Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don't really know it?

[Teflon93]

The Reformation was ordained by God. That is what we believe.

Which Reformation? Luther’s, Calvin’s, Zwingli’s, or Henry’s? Luther and Calvin in particular claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ and yet said very different things.

But Catholics insist on saying that it was not ordained by God when we don’t even teach that. Even after corrected they contiinue to say it is not ordained by God.

You do not have the authority to correct us on what God ordains or does not ordain. If Christ had chosen you as he chose Peter, that would be a different matter.

Why do Catholics presume to know Protestant doctrine when they don’t really know it?

(If you read the OP through non-Catholic eyes, you would see how it sounds the same)

Why should Catholics presume to know Protestant doctrine when Protestants can’t agree on any of it? THAT’s the real question.

I understand why Protestants WANT to attack Catholic doctrine—it’s a case of doctrine envy.

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;2645574]And how do you intend to prove or disprove this claim, even presuming is a perfectly accurate paraphrasing of true Catholic teaching?

I’m not making the claim its true your church is. That’s what i’m trying to understand here. If the catholic church possesses the fullness of the truth, then it follows that this particular claim would also be true since its endorsed by the pope. Is that not right?

You could start I suppose with the Catechism on Purgatory:

and

Now, the brown scapular is nowhere referenced herein. Absent context (was the Pope granting an indulgence related to an order which wore this garment, perhaps?), one may hardly address the rightness or wrongness of whatever claim you’re making.

I’m not making any claim but the Mary is with the endorsement of the pope.

Of course, you also need to understand the difference between temporal and eternal punishment, the true nature of indulgences vs Luther’s profane propaganda regarding the same, and what truly constitutes infallible statements on the part of the Pope.

Something being infallibly proclaimed or not is not relevant at this point. The issue is the truth and what follows from it. Its either true or false whether its proclaimed infallibly or not. If its true, then why are not all catholics commanded to wear it since so many who die would be at least spared time in purgatory.

In order to aid in your quest, I’m including a link to the online version of the Catechism here.

Thank you. I already have it.

 

[estesbob]

Something being infallibly proclaimed or not is not relevant at this point. The issue is the truth and what follows from it. Its either true or false whether its proclaimed infallibly or not. If its true, then why are not all catholics commanded to wear it since so many who die would be at least spared time in purgatory.

As has been pointed out numerous times your ignorance of our faith makes it impossible to discuss it with you. You do understand infallibility, what constitutes faith and morals purgatory, traditions , Catholic teaching on Mary or the significance or lack thereof of the Brown scapular. Yet you insist on asking the same questions over and over again and ignoring the answers,

 

[estesbob]

Which Reformation? Luther’s, Calvin’s, Zwingli’s, or Henry’s? Luther and Calvin in particular claimed to speak with the mouth of Christ and yet said very different things.

You miss the latest reformer. The guy down the street who opened up his own church in a storefront because he disagreed with the local Baptist church on the best way to reach the “unchurched” and disagreed with their supposedly watered-down teachings on salvation.

 

[justasking4]

As has been pointed out numerous times your ignorance of our faith makes it impossible to discuss it with you. You do understand infallibility, what constitutes faith and morals purgatory, traditions , Catholic teaching on Mary or the significance or lack thereof of the Brown scapular. Yet you insist on asking the same questions over and over again and ignoring the answers,

What does infalliblity have to do with the truth? Is it because something is proclaimed infallibly you must believe it? If that is the case, there are still many other truth claims and practices that are not proclaimed infallibly true and yet people believe them to be true. Are not these claims also true? Are they not also part of the fullness of the truth?

For example, how do you know exactly what is the “fullness of the truth” and what is not? Since you call me ignorant, then teach me if you can.

 

[estesbob]

What does infalliblity have to do with the truth? Is it because something is proclaimed infallibly you must believe it? If that is the case, there are still many other truth claims and practices that are not proclaimed infallibly true and yet people believe them to be true. Are not these claims also true? Are they not also part of the fullness of the truth?

For example, how do you know exactly what is the “fullness of the truth” and what is not? Since you call me ignorant, then teach me if you can.

It is found here:

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

You’ll find a lot about purgatory there, a lot about infallibility and a lot about the other subjects I mentioned except for the brown scapular of which you seem to be only one in this thread who cares in the least about it.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

The scapular, like the visons of Our Lady of Guadelupe, (to Juan Diego, a poor native), Our Lady of Fatima (to a group of preteen shepherds), and Our Lady of Lourdes (to a fifteen-year old girl), add nothing to the Deposit of Faith and mean nothing theologically, regardless of any other witnesses to the signs and wonders that are part of the visions. These visions are “tradition,” as opposed to Sacred Tradition, and Catholics only need to acknowledge Sacred Tradition.

NO ONE has to wear a scapular, brown or otherwise.If it were part of necessary Catholic belief, it would surely be listed in the Catechism as such.

The reason I cited the ones to whom the visions were shown is to ask if you think they were “false prophets” at the point when they had their first such vision and to ask if anyone has ever been led astray by these visions.

If you think these visions and miracles are indeed the work of Satan and of false prophets, then why hasn’t the Church at large noticed it as well?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m not making the claim its true your church is. That’s what i’m trying to understand here. If the catholic church possesses the fullness of the truth, then it follows that this particular claim would also be true since its endorsed by the pope. Is that not right?

This is what we mean when we say you don’t understand.

The fullness of truth the Catholic Church claims is not the fullness of historical truth, nor the fullness of scientific truth, but the fullness of the truth of God and salvation.

I’m not making any claim but the Mary is with the endorsement of the pope.

You are in fact making several claims.

1. That the brown scapular’s impact upon Purgatory is the true teaching of the Catholic Church.
2. That the Pope was speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals when he endorsed this teaching.
3. That this teaching is wrong.
4. That therefore the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of Christian truth.

Why not simply say so?

Something being infallibly proclaimed or not is not relevant at this point. The issue is the truth and what follows from it. Its either true or false whether its proclaimed infallibly or not. If its true, then why are not all catholics commanded to wear it since so many who die would be at least spared time in purgatory.

Thank you. I already have it.

It is precisely relevant. You are mistaken in the belief that Catholics are required to believe things beyond dogmatic teachings of our faith, infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra by the Pope.

This is what we are trying to tell you.

Your question might be a good one were we discussing a dogmatic belief, but I don’t believe we are. The Catechism is quite silent on it, no? Given that the Catechism’s mission is to convey the teachings of the Church, with special emphasis on the dogmatic teachings (for if we don’t know what they are we cannot avoid mortal sin by adhering to them), don’t you really think you would find a reference therein?

Have you checked for yourself in the link provided?

 

[Teflon93]

What does infalliblity have to do with the truth? Is it because something is proclaimed infallibly you must believe it? If that is the case, there are still many other truth claims and practices that are not proclaimed infallibly true and yet people believe them to be true. Are not these claims also true? Are they not also part of the fullness of the truth?

For example, how do you know exactly what is the “fullness of the truth” and what is not? Since you call me ignorant, then teach me if you can.

Good questions. The Catechism will answer them for you better than I can.

Infallible teachings are those of the Holy Spirit through Christ’s Vicar on Earth, the Pope while speaking ex cathedra on faith and morals. They are the way Christ abides with his bride the Church. It is what keeps his message from being corrupted, such as when he infallibly guided the writing and canonization of the books of the Bible.

Let me give you a tangible for instance.

The Bible contains minor errors of geography and history not relevant to its teachings regarding faith and morals. These errors are well-attested (Google them if you’d like). Does that mean the Bible is wrong and ought to be discarded?

Likewise, the Catholic Church consists of many writings, practices, and doctrines, not all of which are dogmatic (guided by the Holy Spirit). Thus, the fact that priests started facing the pews post-Vatican II in no way implies the Catholic Church abandoned her mission.

When we say you are ignorant, we don’t mean it as an insult—honestly. We mean you are unaware of key tenets of the Catholic faith, which puts you at a real disadvantage when arguing.

It is precisely as though I were to claim that because we Catholics use crucifixes while Protestants use empty crosses that Catholics worship Christ and Protestants worship wood. Silly, right?

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;2645801]This is what we mean when we say you don’t understand.

The fullness of truth the Catholic Church claims is not the fullness of historical truth, nor the fullness of scientific truth, but the fullness of the truth of God and salvation.

You are in fact making several claims.

1. That the brown scapular’s impact upon Purgatory is the true teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’m not making this claim but Mary is with the endorsement of the pope.

1. That the Pope was speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals when he endorsed this teaching.

i never said that.

1. That this teaching is wrong.

i never this either. I asked catholics is this true or not.

1. That therefore the Catholic Church does not possess the fullness of Christian truth.

i didn’t say this either. The catholic church makes this claim.

Why not simply say so?

Thank you. I already have it.

It is precisely relevant. You are mistaken in the belief that Catholics are required to believe things beyond dogmatic teachings of our faith, infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra by the Pope.

Since the promise of the Brown scapular has not been infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra could you call it a false teaching?

This is what we are trying to tell you.

Your question might be a good one were we discussing a dogmatic belief, but I don’t believe we are. The Catechism is quite silent on it, no? Given that the Catechism’s mission is to convey the teachings of the Church, with special emphasis on the dogmatic teachings (for if we don’t know what they are we cannot avoid mortal sin by adhering to them), don’t you really think you would find a reference therein?

The teachings and the practices of the catholic are not just in the catechism but can be found throughout. We could even study how those who wrote it arrived at these particular teachings.

Have you checked for yourself in the link provided?

 

[Teflon93]

Since the promise of the Brown scapular has not been infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra could you call it a false teaching?

1. I don’t have any idea whether or not you’ve presented whatever “teaching” this is accurately or not.
2. While infallibly = correctly, non-infallibly does not = wrong. It just means the Holy Spirit didn’t inspire it. May be right, may be wrong; Catholics are not required to believe it is correct.

The teachings and the practices of the catholic are not just in the catechism but can be found throughout. We could even study how those who wrote it arrived at these particular teachings.

You haven’t demonstrated even a basic understanding of Catholicism, you don’t read Latin, so how do you presume to wade through 2,000 years of the best-documented religion in the history of the world and make sense of it all?

Did your mathematical education begin with calculus?

 

[estesbob]

I’m not making this claim but Mary is with the endorsement of the pope.

i never said that.

i never this either. I asked catholics is this true or not.

i didn’t say this either. The catholic church makes this claim.

Since the promise of the Brown scapular has not been infallibly proclaimed ex cathedra could you call it a false teaching?

The teachings and the practices of the catholic are not just in the catechism but can be found throughout. We could even study how those who wrote it arrived at these particular teachings.

Exact same post you have made numerous times, never answer the question ,always make the same points even though they’ve been refuted time and time again. You lost this debate long ago-you’re just the only one who doesn’t realize it

 

[Teflon93]

Exact same post you have made numerous times, never answer the question ,always make the same points even though they’ve been refuted time and time again. You lost this debate long ago-you’re just the only one who doesn’t realize it

At least I learned what a brown scapular was!

You’d think they’d fill me in on things which are apparently essential to my salvation, but I never got that memo…

 

[ChadS]

The Reformation was ordained by God. That is what we believe.

But Catholics insist on saying that it was not ordained by God when we don’t even teach that. Even after corrected they contiinue to say it is not ordained by God.

Why do Catholics presume to know Protestant doctrine when they don’t really know it?

(If you read the OP through non-Catholic eyes, you would see how it sounds the same)

Atemi,

When a Catholic says they do no believe that the Reformation was ordained by God they are not mischaracterizing the Protestant position. I would argue that they understand very well your claims, but reject it based on the fact that only the Catholic Church was established by Christ to be his representative on earth. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the Church. When a Catholic says they do not believe the Reformation was ordained by God they are stating a belief about your doctrine.

What this post is mainly concerned with is mis-representations and misunderstandings of Catholic doctine constantly and consistently expounded by Protestants. For example some will say “if doctrine doesn’t change then why don’t Catholics have to eat fish on Friday all year?” or “Why is the Mass said in English instead of Latin?” When those two examples are not examples of doctrine but Church law – and therefore subject to change unlike doctines and dogmas.

ChadS

 

[eliasaph99]

The Reformation was ordained by God. That is what we believe.

But Catholics insist on saying that it was not ordained by God when we don’t even teach that. Even after corrected they contiinue to say it is not ordained by God.

Why do Catholics presume to know Protestant doctrine when they don’t really know it?

(If you read the OP through non-Catholic eyes, you would see how it sounds the same)

You just tried to teach me that the reformation was ordained by God. Seems to me like you do teach it.

Do you have some central authority to which you can refer me which will clarify what is and what is not actual doctrine on your side of the fence?

 

[estesbob]

Why do Catholics presume to know Protestant doctrine when they don’t really know it?

(If you read the OP through non-Catholic eyes, you would see how it sounds the same)

And where would one find out what protestant doctine is?

 

[Atemi]

When a Catholic says they do no believe that the Reformation was ordained by God they are not mischaracterizing the Protestant position. I would argue that they understand very well your claims, but reject it based on the fact that only the Catholic Church was established by Christ to be his representative on earth. Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the Church. When a Catholic says they do not believe the Reformation was ordained by God they are stating a belief about your doctrine.

You make my point even better than I. Thank you.

It seems you are the only one who has grasped the reason for my post.

What this post is mainly concerned with is mis-representations and misunderstandings of Catholic doctine constantly and consistently expounded by Protestants.

Wrong. I wish it was.

These claims in the OP surely do not qualify:

“They think we worship Mary, we don’t.”

“They think think our doctrines are invented doctrines but they aren’t.”

We all know full well that your church does not teach that Catholics are to worship Mary or that RC doctrines are invented, yet the OP classifies these as misrepresentations.

No.

They are not misrepresentations at all, yet you will not find all the Catholics here correcting the OP. What I do see is a lot of cheerleading for the OP in this basic error.

Why is that?

…

 

[Teflon93]

We all know full well that your church does not teach that Catholics are to worship Mary or that RC doctrines are invented, yet the OP classifies these as misrepresentations.

No.

They are not misrepresentations at all, yet you will not find all the Catholics here correcting the OP. What I do see is a lot of cheerleading for the OP in this basic error.

Why is that?

…

Umm, because we get Protestant posters here EVERY DAY who claim Catholics worship Mary?

Who shall we believe—Atemi or our own eyes?

 

[ChadS]

These claims in the OP surely do not qualify:

“They think we worship Mary, we don’t.”

“They think think our doctrines are invented doctrines but they aren’t.”

We all know full well that your church does not teach that Catholics are to worship Mary or that RC doctrines are invented, yet the OP classifies these as misrepresentations.

No.

They are not misrepresentations at all, yet you will not find all the Catholics here correcting the OP. What I do see is a lot of cheerleading for the OP in this basic error.

Why is that?

…

Atemi,

I understand your point exactly. However I do think there are plenty of non-Catholics that still insist on making the same claims the OP discussed. The fact that you don’t is a credit to you and I think if we could clear up those types of misrepresentations then real dialogue could begin.

I think you can understand Catholic’s frustration when on various websites you see books like “The Gospel According to Rome” being marketed as the authoritative teaching on Rome’s “errors.” Then further, they claim the book has never been discredited or even responded to by Catholic apologists – even though simple searches will bring up a multitude of examples to the contrary.

ChadS

 

[Yerusalyim]

Isn’t the Brown Scapular part of the fullness of the truth that is found in the catholic church?

As has been repeatedly stated…NO…the Brown Scapular is part of PRIVATE REVELATION…I don’t wear one. It’s not a “teaching” of the Church, it’s a sacramental…nothing more…just as a cross or crucifix is a sacramental.

You misunderstand INFALLIBILITY quite a bit…the conditions for INFALLIBLE statements by the Pope have been met like some 15 times in 2000 years…a lot of hubbub from the Prots for something used about every 150 years.

Private revelation and private devotions are just that…private…and unless they begin to lead the faithful away from the core of Church teaching they are generally NOT condemened. So, all this talk of getting you out of purgatory…well, the Church doesn’t officiall teach that purgatory is a PLACE or that TIME is spent there (and what relevance has time in eternity), rather purgatory is a PROCESS by which our attachment to sin is removed.

I hear some refer to Tradition Scripture and Reason…well here’s some REASON for you…When we are here on earth, we still sin, even us Christians…so, why is it that when we get to heaven we no longer sin? What happens? Our attachement to sin is removed…I beleive Prots call this Glorification…so, what you call GLORIFICATION catholics call PURGATION…anyone undergoing purgation is saved…no ifs and or puts. We speak in terms of suffering in purgatory fort hree reasons…we recognize the full horror of our sinfulness…we are denied the beatific vision, and, since our attachement to sin is removed…we undergo a personality change…which is a painful event. Some Catholics talk about “TIME” in purgatory because a) we don’t know if we spend “time” there…and again, what relevance does our concept of TIME have in ETERNITY, and because we have limited minds to understand great mysteries.