What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[ltwin]

Precisely because no one volume Christian book called the Bible existed. And why? Because the early Christian church taught orally what was handed to her via the Holy Spirit. Those teachings were there Itwin yet not fully explained in detail( Trinity,Incarnation,Hypostatic Union,NT canon,etc). It is called doctrinal developlment which lied upon Apostolic Traditions later to be reserved and safe-guarded in Scripture. To deny Traditions is to deny one’s own humanity. Humans are full of Traditions passed on from one generation to the next.

I’m not against doctrinal development, which I think I made perfectly clear in my first post in this thread. If I were then I’d be in big trouble since the Pentecostal Movement of which I am a part is a doctrinal development. I and many other Christians around the world just simply refuse to accept all doctrinal developments that come out of the Catholic Church. We believed that doctrine should be perfected and developed closer to Scripture, and we’re not convinced by the Catholic Church’s arguments. I don’t know how to say it any simpler than that.

 

[batman1973]

Well, that segues into another interesting teaching proclaimed by the Catholic Church: premarital sex.

How so, you say?

Bear with me.

As you know, the Church proclaims that sex outside of marriage is immoral.

So what of a couple who are unmarried but truly love each other? They have not made the commitment, but say that they truly love each other so should be able to “go all the way”.

So do you believe that a couple should be able to engage in sex if they’re not married, but they really, really love each other?

There’s ya a sticky wicket, wot. LOL. Truth is, I’ve done the pre-maritials. Not proud of it, but, you know what? I know, because of the promise of Sacred Scripture that God has forgiven me, because I asked. Now, in both cases, I did rectify the situation by marrying said girls(2 different marriages.) As for other couples who co-habitate, and they know better, then they should either marry, or not have sex until marriage.

 

[batman1973]

Why? Was the marriage through the CC?

No.

 

[batman1973]

I’m not against doctrinal development, which I think I made perfectly clear in my first post in this thread. If I were then I’d be in big trouble since the Pentecostal Movement of which I am a part is a doctrinal development. I and many other Christians around the world just simply refuse to accept all doctrinal developments that come out of the Catholic Church. We believed that doctrine should be perfected and developed closer to Scripture, and we’re not convinced by the Catholic Church’s arguments. I don’t know how to say it any simpler than that.

Amen. Well said:thumbsup:

 

[batman1973]

Actually, the more you learn the Scriptures, the more you will find Christian Doctrine within them - and you will become more and more Catholic, the more you read.

The Church neither gives nor sells “annulments” - the Tribunal of the Church (which employs several very well educated people in full time positions, just like a regular law office) examines the situation to discern whether a marriage ever took place. If it did, no amount of money will obliterate that fact. You pay the money to have the work done - the result may or may not be to your liking.

It’s the same as hiring a lawyer to discern whether you broke the law. If you did, you still have to pay the lawyer for his services, as well as go to jail, or suffer whatever other penalty is required for your breaking the law. But if you didn’t, then you go free, and the ruling stands.

Actually, if you become single and remain in that state, you don’t have to do anything. The only way you’d need to have two marriage trials would be if you were to attempt marriage a third time.

Christ only established one Church - and it was never “invisible” or “hidden.” It was always set up as a city on a hill for all to see - Vatican City.

He means for all of us to be members of it.

Here’s the thing. Again, I don’t have a problem paying, but, I broke no law. Period. God Himself divorced Israel.(Jeremiah 3:8) So, God won’t hold blame for divorce. He wants healing and when possible, restoration. So, to have any church tell me that my divorce is invalid and I can’t partake of Communion, is, in my opinion not the church I want to be a part of. God loves and forgives. Man, not so much. This is where tradition has erred from Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s ya a sticky wicket, wot. LOL.

I’m not getting it.

Truth is, I’ve done the pre-maritials. Not proud of it, but, you know what? I know, because of the promise of Sacred Scripture that God has forgiven me, because I asked. Now, in both cases, I did rectify the situation by marrying said girls(2 different marriages.) As for other couples who co-habitate, and they know better, then they should either marry, or not have sex until marriage.

Yep. So there you go. You see that even if someone believes something (but I love him!!), one cannot engage in a behavior until one has “signed on the dotted line” so to speak (that is, get thee to a church before thee engages in marital acts!)

Similarly, even if someone believes something (it really is Jesus in the Eucharist!), one cannot engage in a behavior until one has “signed on the dotted line” so to speak (that is, get thee to an RCIA class and join us at the table at the Easter Vigil!)

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not against doctrinal development, which I think I made perfectly clear in my first post in this thread. If I were then I’d be in big trouble since the Pentecostal Movement of which I am a part is a doctrinal development. I and many other Christians around the world just simply refuse to accept all doctrinal developments that come out of the Catholic Church. We believed that doctrine should be perfected and developed closer to Scripture, and we’re not convinced by the Catholic Church’s arguments. I don’t know how to say it any simpler than that.

And you are not alone. Countless of heretical sects did too:

Arian,Eutyches,Nestorius,Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers,etc,etc throughtout the ages.

Either Jesus promised the Advocate to His Church and to guide into ALL Truth or Jesus simply pulled everyone’s leg?

Itwin:
We believed that doctrine should be perfected and developed closer to Scripture…

Which you have failed to answer:

Where is the CANON of Scripture mentioned IN the Bible and “developed” closer to Scripture?

 

[grannymh]

It’s the extra stuff that concerns me.(Mary,I agree she’s Theokotos, but not co-redemptrix or mediatrix, or that she was sinless, or that she didn’t die.Saints, Yes, there are saints, but prayer is to God and God alone. And the such)

I have started a response to your comments on annulment. While I am not totally sure about the Pauline Privilege, there is one annulment form which, in mind, seems to refer to it.

In the meantime, I was checking the thread to see what replies you had and I spotted the item above regarding the extra stuff.

In general, Marian doctrines flow from the original doctrine of Theokotos. CCC 66 refers to this process in general. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/66.htm

This process begins with a true statement such as Theokotos. Through study and prayer, often over centuries, the Catholic Church finds necessary truths which relate to Theokotos. My friend calls these truths indirect doctrines.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is based on her position as Theokotos in that being the Mother of God, she would naturally be assumed into heaven. One description of the assumption is that it was the happy departure of Mary from this life. Certainly, this is what Jesus would want for His mother. As I understand the doctrine, it is the “departure into heaven” which is important and not necessarily death as we experience it. However, please check the actual declaration document.

The co-redemptrix or mediatrix theory which we currently hear about is not a doctrine.
It is a proposal. This means that this theory is still under study. Regardless of how adamant its proponents are, it is not a necessary belief.

The doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception follows from Theokotos because human preparation for Theokotos is involved. The womb which nourished God would not be part of a wounded nature. Thus, Mary was preserved from the normal transmission of the state of original sin. The intimate love between Mother and Divine Child did not cease.

Yes, there are Saints. My mother is a Saint whose feast day is November 1, “Feast of all Saints.” The word “saint” simply says that the person is in heaven. I know I do not have the authority to call my Mother a Saint; but, it is her love for Jesus and all people that I consider saintly. When I remember her, it is kind of like talking to her.

Getting back to “but prayer is to God and God alone” Prayer to God is a necessity. Whether one prays to additional people in heaven is a personal decision. Yes, Catholicism does encourage prayer to Mary. And I would suggest that one at least winks at her.

Acknowledging Mary as Theokotos is appropriate. Appreciating her as Theokotos is also appropriate. As Theokotos, Mary emphasizes that God is primary. Nonetheless, praising her and thanking her for her motherhood is good – Hail Mary full of grace. It is all right to throw in a petition or two as long as you remember that she is secondary.

Eventually, I hope to get back to my reply on annulments.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s the thing. Again, I don’t have a problem paying, but, I broke no law. Period. God Himself divorced Israel.(Jeremiah 3:8) So, God won’t hold blame for divorce. He wants healing and when possible, restoration. So, to have any church tell me that my divorce is invalid and I can’t partake of Communion, is, in my opinion not the church I want to be a part of. God loves and forgives. Man, not so much. This is where tradition has erred from Scripture.

Sure, God loves and forgives.

If you are in an adulterous relationship, and have repented, God forgives you, batman.

You just cannot continue to engage in adultery. That means you haven’t really repented.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thanks! That’s what I thought.

 

[jmcrae]

The first marriage is considered valid (that is, binding until death ye do part) until proven otherwise by the Tribunal.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks! That’s what I thought.

Actually, it’s not true. All marriages are considered valid until proven otherwise by the Tribunal - even if they did not take place in a Catholic Church, and especially if both parties were not Catholic.

 

[grannymh]

Okay, this has been on my mind, and I’m gonna share it. Let’s say for the sake of argument, I decide to join the CC. What kind of Catholic do you think I’d make? I’m a firm believer in placing everything in submission to the Authority of God’s written Word, meaning I’d reject many catholic traditions.

The confusing way this thread treats the word “tradition” should be put aside.

In brief, over the centuries, acting with the authority found in John 14: 25-26, the Catholic Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit has made more explicit the Divine Revelation which is in the Holy Bible or which flows from the Holy Bible.
Please refer to CCC 66 scborromeo.org/ccc/para/66.htm

I can’t take the Eucharist because I’m divorced,I’d have to pay the Church for their “annulment”, and that divorce was to a non-believer, and she left me, so as Paul says I can let her go.

Annulments come in different forms according to individual circumstances such as who performed the marriage ceremony, a justice of the peace? and was there a valid Baptism? Thus, the form used for this type of annulment is short. In addition to the main form, affidavits may be needed to determine if the marriage was a valid sacramentally one.

The Pauline Privilege has specific requirements. Because I don’t trust some of the websites which claim to be Catholic, my suggestion is to check with the Catholic diocese. Usually, there is a person connected with the Marriage Tribunal or whatever it is called. It is this person’s job to answer questions. In our diocese, this person has come to our parish to answer questions.

Also, my second wife, who was baptised Catholic (though them’s fighting words for her. She loathes the CC) if that ends in divorce, there’s two annulments to pay for.

Don’t cross that bridge until it is necessary. In my humble opinion, for your own peace of soul, deal with the first marriage in some way. Note: both parties do not necessarily have to file for an annulment. At least that is what has happened in the past. Even if you are just thinking about becoming Catholic, it may be a good idea to check the status of your first marriage especially if it is a case for the Pauline Privilege. Another note: depending on the formula used for Baptism, a Lutheran Baptism can be considered as a valid Catholic Baptism.

I am sorry that all this sounds so complex, but in the long run it helps clarify the importance of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Blessings,
granny

John 3:16

 

[batman1973]

Sure, God loves and forgives.

If you are in an adulterous relationship, and have repented, God forgives you, batman.

You just cannot continue to engage in adultery. That means you haven’t really repented.

If I was in an adulterous relationship, then I’d be worried, but, all the prayer and study that I’ve done shows that I’m not. Marriage number 2 is in trouble because of my own failings not because we’re still in an adulterous relationship.

 

[PRmerger]

If I was in an adulterous relationship, then I’d be worried, but, all the prayer and study that I’ve done shows that I’m not. Marriage number 2 is in trouble because of my own failings not because we’re still in an adulterous relationship.

So what do you make of Jesus’ words that if you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery?

 

[jmcrae]

Your teachers also probably never expected you to find yourself in a situation where you would need to know the status of a non-Catholic marriage.

 

[batman1973]

I have started a response to your comments on annulment. While I am not totally sure about the Pauline Privilege, there is one annulment form which, in mind, seems to refer to it.

In the meantime, I was checking the thread to see what replies you had and I spotted the item above regarding the extra stuff.

In general, Marian doctrines flow from the original doctrine of Theokotos. CCC 66 refers to this process in general. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/66.htm

This process begins with a true statement such as Theokotos. Through study and prayer, often over centuries, the Catholic Church finds necessary truths which relate to Theokotos. My friend calls these truths indirect doctrines.

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is based on her position as Theokotos in that being the Mother of God, she would naturally be assumed into heaven. One description of the assumption is that it was the happy departure of Mary from this life. Certainly, this is what Jesus would want for His mother. As I understand the doctrine, it is the “departure into heaven” which is important and not necessarily death as we experience it. However, please check the actual declaration document.

The co-redemptrix or mediatrix theory which we currently hear about is not a doctrine.
It is a proposal. This means that this theory is still under study. Regardless of how adamant its proponents are, it is not a necessary belief.

The doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception follows from Theokotos because human preparation for Theokotos is involved. The womb which nourished God would not be part of a wounded nature. Thus, Mary was preserved from the normal transmission of the state of original sin. The intimate love between Mother and Divine Child did not cease.

Yes, there are Saints. My mother is a Saint whose feast day is November 1, “Feast of all Saints.” The word “saint” simply says that the person is in heaven. I know I do not have the authority to call my Mother a Saint; but, it is her love for Jesus and all people that I consider saintly. When I remember her, it is kind of like talking to her.

Getting back to “but prayer is to God and God alone” Prayer to God is a necessity. Whether one prays to additional people in heaven is a personal decision. Yes, Catholicism does encourage prayer to Mary. And I would suggest that one at least winks at her.

Acknowledging Mary as Theokotos is appropriate. Appreciating her as Theokotos is also appropriate. As Theokotos, Mary emphasizes that God is primary. Nonetheless, praising her and thanking her for her motherhood is good – Hail Mary full of grace. It is all right to throw in a petition or two as long as you remember that she is secondary.

Eventually, I hope to get back to my reply on annulments.

Okay, you certainly are well read! Here’s my reply. One, Notice is Sacred Scripture that there is only one person mentioned in the New Testament who was Immaculatly Conceived, and then taken to heaven. That would be Jesus. Now, you’d think that if that miracle happened more then once, especially with Jesus’ Mom, that would get mention. As for Mary and Joseph having kids, well, it’s shown that they are faithful Jews that follow the law. One of God’s laws is: Be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is for the purpose of pro creating. The CC even acknowledges this, but has the hard time making the logical leap of faith that Mary and Joseph would have other kids. It doesn’t make Mary any-less Theokotos. She will always be the mother of our Lord. But, the truth, even by her own words she needed a Savior:And Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,
and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47 KJV) Sinless people don’t need a savior. Only sinners.

 

[jmcrae]

Okay, you certainly are well read! Here’s my reply. One, Notice is Sacred Scripture that there is only one person mentioned in the New Testament who was Immaculatly Conceived, and then taken to heaven. That would be Jesus. Now, you’d think that if that miracle happened more then once, especially with Jesus’ Mom, that would get mention.

Mary is not the subject of the New Testament. There were a great many miracles taking place during New Testament times, but only a very few of them are mentioned. Since Mary did not pass into Heaven until after the death of the Apostles other than John, it is unlikely that they would have written about it.

John did write about it, in Revelation chapter 12, but in such a way that assumes the community already knew about it.

As for Mary and Joseph having kids, well, it’s shown that they are faithful Jews that follow the law. One of God’s laws is: Be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is for the purpose of pro creating. The CC even acknowledges this, but has the hard time making the logical leap of faith that Mary and Joseph would have other kids.

And yet, when Jesus was 12 years old, when Mary and Joseph took him to the Temple, they were not present.

When Jesus died on the Cross, not one of these other children showed up to take care of Mary.

It doesn’t make Mary any-less Theokotos. She will always be the mother of our Lord. But, the truth, even by her own words she needed a Savior:And Mary said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord,
and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior." (Luke 1:46-47 KJV) Sinless people don’t need a savior. Only sinners.

Mary was saved pre-emptively, before she sinned. Which is better - to be warned of the trap beforehand, and not fall into it? Or to fall in and then be rescued? Surely it is a greater salvation never to have sinned in the first place.

 

[batman1973]

He did teach that. But the LCMS church does not say that we have to believe that. And, as to who needs a savior : All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God.(Romans 3:23 KJV) Dictionary.com: All: the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.
2. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.
3. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.
4. every: all kinds; all sorts.
5. any; any whatever: beyond all doubt.

Jesus died for all, once and for all. We are all sinners, Mary included.
Anyway, for all of you who have dialouged with me so far: this is the part where we agree to disagree. You aren’t going to change what God has already revealed to me as truth. I do not agree with several Catholic traditions. They imho defy logic, and scripture. God has confirmed this in my heart. Therefore, I will not “come home to Rome” since I’m already home.

 

[jmcrae]

He did teach that. But the LCMS church does not say that we have to believe that. And, as to who needs a savior : All have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God.(Romans 3:23 KJV) Dictionary.com: All: the whole of (used in referring to quantity, extent, or duration): all the cake; all the way; all year.

And yet, we know that babies can’t sin, or those who don’t have the use of reason. (Do they need a Saviour? Yes. No one can get to Heaven without Jesus. Being forgiven of sins is only the first step - a step that those without sin may omit.)

And by the way, I often hear “all year” used to mean, 9 months of the year, excluding December, July, and August. And people describe the shorter RCIA process as “one year” when in actuality it is less than eight months.

1. the whole number of (used in referring to individuals or particulars, taken collectively): all students.

Again, usually not every student - “all students must …” usually excludes the students in special programming.

1. the greatest possible (used in referring to quality or degree): with all due respect; with all speed.

The phrase “with all due respect” is usually followed up with something disrespectful, in practice.

“with all speed” is meaningless, other than to say, “as fast as you can.” Which might be slow as a turtle, depending on the individual.

“All” very seldom includes every possible instance.

Jesus died for all, once and for all. We are all sinners, Mary included.
Anyway, for all of you who have dialouged with me so far: this is the part where we agree to disagree. You aren’t going to change what God has already revealed to me as truth. I do not agree with several Catholic traditions. They imho defy logic, and scripture. God has confirmed this in my heart. Therefore, I will not “come home to Rome” since I’m already home.

Jeremiah 17:9 - be sure that what is speaking to you in your heart is truly God, and not merely your own wishful thinking.