What are they asking?

[Antonius_Lupus]

Recently I was approached by a Protestant with a tract-like statement: The Gospel for Roman Catholics. She used the typical verses that she thinks are talking about “works salvation” you know the kind (Romans Road), which I refuted by the best of my ability.

In any case she keeps asking me something along the lines of: has the Roman Church ever infallibly interpreted the verses I just gave???

I don’t know what she is trying to do with this question, but I have heard it before in Boetner somewhere, yet I have no answer for her.

Any thoughts?

 

[Genesis315]

The Church doesn’t go through the Bible and “interpret” each and every verse. She gives broad guidelines for how the Scriptures should be read.

 

[Church_Militant]

Hi Antonius!

She’s all out of whack, but The truth is right there in the catechism (God forbid she should actually read it for herself).

All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392

II. CHRIST’S REDEMPTIVE DEATH IN GOD’S PLAN OF SALVATION

“Jesus handed over according to the definite plan of God”

599 Jesus’ violent death was not the result of chance in an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances, but is part of the mystery of God’s plan, as St. Peter explains to the Jews of Jerusalem in his first sermon on Pentecost: "This Jesus [was] delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God."393 This Biblical language does not mean that those who handed him over were merely passive players in a scenario written in advance by God.394

600 To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of “predestination”, he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace: "In this city, in fact, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place."395 For the sake of accomplishing his plan of salvation, God permitted the acts that flowed from their blindness.396

“He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures”

601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had “received”, St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."398 In particular Jesus’ redemptive death fulfills Isaiah’s prophecy of the suffering Servant.399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God’s suffering Servant.400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.401

I suggest that you print out a copy of God’s Love for You and give it to her along with a printout of Assurance of Salvation?, which concludes with.

What To Say

“Are you saved?” asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: “As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).”

 

[Teflon93]

Recently I was approached by a Protestant with a tract-like statement: The Gospel for Roman Catholics. She used the typical verses that she thinks are talking about “works salvation” you know the kind (Romans Road), which I refuted by the best of my ability.

In any case she keeps asking me something along the lines of: has the Roman Church ever infallibly interpreted the verses I just gave???

I don’t know what she is trying to do with this question, but I have heard it before in Boetner somewhere, yet I have no answer for her.

Any thoughts?

Doctrine is only DEFINED when it is VIOLATED.

Your interlocutor is trying to argue that anything not infallibly defined is therefore not believed by Catholics. This is not true. Catholics believe ALL of Scripture, including the Deuterocanonicals, in its totality. Non-Catholics of various stripes cherrypick Scripture to justify their various heresies.

 

[Gamera]

Recently I was approached by a Protestant with a tract-like statement: The Gospel for Roman Catholics. She used the typical verses that she thinks are talking about “works salvation” you know the kind (Romans Road), which I refuted by the best of my ability.

In any case she keeps asking me something along the lines of: has the Roman Church ever infallibly interpreted the verses I just gave???

I don’t know what she is trying to do with this question, but I have heard it before in Boetner somewhere, yet I have no answer for her.

Any thoughts?

You could start by asking her “What the heck is the Roman Church?” Then let her explain a little, and say “Ohhhh. You mean the Catholic Church. If you don’t even know the actual name of my church, then how can you claim to understand our teachings?”