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

[Pixie_Dust]

It may not be a defined dogma but it is a doctrine by definition.
This is a definition of doctrine:
rule or principle: a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy
ideas taught as truth:

As has been explained, Scapulars are a private devotion. What is your definition of a private devotion?

Did i read correctly that in this blog the nun said that catholics are to believe this when she writes:
The Pope extended the promise to the rest of us, meaning, the Church Militant…which means, we believe the same thing. He didn’t extend the promise to the separated brethren or the Wiccans.???

Sure, anyone who wishes to devote themselves to prayers and voluntarily doing the will of God, and devote themselves to building a world true to His plan of community, justice and peace can apply for a Scapular. It’s not a magic charm, it’s not a guarantee of salvation, it’s not an excuse to sin, and it’s not required. It’s optional. Totally optional.

Then she goes on to say, “Do you have to believe this? No, you don’t.”…
The piece of cloth is a symbol of what we believe. You don’t need the symbol to believe it. You can dump all your sacramentals and saint holy cards into the landfill tomorrow. No problem. You can forget about wearing a scapular. You don’t have to believe in anything that came to us through private revelations.

Is it clear enough now?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

As has been explained, Scapulars are a private devotion. What is your definition of a private devotion?

Here, let me help

pri·vate /ˈpraɪvɪt/
–adjective

1. belonging to some particular person: private property.
2. pertaining to or affecting a particular person or a small group of persons; individual; personal: for your private satisfaction.
3. confined to or intended only for the persons immediately concerned

de·vo·tion /dɪˈvoʊʃən/
–noun

1. profound dedication; consecration.
2. earnest attachment to a cause, person, etc.
3. an assignment or appropriation to any purpose, cause, etc.: the devotion of one’s wealth and time to scientific advancement.
4. Often, devotions. Ecclesiastical. religious observance or worship; a form of prayer or worship for special use.

 

[estesbob]

Huh? What do you do when you are praying to some saint that may be in purgatory? Can they hear you there?

Once more displaying an iognorance of Catholocism. By the very definition a Saint can’t be in purgatory. You might want to read the cathecism before you make more foolish comments like that.

 

[rr1213]

Once more displaying an iognorance of Catholocism. By the very definition a Saint can’t be in purgatory. You might want to read the cathecism before you make more foolish comments like that.

Are you saying that when a Saint dies he is perfect and has no sins whatsoever (obviously we are talking venial sins) on his soul?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, it is the judgment of the Church through the Holy Spirit that a person whose “certitude of heaven” is known (through the Holy Spirit) has at the time of death no stain of venial sin (and obviously mortal as well). It doesn’t mean he/she never sinned. . .it means that, with the grace of God, he/she has done all humanly possible before death to make atonement and by thus completely humbling oneself has allied with God, by whose grace alone salvation is possible. And thus that person, completely ‘clean’, may enter heaven immediately on death. Thanks be to God!

This should not surprise you. Whether it is an infant in arms or a man on the brink of death, when coming in to baptism, that person is ‘cleansed’ of all his prior sins. Confession and penance remove the stain of ‘further’ venial and mortal sins. Saints by definition are so because they lived lives of heroic virtue–heroic, meaning that by God’s grace He enabled them to live --with His gifts of baptism, penance, and Eucharist–and with the help of the graces that come with them–and with the full cooperation of the saint–lives which, even when the person did ‘fail’ and commit sin, the person made full restitution for that personal sin --and as we know, Christ’s death on the cross has freed us of our ‘debt’ as regards to what we would ‘deserve’, as even the most ‘venial’ of sins separates us from being ‘fully’ with God.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that certain souls ally themselves to God in living lives of heroic virtue? And it’s usually the same people who think that our sins are ‘covered like dung heaps by snow’ and we are ‘home free’ for heaven who don’t even want to consider that anybody can cooperate with God and live the lives that GOD laid forth for us in Scripture, in telling us “be perfect as your Father is perfect”. Why would He lay an ‘impossible burden’ on us if such a life could NOT be lived, and necessitating everybody’s sins to be ‘covered up?’

 

[rr1213]

Yes, it is the judgment of the Church through the Holy Spirit that a person whose “certitude of heaven” is known (through the Holy Spirit) has at the time of death no stain of venial sin (and obviously mortal as well). It doesn’t mean he/she never sinned. . .it means that, with the grace of God, he/she has done all humanly possible before death to make atonement and by thus completely humbling oneself has allied with God, by whose grace alone salvation is possible. And thus that person, completely ‘clean’, may enter heaven immediately on death. Thanks be to God!

This should not surprise you. Whether it is an infant in arms or a man on the brink of death, when coming in to baptism, that person is ‘cleansed’ of all his prior sins. Confession and penance remove the stain of ‘further’ venial and mortal sins. Saints by definition are so because they lived lives of heroic virtue–heroic, meaning that by God’s grace He enabled them to live --with His gifts of baptism, penance, and Eucharist–and with the help of the graces that come with them–and with the full cooperation of the saint–lives which, even when the person did ‘fail’ and commit sin, the person made full restitution for that personal sin --and as we know, Christ’s death on the cross has freed us of our ‘debt’ as regards to what we would ‘deserve’, as even the most ‘venial’ of sins separates us from being ‘fully’ with God.

Why is it so hard for some to believe that certain souls ally themselves to God in living lives of heroic virtue? And it’s usually the same people who think that our sins are ‘covered like dung heaps by snow’ and we are ‘home free’ for heaven who don’t even want to consider that anybody can cooperate with God and live the lives that GOD laid forth for us in Scripture, in telling us “be perfect as your Father is perfect”. Why would He lay an ‘impossible burden’ on us if such a life could NOT be lived, and necessitating everybody’s sins to be ‘covered up?’

Because I don’t believe that it is possible for someone to be fully sanctified this side of heaven.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

You don’t? Scripture and Sacred Tradition both disagree with you, then–and have for 2000 years.

 

[estesbob]

Are you saying that when a Saint dies he is perfect and has no sins whatsoever (obviously we are talking venial sins) on his soul?

I thought you knew **lots **about Catholicism!? You dont even know what the definition of a Saint is??? Please go do some research and get back to us-what you are doing is the equivalent of trying to discuss quantum mechanics without understanding basic physics

 

[RobHom]

Because I don’t believe that it is possible for someone to be fully sanctified this side of heaven.

That is the difference between what we believe and you believe. We don’t believe you are saved by grace alone, or that once saved always saved, and you do or might believe in one or more of those things.

 

[rr1213]

I thought you knew **lots **about Catholicism!? You dont even know what the definition of a Saint is??? Please go do some research and get back to us-what you are doing is the equivalent of trying to discuss quantum mechanics without understanding basic physics

Well, I beg your pardon MR. Estesbob. A Saint as the Catholic Church understands the term means someone who is known for a fact to be in heaven. In concept, this would not necessarily exclude those who die with only venial sins on their souls because such folks would end up in purgatory and, eventually, in heaven.

 

[rr1213]

That is the difference between what we believe and you believe. We don’t believe you are saved by grace alone, or that once saved always saved, and you do or might believe in one or more of those things.

Catholics don’t believe that they are saved by grace alone? It was my understanding that grace alone was one of the things we have in common. I think you’re mixing concepts here.

 

[Teflon93]

I don’t think this is right, either. I think there are many things inspiried by the HS that have not been considered infallible. For example, look at all the religious orders and apostolic missions! They are held up as good for the faithful, but only to those that are called to them. Mother Theresa used to send people away all the time because she determined they were not called to that apostolate. Just because something does not apply to everyone does not mean it is not inspiried by the Spirit.

Fine–let’s say “revealed by” instead of “inspired by”.

 

[po18guy]

Because I don’t believe that it is possible for someone to be fully sanctified this side of heaven.

You don’t get into heaven with any impurity in you. Where do you get purified? No one knows, but purgatory is Christendom’s best explanation so far.

I know that every corner church has it’s own theory, but they’d BETTER be right.

 

[Nella]

You don’t get into heaven with any impurity in you. Where do you get purified? No one knows, but purgatory is Christendom’s best explanation so far.

Ever heard of being washed in the blood of the Lamb?? I think I will rely upon his sacrifice, I don’t know what you will do.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

We need to discuss these things to if you are up to it.

I recall a short discussion of it. You seemed to think that these visions were the work of Satan and of false prophets. I asked you how these visions might have led people astray. The ball’s in your court, so to speak.

 

[estesbob]

Well, I beg your pardon MR. Estesbob. A Saint as the Catholic Church understands the term means someone who is known for a fact to be in heaven. In concept, this would not necessarily exclude those who die with only venial sins on their souls because such folks would end up in purgatory and, eventually, in heaven.

Yes -IN HEAVEN!!! That is what Saint means. By the very definition they can not be in purgatory when we pray to them.JUST$KING commented we could end up praying to a Saint that was in purgatory- an utterly ridicoulus comment for anyone who knows what a Saint is …

 

[guanophore]

You are right, and they are wrong: they have to believe it, whether or not it is understandable to them.

I do not think this is right. Private revelation is not binding on the Church as a whole.

“It is permitted to the Carmelite Fathers to preach that the Christian people may piously believe in the help which the souls of brothers and members, who have departed this life in charity, have worn in life the scapular…”

The Church allowing pursuit of a certain devotional does not make it binding on anyone.

On the other hand, what the RCC teaches–the phrase I am quoting verbatim from last Friday–may not be wholly positive, but tentative and searching. So the teaching itself may not express the fullness of truth on a given matter the RCC Herself is trying but acknowledges She has not yet achieved.

But the Sabbatine Privilege is not an official teaching of the church, and therefore, this concept is irrelevant.

So as an example of what we are bound as Catholics to believe I would refer unobjectionably to the CCC. The Creeds. The mysteries of the Sacraments.

You will find nothing about the Brown Scapular in any of these places, but you are right, these are the right places to look.

I would want to ask my co-religionists if the phrase believe in the RCC means part time or full time.

God bless.

One must distinguish between the official teachings of the Church, and private revelation, which is not binding upon the faithful.

 

[Palladio]

I do not think this is right. Private revelation is not binding on the Church as a whole.

“It is permitted to the Carmelite Fathers to preach that the Christian people may piously believe in the help which the souls of brothers and members, who have departed this life in charity, have worn in life the scapular…”

The Church allowing pursuit of a certain devotional does not make it binding on anyone.

But the Sabbatine Privilege is not an official teaching of the church, and therefore, this concept is irrelevant.

You will find nothing about the Brown Scapular in any of these places, but you are right, these are the right places to look.

One must distinguish between the official teachings of the Church, and private revelation, which is not binding upon the faithful.

All very interesting, but my post, which was not on the Scapular, speaks for itself. As for private revelation, that is not at all relevant to my post either. Besides, bound to belief is one thing, bound to a devotion or practice is another. Catholics are as Catholics bound to the teaching of the RCC, and they promise this.

God bless.

 

[guanophore]

You are right, and they are wrong: they have to believe it, whether or not it is understandable to them.

I do not think this is right. Private revelation is not binding on the Church as a whole.

“It is permitted to the Carmelite Fathers to preach that the Christian people may piously believe in the help which the souls of brothers and members, who have departed this life in charity, have worn in life the scapular…”

The Church allowing pursuit of a certain devotional does not make it binding on anyone.

On the other hand, what the RCC teaches–the phrase I am quoting verbatim from last Friday–may not be wholly positive, but tentative and searching. So the teaching itself may not express the fullness of truth on a given matter the RCC Herself is trying but acknowledges She has not yet achieved.

But the Sabbatine Privilege is not an official teaching of the church, and therefore, this concept is irrelevant.

So as an example of what we are bound as Catholics to believe I would refer unobjectionably to the CCC. The Creeds. The mysteries of the Sacraments.

You will find nothing about the Brown Scapular in any of these places, but you are right, these are the right places to look.

I would want to ask my co-religionists if the phrase believe in the RCC means part time or full time.

God bless.

One must distinguish between the official teachings of the Church, and private revelation, which is not binding upon the faithful.

It was not some sunday school teacher that endorsed the Brown Scapular and its promise but the pope himself. This should carry a lot of weight for a catholic.

Yes, but not as much weight as that of the teaching of the Magesterium. The Pope is himself subject to the Church, and Jesus as her head. He is not allowed to bind the Catholics in doctrine on anything that was not given by Jesus through the Apostles.

 

[patrick457]

I think we need to clarify something here. When the Church recognizes a Private Revelation, she only says that it does not contradict faith or morals and thus anyone is permitted to believe in that particular revelation. The obligation to believe in it is not imposed on everyone; it is not binding to the faithful but only to those who receive it.

Believing in Fatima, for example, does not make someone who believes in it a better Catholic nor someone who does not a heretic for the simple fact that it is not the same as Public Revelation in that it is not required belief, endorsements by the Pope, Clergy or Sainted people notwithstanding. I could not see why the Brown (or for that matter, the other Scapulars such as the Green or the Red) Scapular should be any different, especially since they were given after Public Revelation was closed.

From Wikipedia (which in turn borrowed a lot from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Catholic Church additionally teaches that public revelation ended with the death of St. John the Apostle and consequently all subsequent revelation is private. When the Church approves private revelations, it declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.

It also teaches that the prudent course is neither to believe nor to deny them unless there is sufficient reason for so doing. Much less should one suspect that the saints have been always, or very often deceived in their vision. On the contrary, such deception is rare, and as a rule in unimportant matters only.