecostals, their services only list the start times, can go for an hour or it could be 4 hours, no one seems to mind though.

I may be reading the wrong ‘signals’, but I truly feel like alot of catholics at my parish and people from other CCs Ive met, are really only catholic because they were brought up this way, and their parents engrained it into them, and they do the same thing with their kids, but they dont really live the faith (if that makes any sense), like they only go to mass thinking they are somehow doing what God wants them to do and thats where it ends.

I struggle with this alot, I felt like a better person when I was at the Pentecostal church, I felt like I was in a place that God wanted me to be in, Ive never felt this at any CC, Im not sure why this is, but I definitely notice a difference.

I can relate to everything you have said. But you and I know that it is not about feelings. At Mass, just to offer myself along with the sacrifice that Christ did to the Father should mean everything. But we are creatures of senses. We want the smells, sounds, looks and feelings that give us evidence or corroborate what we think is right. But God knows and that is what counts even if we can’t feel what He knows. I would not trade anything about our faith for good feelings.

 

[Abu]

mdcpensive1 #1
My question is if they do not know the forms of worship Christ wants from His Church then are they making their own “traditions of men”. What determines what traditions are appropriate and ones that are not. I ask this because some friends of mine have left the faith and gone to a more so called bible based church. Do I explain to them about “traditions of men” and do we in the Catholic liturgies have any of them also. How should I proceed ??

It is vital to encourage them to follow Jesus as He taught. This how He taught:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“Christ used the word ‘Church’ only twice, which the evangelists identified with ekklesia, corresponding to the Hebrew term quhal, meaning a congregation or assembly of the faithful.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 209).

The Church founded by Jesus of Nazareth is universal. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

No other sect or church has the fullness of Christ’s foundation of His Church nor teaches the fullness of His truths with the infallible freedom from error in teaching dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321).

 

[steve_b]

You said that Protestantism is a heresy. He said that it isn’t.

I quoted. The Great Heresies

Protestantism = material heresy

formal, heresy otoh, requires one’s knowledge. THAT’s the point I’m stressing.

Therefore, “once one knows…” 846 then ignorance is no longer innocent, and not an excuse for THEM. They are culpable
M:

The answer is in your Catechism, and it is not about “heresy”:
1400 Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation and separated from the Catholic Church, “have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery in its fullness, especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” It is for this reason that, for the Catholic Church, Eucharistic intercommunion with these communities is not possible.

that also describes , a refusal to return home to the Catholic Church. With knowledge, that continuance in seperation, can become one’s obstinate post baptismal denial of truth.

As the CCC teaches
Heresy:
2089"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

When I quoted Paul
Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ),after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

1. 
   *]Paul is talking about the baptised, christians
   *]education (admonishment) of one who is in error
   *]After repeated attempts, if no results,
   *]the CCC uses obstinance, Paul uses perverted to describe that person .
   *]Paul identifies the sin as grave, because he says the person is self condemned .
   
   Not my opinion, I’m just quoting.
   M:
   

   about these “separated communities”:
   817 In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable [Your quotation from Titus is relevant there]. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”
   Note the explicit avoidance of blame:

   OTOH, Nothing there suggests liscense to divide.
   M:
   

   Further, be aware that
   “818 However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as **brothers **in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

   knowledge behind one’s actions makes one’s sin culpable.
   
   846
   M:
   

   So, according at least to the Catholic Catechism, Protestants have a right to be called Christians, to be accepted with respect and affection, and not to be accused of heresy. Your own expressed views are quite different.

   I never said Protestants weren’t Christian.
   Everyone of these heresies is made up of Christians The Great Heresies
   M:
   

   The question is unanswerable, as it asks what others feel. It is also irrelevant to the canon law statement that they have the *right *to seek the truth, and which does not limit *where *they can seek it.

   It’s answerable for each individual. We are to seek truth
   M:
   

   Except for the part where you claimed that they were “putting their salvation in jeopardy” by doing something which canon law affirms is their right.

   Right ≠ liscence to choose, do, or remain in the wrong

 

[CatholicHockey7]

I quoted. The Great Heresies

Protestantism = material heresy

formal, heresy otoh, requires one’s knowledge. THAT’s the point I’m stressing.

Therefore, “once one knows…” 846 then ignorance is no longer innocent, and not an excuse for THEM. They are culpable

that also describes , a refusal to return home to the Catholic Church. With knowledge, that continuance in seperation, can become one’s obstinate post baptismal denial of truth.

As the CCC teaches
Heresy:
2089"Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;

When I quoted Paul
Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ),after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

1. 
   *]Paul is talking about the baptised, christians
   *]education (admonishment) of one who is in error
   *]After repeated attempts, if no results,
   *]the CCC uses obstinance, Paul uses perverted to describe that person .
   *]Paul identifies the sin as grave, because he says the person is self condemned .
   
   Not my opinion, I’m just quoting.
   
   OTOH, Nothing there suggests liscense to divide.
   
   knowledge behind one’s actions makes one’s sin culpable.
   
   846
   
   I never said Protestants weren’t Christian.
   Everyone of these heresies is made up of Christians The Great Heresies
   
   It’s answerable for each individual. We are to seek truth
   
   Right ≠ liscence to choose, do, or remain in the wrong

1. 
   Something I’ll add to this, my understanding is that when the Church speaks of “knowledge” in cases like this it’s not in the sense of knowing what the Church teaches, but also understanding why and the importance of that teaching.

 

[Mystophilus]

That’s fine. You go right ahead selecting the parts of your Church’s teaching which you want to follow.

 

[mdcpensive1]

It is vital to encourage them to follow Jesus as He taught. This how He taught:
**All four promises to Peter alone: **
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve].

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“Christ used the word ‘Church’ only twice, which the evangelists identified with ekklesia, corresponding to the Hebrew term quhal, meaning a congregation or assembly of the faithful.” (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday 1975, p 209).

The Church founded by Jesus of Nazareth is universal. Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

No other sect or church has the fullness of Christ’s foundation of His Church nor teaches the fullness of His truths with the infallible freedom from error in teaching dogma and doctrine on faith and morals.

The apostles were a collegial community, under Peter. “By the end of the apostolic age, the bishops of the Catholic Church began meeting together on a regional basis, and with the first ecumenical council at Nicaea in 325, this co-operative activity reached worldwide proportions.” (Fr John A Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism, Doubleday, 1975, p 320-321).

Thank you for taking the time to reply. It is interesting the passages concerning Peter. I never saw them listed in one place before. I do have a copy of John Hardon’s Dictionary and Catechism so I guess I could look up some of the things you wrote.

What you said is a good start to a conversation I hope to have with them.

 

[mdcpensive1]

That’s fine. You go right ahead selecting the parts of your Church’s teaching which you want to follow.

This may be a bit off topic but it seems heresy is a debateable topic. It seems like the same reasons to have mortal sin in that you have to know it is a direct turning from what God wants. I don’t think that many protestants even know what the Catholic Church teaches and how that differs from what they know.

It is an interesting topic maybe picked up on some other thread.

 

[Mystophilus]

This may be a bit off topic but it seems heresy is a debateable topic. It seems like the same reasons to have mortal sin in that you have to know it is a direct turning from what God wants. I don’t think that many protestants even know what the Catholic Church teaches and how that differs from what they know.

That is part of what the Catechism says and what Canon Law implies, and the view of the Pope Emeritus is also well worth reading.

 

[mdcpensive1]

That is part of what the Catechism says and what Canon Law implies, and the view of the Pope Emeritus is also well worth reading.

Thanks for your information and BTW, love your location !!

 

[Mystophilus]

Thanks for your information and BTW, love your location !!

Thanks, I do too.

 

[steve_b]

That’s fine. You go right ahead selecting the parts of your Church’s teaching which you want to follow.

Protestants like the either/or. This is not an either/ or. It’s you who is not only being selective but reading into the selection your own understanding.

 

[steve_b]

This may be a bit off topic but it seems heresy is a debateable topic. It seems like the same reasons to have mortal sin in that you have to know it is a direct turning from what God wants. I don’t think that many protestants even know what the Catholic Church teaches and how that differs from what they know.

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize and we do evangelize. Just as Catholics evangerlized the world in the beginning, just as we’re called to the new evangelization today.

As for me, until proven to the contrary, I personally, don’t approach or assume a Protestant no matter the stripe, is ignorant of the Catholic Church. As for what the Catholic Church teaches, can’t we also find either directly or indirectly in scripture what the Catholic Church teaches? Afterall, it’s the Catholic Church that wrote, collected and canonized the NT, and collected and canonized the OT books, so that we have a bible today to read. So if a Protestant reads scripture, they’re well on their way to knowing what the Catholic Church teaches…true?

Therefore, if a Protestant is truly a bible believer, they are already reading our book. Where’s the big mystery here in knowing what the Catholic Church teaches?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize and we do evangelize. Just as Catholics evangerlized the world in the beginning, just as we’re called to the new evangelization today.

As for me, until proven to the contrary, I personally, don’t approach or assume a Protestant no matter the stripe, is ignorant of the Catholic Church. As for what the Catholic Church teaches, can’t we also find either directly or indirectly in scripture what the Catholic Church teaches? Afterall, it’s the Catholic Church that wrote, collected and canonized the NT, and collected and canonized the OT books, so that we have a bible today to read. So if a Protestant reads scripture, they’re well on their way to knowing what the Catholic Church teaches…true?

Therefore, if a Protestant is truly a bible believer, they are already reading our book. Where’s the big mystery here in knowing what the Catholic Church teaches?

It’s not entirely true that they’re reading “our book.” For starters, most protestants use versions of the Bible which exclude the 7 Deuterocanonical books, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther.

They have the same 27 books of the NT, but without the complete OT it is difficult to come to the same conclusions Catholics do about NT scripture.

Also, whether they realize or not, many protestant churches come from an anti-Catholic background. Even if they’re a few generations removed from that history, it still colors their beliefs and teachings about Scripture. They just don’t know it and even if they do they don’t know why.

That’s why, regardless of the denomination, we see so many of the same attacks on Catholicism recycled over and over again (Call no man Father, worshipping Mary and the Saints, Church built on Peter’s profession of faith not on the man himself, man-made traditions, etc.). Sometimes these people are blatantly anti-Catholic, but most of the time it’s just ignorance born out of their own faith traditions.

 

[steve_b]

It’s not entirely true that they’re reading “our book.” For starters, most protestants use versions of the Bible which exclude the 7 Deuterocanonical books, as well as parts of Daniel and Esther.

They have the same 27 books of the NT, but without the complete OT it is difficult to come to the same conclusions Catholics do about NT scripture.

I would just say, Even after Protestants removed 7 ot books, the Catholic Church still gave the world the bible. It is our book.
CH:

Also, whether they realize or not, many protestant churches come from an anti-Catholic background. Even if they’re a few generations removed from that history, it still colors their beliefs and teachings about Scripture. They just don’t know it and even if they do they don’t know why.

True, but if they are reading from our book, then they are not totally clueless to much of our teaching, even if they don’t understand it completely, or even where they got the bible from in the 1st place.

That’s just one of a slew of dilemas for them
CH:

That’s why, regardless of the denomination, we see so many of the same attacks on Catholicism recycled over and over again (Call no man Father, worshipping Mary and the Saints, Church built on Peter’s profession of faith not on the man himself, man-made traditions, etc.). Sometimes these people are blatantly anti-Catholic, but most of the time it’s just ignorance born out of their own faith traditions.

True.

It’s why Protestantism is one of The Great Heresies in history. It’s why the Church calls for a new evangelization by Catholics. We need to educate these folks and the rest of the world. Agreed?

 

[DCNBILL]

It strikes me that, if you take what you saw as useful in their service and talk to people in your parish about utilising ideas from that, and if they take what they know from your service and talk to people in the other church about utilising ideas from that, everybody benefits.

After all, the rosary was not originally Christian (it’s ultimately Buddhist, having reached Christianity via Islam), and that has been put to good use, hasn’t it?

Buddhists believed that Mary was the mother of God?

 

[Mystophilus]

Buddhists believed that Mary was the mother of God?

No, the physical object, not the prayer. Buddhists were (apparently) the first to use prayer beads, which migrated through the Islamic world, and were then adopted by Christians.

 

[Lucy107]

Therefore, “once one knows…” 846 then ignorance is no longer innocent, and not an excuse for THEM. They are culpable

What exactly constitutes knowledge; from what point on can it be said that a man knows something?

If you recite something to someone, does this automatically mean that the person knows it?

 

[steve_b]

What exactly constitutes knowledge; from what point on can it be said that a man knows something?

If you recite something to someone, does this automatically mean that the person knows it?

Since you don’t give a specific example, I guess I have to provide one.

Speed limit signs say 65 on the freeway. The highway patroleman clocks you going 80 in a 65 speed limit zone, and pulls you over and gives you a ticket. Are you gonna plead ignorance to the speed limit?

 

[mdcpensive1]

That’s why Catholics are to evangelize and we do evangelize. Just as Catholics evangerlized the world in the beginning, just as we’re called to the new evangelization today.

As for me, until proven to the contrary, I personally, don’t approach or assume a Protestant no matter the stripe, is ignorant of the Catholic Church. As for what the Catholic Church teaches, can’t we also find either directly or indirectly in scripture what the Catholic Church teaches? Afterall, it’s the Catholic Church that wrote, collected and canonized the NT, and collected and canonized the OT books, so that we have a bible today to read. So if a Protestant reads scripture, they’re well on their way to knowing what the Catholic Church teaches…true?

Therefore, if a Protestant is truly a bible believer, they are already reading our book. Where’s the big mystery here in knowing what the Catholic Church teaches?

As for me I don’t assume I know what they have been taught. I can assume as make an assuming mistake that I rather not make.