What's the ONE Catholic Doctrine that you disagree with most?

[Della]

Yes it is the Catholic teaching but where do they get it??? From the Sacred Scriptures!!! God Bless, Memaw

Well, yes, but the source is Christ himself. He revealed the concept of trinity of persons in that he addressed God as Father, made defining statements about the Holy Spirit, and defined himself as the Son of God. How we are to understand these concepts was the work of the early Church, to whom Christ gave the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. So, although the concept of the Trinity is certainly in the Scriptures, even in OT passages when read in the light of the NT, it wasn’t defined until AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively. Many of the foundational doctrines concerning the nature of God were defined by the Church to combat heresies that arose in the early Church.

 

[truetofaith]

Unfortunately, most Christians do not have a good understanding of the Trinity themselves and so often explain it in a way which is incorrect.

I think the best and easiest to understand explanation of the Trinity can be found in a book by Frank Sheed called “Theology for Beginners”. If you have a library where you live they probably have a copy of it so you don’t need to buy it. Well worth the read.

Don’t have time for books…Bible - Jesus said, Jn. 10:30 “I & the Father are One. If you see Me, you’ve seen the Father.” Also, “I will send My Spirit.”

 

[Memaw]

Well, yes, but the source is Christ himself. He revealed the concept of trinity of persons in that he addressed God as Father, made defining statements about the Holy Spirit, and defined himself as the Son of God. How we are to understand these concepts was the work of the early Church, to whom Christ gave the authority to decide matters of faith and morals. So, although the concept of the Trinity is certainly in the Scriptures, even in OT passages when read in the light of the NT, it wasn’t defined until AD 325, 360, and 431, at the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, respectively. Many of the foundational doctrines concerning the nature of God were defined by the Church to combat heresies that arose in the early Church.

Jesus is the source of all the Church’s Doctrine and also the Sacred Scriptures. Defined by the Church and given the name Trinity, (meaning three), but certainly not made up or invented by the Church. Big difference. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Della]

Jesus is the source of all the Church’s Doctrine and also the Sacred Scriptures. Defined by the Church and given the name Trinity, (meaning three), but certainly not made up or invented by the Church. Big difference. God Bless, Memaw

Yes, it is a big difference. And I stated quite clearly that it was Christ who revealed God’s three-fold personhood, and the Church that defined the meaning of his revelation in Church councils.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Yes, it is a big difference. And I stated quite clearly that it was Christ who revealed God’s three-fold personhood, and the Church that defined the meaning of his revelation in Church councils.

Yes, God’s 3 fold personhood = one God with 3 aspects which is difficult for Muslims to comprehend.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Yes, God’s 3 fold personhood = one God with 3 aspects which is difficult for Muslims to comprehend.

Well, aspects? Persons certainly. Which is difficult for anyone to comprehend, Catholics included. That’s why it’s a mystery.

 

[Della]

Well, aspects? Persons certainly. Which is difficult for anyone to comprehend, Catholics included. That’s why it’s a mystery.

Indeed, it is a mystery. It’s why it is revealed truth not empirical truth–it cannot be tested or proven by any known scientific method.

The Church understands it that God is Father who engendered from all eternity and in eternity his Son and that from them both proceeds the Holy Spirit, who is the manifestation of their love. How that can be we can’t say.

What it tells me is that God is beyond our comprehension. Not that we can know nothing about him from creation and reason, but that he is so far above us and so very different in essence that we can never hope to fully understand him. We can only really know what we know of him through revelation given by his grace, and aided by our limited human reason.

 

[pacloc]

The Church understands it that God is Father who engendered from all eternity and in eternity his Son and that from them both proceeds the Holy Spirit, who is the manifestation of their love. How that can be we can’t say.

Where did you get this understanding of the Holy Spirit? I’ve learned it from Scott Hahn and his colleagues, and believe that maybe a they developed it from something speculated by St. Augustine, but I’m not sure. I’m curious to how long this has been taught to be the “Church’s understanding.” It definitely was not the understanding of St. Basil and many others that defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They had to fight against the idea that the Holy Spirit is something like “Love” and not a person equal to the Father and Son. I think the early Church likened the Son and the Holy Spirit as having their origin from the Father but in different ways. I’ve seen the example of Adam, Eve, and Seth, Adam is man but exists without coming from man, Eve is man and exists from being formed from Adam’s rib, Seth is man and exists from conception of Eve from Adam. All three are one Nature, but have different origins. Seth and Eve come from Adam but in different ways, just like The Son and the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thorolfr]

That the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[pacloc]

That the Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ.

I don’t know much about Lutheranism; what do Lutherans believe about the subject? Do they claim to be the true church and others to be partially correct, the way the Catholic Church believes?

 

[Della]

Where did you get this understanding of the Holy Spirit? I’ve learned it from Scott Hahn and his colleagues, and believe that maybe a they developed it from something speculated by St. Augustine, but I’m not sure. I’m curious to how long this has been taught to be the “Church’s understanding.” It definitely was not the understanding of St. Basil and many others that defended the divinity of the Holy Spirit. They had to fight against the idea that the Holy Spirit is something like “Love” and not a person equal to the Father and Son. I think the early Church likened the Son and the Holy Spirit as having their origin from the Father but in different ways. I’ve seen the example of Adam, Eve, and Seth, Adam is man but exists without coming from man, Eve is man and exists from being formed from Adam’s rib, Seth is man and exists from conception of Eve from Adam. All three are one Nature, but have different origins. Seth and Eve come from Adam but in different ways, just like The Son and the Holy Spirit.

"Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of thy faithful and enkindle in them the fire of thy love… " Sounds like he is love to me, as are the Father and the Son. It is the Spirit who sends forth “the fire of God’s love.” Therefore, it seems apparent that he is divine love manifested in the person of the Holy Spirit. I see no reason to worry about this definition since it in no way diminishes his dignity as one with the Father and Son in the Godhead, but rather shows that he moves in love “wherever he wills” as Jesus told us, bringing to us God’s love and filling us with it.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Starting this thread as it was a discussion on another thread… and we didn’t want to get it derailed.

The claim that human beings can teach infallibly.

 

[Della]

The claim that human beings can teach infallibly.

Only if human beings with no authority make that claim–like all those who do not have legitimate apostolic succession.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The claim that human beings can teach infallibly.

Every time you say the creed (Nicene or Apostles among others) you are a human being who is teaching infallibly.

No Pope, College of Bishops, or Ordinary Magisterium teaches something ‘new’.

The Church proclaims Truth, and Truth is infallible.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Only if human beings with no authority make that claim–like all those who do not have legitimate apostolic succession.

There’s a huge gap between the ability to teach authoritatively and infallibly.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Every time you say the creed (Nicene or Apostles among others) you are a human being who is teaching infallibly.

No Pope, College of Bishops, or Ordinary Magisterium teaches something ‘new’.

The Church proclaims Truth, and Truth is infallible.

Infallible teaching requires perfect language and perfect reception of that language— and as humans we don’t have access to either one. Our imperfect language describes, at best, approximations of the truth—but they are only partial descriptions and are readily open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

The Creeds are true statements (in a social way, not a Platonic way), but they don’t teach infallibly. No one can. See St. Augustine’s de magistro.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Infallible teaching requires perfect language and perfect reception of that language— and as humans we don’t have access to either one. Our imperfect language describes, at best, approximations of the truth—but they are only partial descriptions and are readily open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

The Creeds are true statements (in a social way, not a Platonic way), but they don’t teach infallibly. No one can. See St. Augustine’s de magistro.

I disagree. You have arbitrarily set a standard that Jesus Himself did not set. Or do you think that He did not teach infallibly because human beings were imperfectly receptive of his perfect language.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I disagree. You have arbitrarily set a standard that Jesus Himself did not set. Or do you think that He did not teach infallibly because human beings were imperfectly receptive of his perfect language.

If Jesus had taught infallibly his disciples would have understood him perfectly. They clearly did not.

“We see through a glass darkly…”; there’s no such thing as perfect teaching, perfect teachers, or perfect students. To allege that there is, is human hubris on steroids imo. Again, see Augustine.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

If Jesus had taught infallibly his disciples would have understood him perfectly. They clearly did not.

“We see through a glass darkly…”; there’s no such thing as perfect teaching, perfect teachers, or perfect students. To allege that there is, is human hubris on steroids imo. Again, see Augustine.

I think that in concocting the definition of infallibility to be both 'truth expressed perfectly" (which of course is possible with God) to be combined with 'therefore understood perfectly by humans) which is NOT possible as we are not God, you are making a critical mistake.

Infallibility does not mean that a truth is both expressed perfectly and understood perfectly. It means that what God has revealed is perfectly true, and to the best of our human and therefore limited capacity we are capable of understanding that truth, and that what God has given to us as Truth will never be changed by fallible humanity into ‘not truth’.

The Trinity (Three Divine Persons in one God) is an infallible revealed truth. Do we understand the Doctrine perfectly? No we do not. Do we understand though that Trinity, meaning three, will thus never be changed into a doctrine whereby God will be revealed as either the Dynamic Duo or the Fab Four? yes we understand that. The doctrine of the Trinity is thus infallible. Revealed Truth that will not change, but that we, as human beings, cannot fully understand in the way that God Himself understands it, but for all that, is as ‘true’ as can be

 

[chimo]

This may not be doctrine though it is accepted by many Catholics. It is the refusal to accept the Eastern Orthodox Church as an equal. As this is what it is today the same can be said for the Eastern Orthodox Church’s refusal to accept the Church of Rome as an equal.