What Catholic teachings do I object to?

[GaryTaylor]

I believe with anyone who holds a particularly high regard for the first four ecumenical councils, every effort should be made to re-evaluate their understanding of the papacy.

 

[pablope]

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!”

Indeed…it is finished for Christ…but it does not say it is finished for us…our journey starts where His journey ends…now we have to do our part…live our lives as He lived His…part of our daily struggle…is it not?

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?

 

[jmcrae]

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.

You are right that there is only one Church. We find it in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, and we find its successors united to the present-day Bishop of Rome.

Christ did not hide His light under a bushel basket - He set it up on a hill, and established a City.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I believe with anyone who holds a particularly high regard for the first four ecumenical councils, every effort should be made to re-evaluate their understanding of the papacy.

That would include a number of non-Catholics, including Anglicans.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sure everyone is invited as always.

 

[ltwin]

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.

I do believe that the Holy Spirit wants to renew the entire church. The denominationalizing of Pentecostalism was not intentional. Part of it was the fact that traditional churches did not want Pentecostals in their churches, and the second was that many early Pentecostals believed in “come outism,” which urged Christians to come out of “man made denominations.” Of course, over time Pentecostals set up their own denominations.

The “third force” I think was applied not by Pentecostals, but by scholars who sort of realized that Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity is exploding all over the world. Also, there is a sense that instead of collapsing Pentecostalism under the Protestant category, that there really does need to be a reevaluation of how Pentecostalism is a distinct Christian tradition that defies the traditional categories.

You also are getting pushback by Pentecostal theologians and scholars against the traditional formulations of Pentecostal theology that have been based off of Protestant scholasticism. Many argue that there is a disconnect between the formal theology of Pentecostalism and how Pentecostal spirituality is actually lived out. Instead of trying to explain a Pentecostal experience in an evangelical or Reformed paradigm, they say Pentecostals really need to look to the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi to articulate a theology that is worthy of being called “Pentecostal”. According to Dr. Cheryl Johns, “Pentecostals still seem comfortable being the icing on the cake, when we ought to be baking the cake.”

Many see the weakness (in the West) of the Pentecostal movement in the inferiority complex that Pentecostals have always had toward non-Pentecostal evangelicalism. The problem has gotten so bad that many classical Pentecostal churches in the West have gotten rid of anything and everything that marks them as being Pentecostal (tongues, prophecy, free worship, healing, tarrying at the altar, and even the word “Pentecostal” in the church sign).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sure everyone is invited as always.

I know GT.

Happy New Year,
Anna

 

[DeSanto]

I just want to say…what a great discussion you guys have going on here. I’ve been lurking here all day, (I’m still on pg. 15) but, man, this thread is really hitting on some specific things ive been contemplating and studying. So, I want to say thank you guys, and thank The Lord for CAF.

I would also like to say, for some reason, I got curious about the CARM forum I kept hearing about so, I checked it out for a while and, Wow! What a difference from the kind, considerate, respectful, intelligent and charitable people I’m used to here on this forum (that’s also including the non-Catholics here). It really makes you appreciate what we have here at CAF! Good to be home…

Carry on

 

[PRmerger]

I just want to say…what a great discussion you guys have going on here. I’ve been lurking here all day, (I’m still on pg. 15) but, man, this thread is really hitting on some specific things ive been contemplating and studying. So, I want to say thank you guys, and thank The Lord for CAF.

I would also like to say, for some reason, I got curious about the CARM forum I kept hearing about so, I checked it out for a while and, Wow! What a difference from the kind, considerate, respectful, intelligent and charitable people I’m used to here on this forum (that’s also including the non-Catholics here). It really makes you appreciate what we have here at CAF! Good to be home…

Carry on

 

[cajunhillbilly]

I just want to say…what a great discussion you guys have going on here. I’ve been lurking here all day, (I’m still on pg. 15) but, man, this thread is really hitting on some specific things ive been contemplating and studying. So, I want to say thank you guys, and thank The Lord for CAF.

I would also like to say, for some reason, I got curious about the CARM forum I kept hearing about so, I checked it out for a while and, Wow! What a difference from the kind, considerate, respectful, intelligent and charitable people I’m used to here on this forum (that’s also including the non-Catholics here). It really makes you appreciate what we have here at CAF! Good to be home…

Carry on

I stopped going to CARM because of the lack of respect by the so called “experts” who rant against anything other than fundamentalism.

 

[joe370]

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

Happy New Year to you too Anna…

 

[Holly3278]

On another thread PRmerger asked me “what teaching do you object to?” in reference to the Catholic Church. The question was sort of off topic, but I did want to provide an answer so I started this thread.

Off the top of my head, I told PRmerger that I disagree with papal infallibility and the exclusivist claims of the CC. He then responded:

We agree that the writers of Scripture were protected from error under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Though, I would not say that they were always and at every moment protected from error, though they definitely were inspired when writing scripture.

Fair enough.

As a Pentecostal, I continue to believe that God continues to speak to and inspire people. John 16:13 says, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.” While the canon is closed, revelation continues because the need to be guided into all truth did not end with the closing of the canon. Some Christians have the unfortunate habit of limiting what the Spirit can speak to the church today. They basically reduce the Holy Spirit to repeating the Bible and in the process they unintentionally raise the Bible above the Spirit who inspired it. But the Spirit existed before the Bible, and the proper hierarchy is Spirit, Scripture, Church. All that the Spirit speaks will be scriptural, but it will not always be in scripture.

The problem comes when we want to know how to test revelation. For Pentecostals, we discern what the Spirit is saying to the Church by referring to what the Spirit has always been saying to the Church as contained in Holy Scripture. There is no warrant in Scripture for ascribing infallibility to any office. I have no doubt that the Lord has used many Popes, and I’m sure that at times they have spoken prophetically to the benefit of their flock.

However, I find it odd that when some of the less reputable Popes in history are brought up, Catholics say things like “Yes, this person was immoral and corrupt but the office of the Pope is divinely protected so anything they said ex cathedra can be trusted.” How can anyone make such blanket statements like that? So, one issue I have is the assigning of infallibility to an office irrespective of the spiritual state of the person holding that office.

The other problem I have is the lack of accountability. The Scriptures say that the spirits should be tested. When Popes make definitive rulings on matters of faith and claim that they are divinely protected from error where is the accountability and the discernment? And how should accountability be measured? By Scripture or a vague and undefined sacred tradition?

As for papal infallibility, I would strongly recommend these links:

catholic.com/video/scott-hahn-explains-papal-infallibility

catholic.com/quickquestions/does-papal-infallibility-mean-the-pope-is-perfect-or-inerrant

catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility

catholic.com/video/infallibility-of-the-pope

fisheaters.com/papolatry.html

 

[joe370]

I stopped going to CARM because of the lack of respect by the so called “experts” who rant against anything other than fundamentalism.

I too had a disturbing experience there long ago…

 

[joe370]

pablope

Private revelations are just that…private revelations…but any claims (think Fatima and Lourdes, the stigmata of Francis of Assissi, Padre Pio)…are thoroughly investigated…and if deemed worthy of belief, it is up to the individual to believe them.

And I sure do.

Those authenticated are certainly faith affirming.

Did Fatima, Lourdes…lead many people astray? Or did these apparitions do the opposite?

It was responsible for the conversion of non-believers, e.g. atheists as well.

If you were able to see the stigmata of Padre Pio…or someone in our time today…and it was authenticated…would it lead you astray? Or would it strengthen your faith?

 

[Porknpie]

I too had a disturbing experience there long ago…

Me too…I got kicked out when I asked them if they believed Christ was a liar on the John 6 bread of life discourse. They really have a hard time and get defensive on the Eucharist…which is of course, not unexpected.

 

[grannymh]

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.

John 3:16

Catholicism adds this teaching. “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” (Source: CCC 1260)

This is an example of how the Catholic Church draws out a teaching from the Scripture points that Christ died for all.

 

[joe370]

Me too…I got kicked out when I asked them if they believed Christ was a liar on the John 6 bread of life discourse. They really have a hard time and get defensive on the Eucharist…which is of course, not unexpected.

I was very kind, and in return was verbally assaulted. I too got the boot, but those folks landing the vicious barbs did not. Nothing compares to this catholic forum, in terms of dialoguing with non-catholics. They are all pretty cool here…

 

[joe370]

John 3:16

Catholicism adds this teaching. “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” (Source: CCC 1260)

What an odd claim coming from a catholic. If they did add it, and Saint Paul was wrong as well, then they added it as soon as the first century. Even most of the reformers believed…No one ever denied from Pentecost to the turn of the first century. Why would God allow, what you believe to be a heretical teaching, to be disseminated for one thousand years? Can you name anyone during that time period that believed as you believe?

Great quote by the way:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

 

[Della]

John 3:16

Catholicism adds this teaching. “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” (Source: CCC 1260)

This is an example of how the Catholic Church draws out a teaching from the Scripture points that Christ died for all.

The Church doesn’t “add” anything nor does it “draw out” from Scripture. Those terms are misleading–although I doubt you meant them to be so.

The Church does indeed draw upon more than the whims of men, unlike the multitude of other faith communities who have jetttisoned nearly the whole of Sacred Tradition in order to make the Bible say whatever they’d like it to say.

The Church is the visible body of Christ in the world. However, it has members who have not heard of Christ. They have drawn upon the graces Christ gained for all men through is redemptive death. As the CCC states quite clearly:

Possible salvation of non-Christians: #s 846-848.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."338

 

[grannymh]

What an odd claim coming from a catholic. If they did add it, and Saint Paul was wrong as well, then they added it as soon as the first century. Even most of the reformers believed…No one ever denied from Pentecost to the turn of the first century. Why would God allow, what you believe to be a heretical teaching, to be disseminated for one thousand years? Can you name anyone during that time period that believed as you believe?

Great quote by the way:

“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.”

The quote is the first sentence of CCC 1260. It is helpful to read the rest of the paragraph. scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1260.htm

Yes, I am well aware of the confusion regarding Jesus as being the only person capable of reconciling all of humanity with divinity. Obviously, this is connected to the necessity of a visible Catholic Church on earth with Jesus Christ as its head. As we know, Jesus works through the Catholic Church which is His Mystical Body.

The above does not mean that Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are limited or restricted in any way. Please see post 419 for the companion paragraphs.

To answer this comment from post 419. “The Church doesn’t “add” anything nor does it “draw out” from Scripture. Those terms are misleading–although I doubt you meant them to be so.”

In Church language there is a difference between “add” and “draw out from Scripture”. An explanation of this is found in CCC 65-67. In addition to CCC 66, it is important to read the cross-reference in the margin which is CCC 94, the first paragraph therein. Note that this first paragraph refers back to CCC 66.

One of the contemporary difficulties with the concept of “draws out a teaching from Scripture” is that not every Catholic is familiar with the protocol of the visible society of the Catholic Church on earth. It is this working of protocol regarding properly defining and duly proclaiming Catholic doctrines which makes CCC 66 possible.

An interesting topic for another thread might be the protocol of the Catholic Church in regard to teaching Divine Revelation.

Currently I am studying answers to OP Itwin’s posts on the concept that there is only one Church and it is made up of all those who call Christ Lord. In my humble opinion, there is a relationship between the necessity for one established visible Church and infallibility of doctrines which was the initial issue of this thread. Most likely, the paragraphs cited above will be part of my presented argument.