What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[PRmerger]

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.

How would you respond to the Muslim who tells you, “See? Even your Scriptures tell you that Jesus was not God! Do not your Scriptures say that ‘All have sinned!’? So even your Jesus is included in that ‘all’, right?”

 

[ltwin]

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

Aww. How nice of you to say so. You’re too kind…

Which you have failed to answer:

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

Maybe I’m slow, but this sentence doesn’t make any sense to me.

At this point, I’ll simply be repeating what I’ve already written on this thread. I don’t see any reason in restating it.

 

[Porknpie]

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

Bat,

Just a couple of questions and one clarification.

Do you believe it is wrong to have feast days for her? Does the LCMS have feast days??

Do you believe she is “Queen of Heaven”? If so, what does that mean?

What do you believe about the Assumption? She was assumed into heaven or buried on earth?

or that she didn’t die.

The Church does not say that she did or did not.

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

 

[jmcrae]

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

Maybe I’m slow, but this sentence doesn’t make any sense to me.

In common language - where did the Table of Contents of the Bible come from, according to you?

History shows us that it came from the Catholic Church. It was discerned from 317 to 397 AD by many Bishops consulting among themselves and arguing between themselves, and then when they finally agreed on the list of books to be included in the Bible, it was promulgated to all of the Christian churches by Pope Innocent I as an infallible canon of the Scriptures in 405 AD.

 

[Stilldreamn]

Bat,

Just a couple of questions and one clarification.

Do you believe it is wrong to have feast days for her? Does the LCMS have feast days??

Do you believe she is “Queen of Heaven”? If so, what does that mean?

What do you believe about the Assumption? She was assumed into heaven or buried on earth?

The Church does not say that she did or did not.

966 "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death."508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

The LCMS does indeed have feast days.

Speaking only for myself, although I don’t have any scriptural basis for this belief I do believe in Mary’s Assumption - if only because if her body had been entombed on earth somebody, somewhere would claim to have her remains or part of them.

 

[ltwin]

In common language - where did the Table of Contents of the Bible come from, according to you?

History shows us that it came from the Catholic Church. It was discerned from 317 to 397 AD by many Bishops consulting among themselves and arguing between themselves, and then when they finally agreed on the list of books to be included in the Bible, it was promulgated to all of the Christian churches by Pope Innocent I as an infallible canon of the Scriptures in 405 AD.

Thanks. However, canonization has already been discussed in this thread. As I said above, I feel like I’m being asked to repeat myself.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

Isn’t valid and Sacramental different? I mean a Sacrament is an Action with the Word of God, right?

So a marriage that has taken place outside the CC and through Civil proceedings. Would it still be regarded as a Sacramental Marriage?

 

[jmcrae]

Isn’t valid and Sacramental different? I mean a Sacrament is an Action with the Word of God, right?

A Sacrament is a sign established by Christ to give grace, that actually is or actually does what it signifies.

So a marriage that has taken place outside the CC and through Civil proceedings. Would it still be regarded as a Sacramental Marriage?

If both parties to the marriage are baptized, and neither of them has ever been Catholic, then yes - it would be Sacramental.

if neither party is baptized or only one party is baptized, and neither has ever been Catholic, then the marriage is valid (it is an unbreakable bond for a lifetime) but not Sacramental. It would become Sacramental when both are baptized - no further ceremony would be required.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

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.

So when Paul quotes OT in Romans (Righteous in other translations instead of just)

[bibledrb]Romans 3:10[/bibledrb]
(ESV) as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one;

And he says that there is not one person that is righteous and I read Genesis

[bibledrb]Genesis 6:9[/bibledrb]
(ESV) These are the generations of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation. Noah walked with God.

Is Paul’s statement in Romans false?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If both parties to the marriage are baptized, and neither of them has ever been Catholic, then yes - it would be Sacramental.

I see something missing in the equation. What if one of the parties is Catholic?

Thanks!

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not denying that the church has traditions, history, and a historical memory. The church drew on the information that it had on the different books it had available to discern if they were inspired or not. And I have faith that they were led by God.

The Church of 405 AD had already defined the Four Dogmas of Mary, already had the Mass and private Confession to a priest. It looked almost exactly as it does today.

If the Church of 405 AD was led by God in discerning the Scriptures, then how is it that, apparently, that was the only thing God led them to? Why did He (according to Protestantism) lead them astray in absolutely everything else?

 

[grannymh]

. 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.

“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." from post 177

The Immaculate Conception was declared a doctrine by Pius IX in 1854, In Ineffabilis Deus, Pius IXsaid*:*
“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
(Source: CCC 487-511)

We can understand Mary, as being sinless, in the context of Elizabeth giving birth to John, Luke 1: 5-80. The canticle of Mary, Luke 1: 46-55, begins with her thanksgiving in joyful praise to God the Mighty One for His prevention of any sign of sin in her.

Luke 1: 48-49 coupled with Luke 1: 46-47, especially verse 49 “The Mighty One has done great things for me, and holy is His name.”

 

[grannymh]

The LCMS does indeed have feast days.

Speaking only for myself, although I don’t have any scriptural basis for this belief I do believe in Mary’s Assumption - if only because if her body had been entombed on earth somebody, somewhere would claim to have her remains or part of them.

Sometimes common sense such as yours works as well as scripture.

 

[Porknpie]

The LCMS does indeed have feast days.

Feast days for Mary too? I don’t know if you do or don’t?

Speaking only for myself, although I don’t have any scriptural basis for this belief I do believe in Mary’s Assumption - if only because if her body had been entombed on earth somebody, somewhere would claim to have her remains or part of them.

Agreed!

 

[grannymh]

Aww. How nice of you to say so. You’re too kind…

Maybe I’m slow, but this sentence doesn’t make any sense to me.

At this point, I’ll simply be repeating what I’ve already written on this thread. I don’t see any reason in restating it.

I understand your position.

Since I have wandered in this thread, I am not sure where I am in regard to you as OP. Please correct me. It seems that you are happy with the Bible as it is today. And you can agree with Catholic doctrines when their base is obvious in Scripture such as Genesis 1:1 God is the Creator.

I think you may think that a doctrine which has a strong foundation in Scripture and has been consistent over the centuries can be considered infallible. I will simply say “infallible” since this thread contains such a variety of opinions as to how, when, and why the words infallible and infallibility can be applied to this or that.

Beyond that you seem to have concerns about individual doctrines without naming them. Maybe you want to discuss them since your thread title has teachings which is plural?

 

[Stilldreamn]

Feast days for Mary too? I don’t know if you do or don’t?

Agreed!

Yes, August 15th

 

[batman1973]

Oh, but the disappointment to find out there’s no food served at church on feast days:crying:
That’s just cruel and misleading.

 

[rfournier103]

I know this was discussed earlier in the thread; but I don’t know if anyone brought this up in regards to infallibility… but I believe SEVERAL persons were indeed infallible when they penned their portions of the Holy Bible. Sinless? No. Infallible? Yes. Just sayin…

Personally, the Catholic teaching I have the hardest time with is turning the other cheek. That’s been a toughie for me, as I can be hot-headed at times, and don’t always like the idea of not avenging wrongs that have been done to me.

I know that’s a universal Christian teaching that comes directly from the Son of God, but that’s the hardest one to follow for me.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It would demonstrate a gross lack of integrity for you to attempt to become a Catholic, since you reject Catholic Teaching, don’t you think?

And you would not be received if you approached with such an attitude, so you would have to lie in order to “join the CC”. I should think it would be of grave concern what the state of your soul would be in such a situation. How could you stand before God?

  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.

I think you are grossly misinformed on these matters.

In any case, no one “takes” the Eucharist. We receive it. And those who do not give assent to the Teachings of Jesus contained in the Catechism are not invited to receive.

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.

So, in your scenario, you are proposing that you take an action such as “join the CC”
when your spouse “loathes the CC”? Would you not also be violating her integrity as well as your own?

Finally, yes, I was not charitable, I was irritable, and for that, I am sorry.

You do seem to have a great deal of hostility toward the CC.

But, I am a firm believer in Jesus, and I firmly believe that I am in His Church, and with His people, and I don’t need other people to tell me that I’m not in communion with Christ becuase I don’t belong to the right organization.

So that begs the question. You came to a Catholic forum. What else did you “need” to hear?

You can’t honestly expect us to jettison our beliefs to prevent your feelings from getting hurt, can you?

 

[guanophore]

The fact is I know that the Scripture is inspired.

You know this because of Sacred Tradition.

I don’t know if the traditions of any church which are not found in Scripture are inspired. I don’t know if the leaders of any church are inspired. I know that the Bible is inspired. All doctrine and teaching should have their basis in what is found in Scripture because it is known to be inspired.

It seems like it basically boils down to a trust issue. You choose to place your trust in yourself, and what you are able to know, rather than the Church founded by Christ.

In taking this position, you basically find Christ insfufficient, weak, impotent or disinterested in His Church, so that He did not keep His promises to guide her into all Truth.

He was unable, or unwilling to protect His Word where He placed it in the believers. The failures of men, in your view, are more powerful than the protection of God.