What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[guanophore]

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.

I think it does make her not Theotokos, then, Batman. I say this because the coucil that adopted this name for her recieved the apostolic teaching that she was “all holy”, perpetual virgin, and taken up by her son to heaven when her days on earth were completed. So basically you have taken away the identity of the woman they named as Theotokos, and replaced her with one of modern making that is substantially different.

Theotokos is a title that belongs to Mary the mother of Jesus of whom the Apostles taught.

 

[benjohnson]

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.

The non-Aglican and non-Lutheran Protestants I’ve talked to about this issue don’t usually know there is a dichotomy to chose from - they view their sincere exploration of the bible as getting to know God directly. They don’t even think they are turning their back on the church, only that they are looking forward to the gospel.

 

[grannymh]

just for fun…

Speaking of Sacred Tradition…
And wondering where this Sacred Tradition comes from…
Christians other than Catholics may be as interested as I am…

Has anyone read the footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition? If you have, what was your impression of the ones you read and in which paragraphs were these footnotes? I would like to compare your impression with mine. That is reasonable.

And if I may gently add, CCC 18-22 (especially 20-21) are important to read before you start reading.

 

[PRmerger]

just for fun…

Speaking of Sacred Tradition…
And wondering where this Sacred Tradition comes from…
Christians other than Catholics may be as interested as I am…

Has anyone read the footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition? If you have, what was your impression of the ones you read and in which paragraphs were these footnotes? I would like to compare your impression with mine. That is reasonable.

And if I may gently add, CCC 18-22 (especially 20-21) are important to read before you start reading.

I don’t believe the footnotes are considered Sacred Tradition. They are, as the CCC explains so eloquently in the paragraphs you provided, “supplemental explanations.”

 

[stewstew03]

The non-Aglican and non-Lutheran Protestants I’ve talked to about this issue don’t usually know there is a dichotomy to chose from - they view their sincere exploration of the bible as getting to know God directly. They don’t even think they are turning their back on the church, only that they are looking forward to the gospel.

A gospel that the Church says is inspired. The Protestants you mentioned tend to forget that element.

 

[grannymh]

I don’t believe the footnotes are considered Sacred Tradition. They are, as the CCC explains so eloquently in the paragraphs you provided, “supplemental explanations.”

Thank you for replying to post 206

Clarification – CCC 20-21 does not refer to footnotes.

One has to read footnotes, most likely on more than one page, in order to determine general content before making an opinion on “Sacred Tradition” and footnotes.

That is why in post 206 I asked:
“Has anyone read the footnotes in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition? If you have, what was your impression of the ones you read and in which paragraphs were these footnotes? I would like to compare your impression with mine. That is reasonable.”

By the way, where can I find the written texts of “Sacred Tradition”? Or would it be easier to provide a list of the items in “Sacred Tradition”?.

Note:
If the other posters who talk about “Sacred Tradition” have a list of the items in “Sacred Tradition” or can tell me where I can find the written texts of “Sacred Tradition” – I would be most happy to hear from you.

 

[benjohnson]

A gospel that the Church says is inspired. The Protestants you mentioned tend to forget that element.

I was just trying to explain that it’s not a lack of trust that may necessarily closes them off to the church - that it could be simple lack of awareness.

 

[guanophore]

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

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.

You keep insisting that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture (such that you as a private individual can discern it) and yet in practice you violate this man made tradition, because you are using a canon that is not described in that Scripture.

This is why Catholics say that our separated brethren DO accept Sacred Tradition as divine, because you accept the canon of Scripture, which came from Sacred Tradition. Protestants also accept other elements of Sacred Tradition including the Trinity, hypostatic union, and Sunday Observance.

If you ever dialogue with a Sabbatarian (and maybe you have) then you will find that you are sadly lacking in any Scriptural warrant to abandon the Sabbath observed on Saturday. The fact that Christians do this today comes through the same Sacred Tradition that created the NT.

And yet, these same Christians that have espoused the man made tradition of Sola Scriptura deny accepting the Divine Institution of Sacred Tradition.

I understand what you are saying about Catholic doctrines defying logic. I find that the bulk of the Christian mysteries defy logic. At this time of year, I am overwhelmed by the reality that the God of the Universe became an infant, and needed someone to change his dirty diaper.

 

[grannymh]

I was just trying to explain that it’s not a lack of trust that may necessarily closes them off to the church - that it could be simple lack of awareness.

I agree. Though from my experience, Protestants are aware of the physical Catholic Church, but their desire to know God through the Bible occupies all of their attention. Then there is the issue that some Protestants grow up in a family or neighborhood that is somewhat anti-Catholic which also may be part of their ethnic roots which eliminates the trust issue. Personally, we need to avoid classifying Protestants as this or that.

 

[guanophore]

The non-Aglican and non-Lutheran Protestants I’ve talked to about this issue don’t usually know there is a dichotomy to chose from - they view their sincere exploration of the bible as getting to know God directly. They don’t even think they are turning their back on the church, only that they are looking forward to the gospel.

Yes this makes sense to me.

The reading of any historical document is best accomplished within the context it was written. FOr example, no one would try to understand a 18th century alchemical text without understanding the culture surrounding it. Likewise no one would try to make sense of Shakespearean plays without some study of the language and culture from whence they came.

The New Testament was produced by, for, and about the Catholic Church. When it is read in separation from that context, not surprisingly misunderstandings occur.

The Aposltes also taught that there is no separation between Jesus, and His One Body, the Church. When Saul of Tarsus was persecuting the Church, Jesus appeared to him and demanded to know “why are you persecuting ME”?

For this reason, Catholics (and Orthodox) find that one best understand the meaning of Scripture when it is read in communion (unity) with the Teachings of Jesus preserved infallibly in the Church. These teachings are what produced the contents of the NT, so there is no dichotomy present.

Dichotomies are produced when the Holy WRiting is separated from the Holy Faith that produced it.

 

[guanophore]

By the way, where can I find the written texts of “Sacred Tradition”? Or would it be easier to provide a list of the items in “Sacred Tradition”?.

Sacred Tradition describes more accurately a world view or perspective and is not reducable to ;“lists”. In the NT it is referred to as The Way, and encompasses a lifestyle and perspective of understanding.

No lifestyle and perspective can be reduced to a “list of items”.

It is God’s way of looking at things.

Sacred Tradition did not begin with the CC, though. God prepared a people for HImself by teaching them how to maintain His way of looking at things without written texts for millennia.

By the time Moses wrote Genesis, there had already been thousands of years of Sacred Tradition.

The time between the Teaching of Jesus given to the Apostles and the writings of the NT is miniscule in comparison.

 

[stewstew03]

I was just trying to explain that it’s not a lack of trust that may necessarily closes them off to the church - that it could be simple lack of awareness.

I agree. On the one hand they trust that the Church got the canon right, but then turn their backs on what the Church teaches vis-a-vis Sacred Scripture.

 

[grannymh]

You keep insisting that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture (such that you as a private individual can discern it) and yet in practice you violate this man made tradition, because you are using a canon that is not described in that Scripture.

Actually, Itwin is correct that all doctrine should be grounded in the Bible.

This is because Divine Revelation is found in the Bible, especially through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

As for “using a canon that is not described in Scripture”, I must be slow because the Catholic Church uses “canon” as meaning the finished list of books that are proper for the Holy Bible. I cannot wrap my mind around a “canon” which is in Scripture centuries before the Catholic Church determines the “canon” of what belongs in the Holy Bible.
Canon of Scripture is the correct designation for the Church’s complete list of sacred books which includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if Jeremiah and Lamentations are counted as one) and 27 for the New Testament.

Getting back to Itwin’s correct comment that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture. He is also correct that a private individual can discern doctrines in Scripture. The key is that one needs to know and truly understand both the Catholic doctrine itself and its history. The difficulty is that there are not a lot of living people who do this.

Furthermore, this comment "You keep insisting that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture (such that you as a private individual can discern it) and yet in practice you violate this man made tradition… " needs clarification

The Catholic Church’s insistence that all doctrines should be grounded in Scripture is not a man made tradition.

 

[jmcrae]

The Catholic Church’s insistence that all doctrines should be grounded in Scripture is not a man made tradition.

What do we mean by “grounded in” Scripture? All of the Doctrines of the Church were set into place at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

We didn’t have the Scriptures until 405 AD.

All of our Doctrines, together with the Canon of the Scriptures, arises from and is grounded in the Holy Tradition.

 

[benjohnson]

I agree. On the one hand they trust that the Church got the canon right, but then turn their backs on what the Church teaches vis-a-vis Sacred Scripture.

As I understand it, my Baptist friend views that it was the Holy Spirit, not the church, that got the canon right. That view has a bit of my sympathy, as in a way, it is wise to acknowledge that all of our grace-filled deeds as ultimately our response to God.

We struggle with a similar issue in my own chruch - where is the right balance in that knowing that the church is God’s holy house, but at the same time is subject to the foibles of a human institution. Frankly, I think Catholics have thought about it more than us.

I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis’ quote:

“The man who is contented to be only himself, and therefore less a self, is in prison. My own eyes are not enough for me, I will see through those of others. Reality, even seen through the eyes of many, is not enough. I will see what others have invented …. in reading great literature I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see. Here, as in worship, in love, in moral action, and in knowing, I transcend myself; and am never more myself than when I do.”

 

[guanophore]

 Actually, Itwin is correct that all doctrine should be grounded in the Bible.

This is because Divine Revelation is found in the Bible, especially through the teachings of Jesus Christ.

The issue has more to do with what an individual reader,such as Itwin, perceives the Bible saying. Of course Catholics see the Immaculate conception and the role of the successor of Peter grounded in scripture, but that is because we understand what is written differently.

As for “using a canon that is not described in Scripture”, I must be slow because the Catholic Church uses “canon” as meaning the finished list of books that are proper for the Holy Bible.

You are not “slow”.

Yes, this is the use of the word in this context. That list of books is not part of the text considered the inspired and infallible Word of God by our separated brethren.

  I cannot wrap my mind around a "canon" which is in Scripture centuries before the Catholic Church determines the "canon" of what belongs in the Holy Bible.

Canon of Scripture is the correct designation for the Church’s complete list of sacred books which includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if Jeremiah and Lamentations are counted as one) and 27 for the New Testament.

This “canon” was developed through Sacred Tradition, and is considered part of the doctrine of the faith. And yet, it is not contained in any of the Holy Writings that make up our Bible. Which Bible our separated brethren accept as completely inspired and inerrant.

Getting back to Itwin’s correct comment that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture.

There is a caveat here. He is saying that it should be grounded according to his own expectations and perceptions. If HE does not “see” it there, then according to him it is not grounded.

If Itwin does not read Jesus saying to Peter “feed and care for my flock” as the Petrine gifts now belonging to the Successor of Peter in Rome, then from his perspective, the Papacy is not “grounded in Scripture”.

He is also correct that a private individual can discern doctrines in Scripture.

Oh without a doubt!

Calvin discerned the TULIP.

The Mormons discern that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel.

The Seventh day adventists discern that Catholics have committed Apostasy from the Church founded by Christ because we do not observe the Sabbath on Saturday. There is no limit to the number of doctrines a private individual can discern in Scripture!

Furthermore, this comment "You keep insisting that all doctrine should be grounded in Scripture (such that you as a private individual can discern it) and yet in practice you violate this man made tradition… " needs clarification

I hope this post will clarify the point I am trying to make.

The Catholic Church’s insistence that all doctrines should be grounded in Scripture is not a man made tradition.

Sola Scriptura is the man made tradition to which I am referring. SS places the individual reader in a position to “discern” over and above what the HS has revealed to the Church, what the Scripture is saying.

 

[benjohnson]

The Catholic Church’s insistence that all doctrines should be grounded in Scripture is not a man made tradition.

I (almost) certainly agree! But the paradox is that if you look only at Scripture, it doesn’t spell out in concrete terms that “All doctrines are grounded in Scripture.”

Where I disagree is that Lutherans would say “All doctrines should be corrected by Scripture” - we acknowledge Tradition, teaching Authority and other sources. We only demand that they are compatible with scripture.

 

[stewstew03]

As I understand it, my Baptist friend views that it was the Holy Spirit, not the church, that got the canon right. That view has a bit of my sympathy, as in a way, it is wise to acknowledge that all of our grace-filled deeds as ultimately our response to God.

Of course the Holy Spirit guided the Church. The question for Protestants is, when did the Holy Spirit leave the church, and on what basis do they make such a claim?

 

[grannymh]

Sacred Tradition describes more accurately a world view or perspective and is not reducable to ;“lists”. In the NT it is referred to as The Way, and encompasses a lifestyle and perspective of understanding.

No lifestyle and perspective can be reduced to a “list of items”.

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

The January-February 2013 issue of Catholic Answers Magazine has an excellent description of Tradition in its Apologetics article. And–in addition to that article–Tradition as used by the Catholic Church includes much more when the Catholic Church is preparing for a major Ecumenical Council. Just because these Councils were held centuries ago, does not mean we should forget what happened.

Sacred Tradition did not begin with the CC, though.

Historically, Tradition as used by the Catholic Church began with Pentecost. Tradition combined with Scripture is important historically.

 

[grannymh]

Of course the Holy Spirit guided the Church. The question for Protestants is, when did the Holy Spirit leave the church, and on what basis do they make such a claim?

The real question for others who are not Catholic is – what issues of Divine Revelation are being taught in Catholic doctrines?