What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[guanophore]

Not sure why orthodoxy is so reluctant to declare dogmatically what they claim to believe with certainty?

they really have not had a need to do so

Dogmatic pronouncements take place to combat heresies. The East has not suffered the plethora of heresies that the Latin Church has due to the Reformation. Therefore, Dogmatic pronouncements were not necessary.

 

[guanophore]

 We believe in purgation, but not Purgatory as a place and time tied to plenary indulgences.

Well, Catholics don’t either! The state of purgation through which we are purified for heaven exists outside the space time continuum.

Indulgences are not always plenary, and they are not ever “tied” to those being purged. We offer them for those who have gone on in faith before us, but they also apply to the Church militant as well.

I am so delighted to find that what separates you from the Catholic faith is misunderstandngs and misinformation. It makes unity seem a little closer.

In general, it seems that Lutherans share a bit of willingness that I seem to see with the Orthodox to leave things a mystery rather than try to nail things down with definitions.

Yes. I think that the effort of Latins to make sense of mysteries has caused some major stumbling blocks.

 

[joe370]

Which church? I’m afraid this does not compute. There is only one church, and it is made up of all those who call Christ lord.

That’s my question. This feels like an abbot and Costello moment. LOL…God, doctrinally speaking, is not guiding the invisible church, comprised of all churches, into truth. That can be clearly evidenced.

 

[joe370]

they really have not had a need to do so

Dogmatic pronouncements take place to combat heresies. The East has not suffered the plethora of heresies that the Latin Church has due to the Reformation. Therefore, Dogmatic pronouncements were not necessary.

Good point.

 

[pablope]

Which church? I’m afraid this does not compute. There is only one church, and it is made up of all those who call Christ lord.

From the ancient creeds…the four marks of the church…one, holy, catholic and apostolivc…zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m3/Mod3.html

And the splendors of that Church…zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m1/splndr.html

 

[Miriam1947]

snip . . .

Is the answer that “it’s from the church so we know it’s valid?” That’s what I’m trying to ascertain. My suggestion was that because the bible doesn’t give a precedence for tradition that is not also recorded in its words then how can I trust tradition that comes to light thousands of years after the word was completed? You trust it because of the knowledge we derive from the bible. Do we not? If a validly ordained bishop in the catholic church says something wrong, teaches something wrong, he can’t just call it tradition and we all call it a day. So my question is what is extra biblical tradition being verified by?

This is a little rambly, sorry if it’s unclear.

There is a very good book by John Salza.

The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith. In it he uses only the Bible to explain the Catholic faith.

You can get it at a Catholic bookstore or order online.

Here is his website:

scripturecatholic.com

This may answer some of your questions about our faith and the Bible.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you are probably right…

My favorite 5 words!

And I haven’t been right since last year!

 

[maltmom]

My favorite 5 words!

And I haven’t been right since last year!

Where’s the “Like” button???

 

[PRmerger]

Where’s the “Like” button???

http://blog.kontera.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/like.png

 

[Truthstalker]

they really have not had a need to do so

Dogmatic pronouncements take place to combat heresies. The East has not suffered the plethora of heresies that the Latin Church has due to the Reformation. Therefore, Dogmatic pronouncements were not necessary.

That’s not quite right. While they did avoid the ‘errors of the Reformation’, they suffered wave after wave of earlier heresies. Arianism, for example arose in Alexandria. Most of the heresies arose in the East.

 

[grannymh]

Which church? I’m afraid this does not compute. There is only one church, and it is made up of all those who call Christ lord.

I have seen the reference to the concept that there is only one Church and it is made up of all those who call Christ Lord. You are the first person I can discuss this with. Thus, I have some thoughts and questions as I try to wrap my mind around the earthly practicality of this concept.

If one considers that the salvific mission of Christ is for all humankind, would not all humankind be the Church of Christ?

 

[guanophore]

Which church? I’m afraid this does not compute. There is only one church, and it is made up of all those who call Christ lord.

I agree with you Itwin, however, there are many factions, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit into “all Truth” and yet they are going in opposite directions.

That’s not quite right. While they did avoid the ‘errors of the Reformation’, they suffered wave after wave of earlier heresies. Arianism, for example arose in Alexandria. Most of the heresies arose in the East.

Yes, but councils were held, and dogma was pronounced in each case. There have not been these recent maladies in the East as there have been in the West due to the Reformation. the Reformation has spawned a hundred times more heresies than ever arose in the East before the Schism.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with you Itwin, however, there are many factions, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit into “all Truth” and yet they are going in opposite directions.

Indeed.

From home.inreach.com/bstanley/reform.htm

“But when he, the Spirit of Truth, has come, He will teach you all the truth.”
John 16:13
Most non-Catholic sects declare that the Holy Spirit is “teaching” them the truth. However, there can be only one truth. Since the advent of Sola Scriptura and individual interpretation of Scripture, how can the Holy Spirit be in each of the thousands of sects, teaching all of them opposing viewpoints? It is to be noted that all of the following denominations teach from the same Bible, so why the differences in teaching?

1. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
2. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
3. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
4. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
5. How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, “once saved always saved”, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
6. How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
7. How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
8. How can the Spirit (and Tradition) tell the Catholic Church the pope is infallible (ex cathedra), and tell the Orthodox he is not?

 

[benjohnson]

Well, Catholics don’t either! The state of purgation through which we are purified for heaven exists outside the space time continuum.

Indulgences are not always plenary, and they are not ever “tied” to those being purged. We offer them for those who have gone on in faith before us, but they also apply to the Church militant as well.

Guanophoe, I can’t find anything too objectionable in the CCC from a Lutheran standpoint, only that we would tend to echo Christ’s words of “It is finished!” What gives this Lutheran the willies are some of the private-revelations floating around out there - does the Catholic church condemn these private-revelations or are they ok for the faithful to find and adhere to? And if one adheres to them, is that considered a fuller faith?

Now this observation may say more about me than the Catholic church - as I’ve not been comfortable with too much that is extemporaneous; The typical Lutheran reaction to most of these private-revelations would be “That’s interesting. We won’t repeat that ever again for we don’t want to accidentally lead the flock away.”

 

[Truthstalker]

I agree with you Itwin, however, there are many factions, all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit into “all Truth” and yet they are going in opposite directions.

Yes, but councils were held, and dogma was pronounced in each case. There have not been these recent maladies in the East as there have been in the West due to the Reformation. the Reformation has spawned a hundred times more heresies than ever arose in the East before the Schism.

I know the Orthodox suffer from splinter sects we hear little off, such as the Old Russians, that seem to continually break off and sometimes come back into Othodoxy. I’m not sure as to the extent.

I am not sure it is accurate to place the blame for the heresies in the West on the Reformation as much as on the vacuum in church leadership before the Reformation. On re-reading that sentence, I am not sure that makes sense, unless you consider that the Reformation was both internal and external to the Catholic Church. Technically any teaching counter to Trent that was addressed by that Council is a heresy, so I don’t object to the use of that word. And there was weirdness, not all of which seems to have been addressed by Trent. Some of Trent condemned things that the Reformers (meaning Calvin and Luther) also condemned, as I understand it. I’m not expert enough on this to go beyond that - I tried reading Calvin’s “Antidote to Trent” to see what he thought but it was beyond little old me.

 

[grannymh]

Which church? I’m afraid this does not compute. There is only one church, and it is made up of all those who call Christ lord.

In addition to the question in post 391. I want to run a couple of thoughts by you. The first is that I have heard that Pentecostalism is considered the third force in Christianity. A second thought is that the Renewal of Pentecost was meant for all Christians.

 

[guanophore]

No, that isn’t it at all. I never said that I or anyone else had a right to read the Bible anyway they wanted to. I look to my church and those whom God has placed me among and has set over me, as well as reading the works of theologians at times to help me to understand the Scriptures. I also look beyond my immediate Pentecostal tradition at times and examine the teachings of the larger body of Christ to see if those traditions can provide a different perspective on the Bible.

Yes, I know you do Itwin. But if none of these sources accept what the Scirpture says about the Petrine gifts the same way the successors of the Apsotles understood them, then you will not “see” that doctrine in your bible.

 

[guanophore]

In the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition does not describe more accurately a world view or perspective…

The Church does not create “doctrine”, and proclamations that are developed and proposed for the belief of the faithful are not new doctrines.

The CC consideres that all doctrine came through Jesus, and was deposited “once for all” to the Church by the Apostles.

New proclamations that are made are called “dogma”, rather than “doctrine”. These are based on doctrines that were given to the Church by the Apostles, but often represent development and a deeper understanding of the doctrines placed in the Church during the first century.

Sacred Tradition is the way in which doctrines are infallibly preserved in the Church, and by which dogmas are created.

The Church does not “insist” that all doctrine be found in the Bible because the deposit of faith was whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written.

No attempt was made by the Church to make the NT a full compendium of the faith. It was never to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .So, if I were Catholic, I would have to submit religious mind and will to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking Ex Cathedra; and give full assent to his teachings that may, at a later date, be modified or even discovered to be erroneous.

When I look back through history and consider the actions and teachings of some previous Popes; it becomes a bit scarey. Papal history cannot escape its past of inquisitions, torture, executions, and scandals. To be fair, there is plenty of all that in non-Catholic history–but there is a difference in the idea of submission and infallibility.

My question to Catholics is, how far would you follow your Pope?

. . . .Not speaking Ex Cathedra can cover teachings from the Birth of Christ to the amount of genes in the human genome. The difference in topics has to be taken into consideration.

. . . .Seriously, as a Catholic I accept Catholic doctrines regardless of what the Pope does and despite how many people object to them or want to update them. To me, and one other person, Catholic theology as expressed in doctrines is logical.

I’ve searched far and wide. I have not seen such a list.

Ex-Cathedra statements were not defined until 1870 (Vatican I). Retro-Active application, in my humble opinion, is a moot point. It didn’t need to be there for 1,800+ years. . . .I perceive that the fear of “Infallibility” is because of what it might entail, instead of what it has proclaimed. It is a lot harder to trust a person than it is to trust a book. People change and hurt you, books are inanimate objects that just lay there until you pick them up and read them. However, books contain words that have meaning and present ideas and declarations.

Now imagine how the Church was before there was such a book. Imagine having to trust someone to bring you the Words of Salvation by word of mouth. No Canon, no list of books, just pieces of letters and translated papers from hundred of years away from their original language. Do you think those people in the early Church were saved? I believe they were. .

While the Holy Spirit can help me (no doubt) with the life application of Holy Scriptures in my life. It is necessary for me to submit myself to those the same Holy Spirit has chosen to actually define what those Holy Scriptures really mean and not what they “think” it means. One Universal Truth. . .As to how far would I follow the Pope? As far as the Church as a whole does.

Keeping in mind that a catholic ecumenical council and the bishop of Rome would always work collaboratively, even in a case where the bishop of Rome might speak from the chair. The Pope would never make a declarative decision without first convoking, as was the case with the IC and the assumption of Mary. Since I believe that God will always guide the CC into all truth, in terms of doctrinal matters e.g. the Trinity, IC, Theotokos etc., I would never stop following the CC leadership, with the Pope as the Vicar of Christ, for the simple fact that the God is the infallible guider. . . .

. . .Just like your children need to give their obedience to you, even if you are not infallible.

How much more do we need to follow our shepherd, even if he may be leading us in the wrong direction. For we trust that he will be guided, in the end, by the Good Shepherd.

Thank you for your careful research, Anna. I know this has been an issue of ongoing exploration for you.

Yes, it would be foolish to disregard the actions of some previous popes, but one must also keep in mind that these articles are referring to “encyclicals”, which are a very specific form of teaching/pastoral direction. The popes who have been corrupt, fortunately, had very little interest in teaching and guiding the flock of God, so did not offer such instruction. The most scandalous activities of popes have been confined to personal letters.

In answer to your question, I think each person will have to answer to God for acting in accord with their conscience. A well informed conscience will know the Scriptures and the Sacred Tradition, and therefore, be better able to discern in all things that they read, including papal encyclicals.

I think the concept of subjecting ourselves to authority is particularly difficult for Americans, since we have grown up in a culture of “don’t tread on me” and our national legacy is one that has been born out of rebellion.

We can speculate that the authority of the Apostles would have been easier for us to accept had we been part of those converted on the first Pentecost.

. . . .All the way…to the best of our ability and conscience.

Well, if the CC had in fact changed their defined doctrines, (as opposed to developing said doctrines over time, so that a fuller understanding of the original meaning could be realized in the face of changing times) then I would certainly understand your reluctance. . . .

I read all your responses to my question. Thank you grannymh, Isaiah45_9, joe370, PRmerger, guanophore, and pablope!

I love my Catholic friends!

Happy New Year,
Anna

 

[ltwin]

I have seen the reference to the concept that there is only one Church and it is made up of all those who call Christ Lord. You are the first person I can discuss this with. Thus, I have some thoughts and questions as I try to wrap my mind around the earthly practicality of this concept.

If one considers that the salvific mission of Christ is for all humankind, would not all humankind be the Church of Christ?

God loves the world, and his love has been poured out for all the world. However, not all who are in the world will embrace the love of God. My understanding of ecclesia is that it refers to the called out ones. The church is that part of the world that God has called out and consecrated for himself. Though everyone is invited to the feast, history shows that not everyone will choose to attend.