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

[rr1213]

You do realize that one of the more compelling reasons for the Catechism in English is to avoid mistranslation, right?

Isn’t is remarkable that Protestants insist we argue their faith solely from that portion of Scripture they recognize, while arguing against Catholicism without using the Catechism we recognize?

What’s remarkable about Protestants not accepting the CCC as an authoritative document?

 

[estesbob]

What’s remarkable about Protestants not accepting the CCC as an authoritative document?

Because in order for a Protestant to discuss Catholic teachings and doctrines they first have to understand what they are. They can find is only by reading the catechism. Most of the time Catholic apologetics is all about correcting misconceptions Protestants have about what the Church teaches. One need only look at the myriad number of threads about Catholics worshiping Mary and praying to statues to understand what I mean

 

[rr1213]

Because in order for a Protestant to discuss Catholic teachings and doctrines they first have to understand what they are. They can find is only by reading the catechism. Most of the time Catholic apologetics is all about correcting misconceptions Protestants have about what the Church teaches. One need only look at the myriad number of threads about Catholics worshiping Mary and praying to statues to understand what I mean

Ok, I get what you are saying. Certainly the CCC is authoritative with respect to what the Catholic Church teaches. No problem there. I thought you meant that you were surprised that Protestants would not necessarily accept the CCC as being authoritative on matters of contested theology.

 

[Teflon93]

What’s remarkable about Protestants not accepting the CCC as an authoritative document?

It is the authoritative source for Catholic teaching.

Would you not find it remarkable if I argued the falseness of Protestant theology based on Tobit?

 

[Teflon93]

Ok, I get what you are saying. Certainly the CCC is authoritative with respect to what the Catholic Church teaches. No problem there. I thought you meant that you were surprised that Protestants would not necessarily accept the CCC as being authoritative on matters of contested theology.

Ahh, gotcha—should have read further down the thread before replying to you.

 

[justasking4]

estesbob;2640768]Before you get into the brown scapular you’d have to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary of which you have thus far shown profound ignorance about.

What exactly am i ignorant about? Can you give me a couple of examples?

What you want to do is pick and choose various Catholic traditions and asked people to justify them. Yet there is no way we can explain them to you because of your limited knowledge of the Church teachings.

Why don’t you try?

There is ,for instance ,no requirement whatsoever that Catholics have a brown scapular or even believe that which is said about it.

Is it a true teaching and practice is it not?

One wonders if you are truly searching for what Catholics believe why you would concentrate on such a trivial thing when there are much bigger things to discuss-i.e. the real presence, apostolic succession, and the authority of the Pope/Church.

This is not a trivial thing but one that is part of the catholic church and its fullness.

You neither understand or, I suspect ,accept any of the three I mentioned even though they are crucial for understanding our faith.

Those are important to be sure but so is this.

 

[estesbob]

Ok, I get what you are saying. Certainly the CCC is authoritative with respect to what the Catholic Church teaches. No problem there. I thought you meant that you were surprised that Protestants would not necessarily accept the CCC as being authoritative on matters of contested theology.

Okay. I should made myself clearer. My point was that in order to discuss contested theology you first have to understand what Catholic theology is. Too often in these forums we find ourselves argue with people about what they believe Catholic theology is and absolutely refuse to accept what you tell them it actually is

 

[estesbob]

What exactly am i ignorant about? Can you give me a couple of examples?

Catholic teaching concerning Mary for instance, which leads you to make naïve comments like this:

No Christian should ever pray to Mary, the departed etc. Scripture teaches us that God alone is the one we are to pray to.

Is it a true teaching and practice is it not?

The Church neither endorses nor condemns it.

This is not a trivial thing but one that is part of the catholic church and its

I don’t have a brown scapular. I don’t know any Catholics who does and I do not even know what the promises made to one who words one are. It is not one of the core teachings of the Church, it is not a doctrine of the Church nor it is not a teaching one is required to believe . In short it is a trivial thing

Those are important to be sure but so is this.

A perfect example of the truth inherent in the title of this thread

 

[justasking4]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
What exactly am i ignorant about? Can you give me a couple of examples?

That is not naive. There are no prayers in scripture directed to Mary nor is anyone ever exhorted to pray to her. We should only pray to God and not anyone else.

Quote:
Is it a true teaching and practice is it not?

The Church neither endorses nor condemns it.

Your response doesn’t answer the question. Is it a true teaching and practice?

Quote:
This is not a trivial thing but one that is part of the catholic church and its

I don’t have a brown scapular. I don’t know any Catholics who does and I do not even know what the promises made to one who words one are. It is not one of the core teachings of the Church, it is not a doctrine of the Church nor it is not a teaching one is required to believe . In short it is a trivial thing

In comparison to other catholic teachings i would agree. However is it not true that the catholic church does not teach falsely in matters of faith and morals? If so, then these promises must believe that this is true.

Quote:
Those are important to be sure but so is this.

A perfect example of the truth inherent in the title of this thread

---

1Peter 5:7

[/QUOTE]

 

[dlltoms]

It is not that we were taught wrong. For I was taught well. In my heart I know Jesus. Simple as that. I never understood this beleivers prayer anyway or running down some isle to get some part of me healed. I went to that kind of thing and it just did not do the same as what should I say. Going to confession. For confession is good for the soul. That is what I learned. Now maybe those people that taught me that were alittle goofy like I am I do not know. But the point was there. Simple as that. I married someone that was so aganist catholics. I don’t think he beleives in anything at all. Let me tell you when your in the thick of the battle you have to stop and take a breather. Funny thing is even going to the secular church and being around the other faiths I never did forget the prayers that were taught me like the hail mary the our father and the act of contrision I have forgotten alot of other things but those I have not. It never bothered me to get up infront of class in catechism and resite the Hail Mary but it sure did embarrese me to get up in public school and read out of a book. Isn’t that amazing. I know the stations of the cross and I know to bow my head when the name of Jesus is said. Never had that in the non demonital church. As a matter of fact all they can say is amen to the preacher spewing his what ever. And if you have been to those or have ever watched them on tv they all rock when they pray. They say they are from some where between broken bow and broken arrow Ok. If you beleive that the sacraments are what they are and what they represent then that is the truth and no matter how much you try to explain some of them will not get it. I don’t know what they think we do in the confessional at all. Most of them do not beleive in the immulate conception for they think on a human plain why it takes a man to create a baby simple as that. they cannot think on the spiritual plain because of what they have been taught or heard on the air waves. I beleive in the holy catholic church the community of saints the forgiveness of sins and life everlasting.

 

[mary_bobo]

i’m quite familar with the teachings of the catholic church on a number of doctrines. If you think my opinion is wrong then show me where it is.

I, along with others on this forum, suggest that you read, and hopefully understand, the CCC. That is not to say that you have to believe it, but you keep arguing against what you have been told by many of us. What we are telling you, and what you will find in the CCC, is the teaching of the Catholic Church. If you have some reason not to start at the beginning, then I am not sure we can have a meaningful conversation.

You say you are quite familiar on a number of doctrines. Then why, please, do you keep telling us that we are wrong. We believe what we believe, and just because you do not accept that, please do twist what you have been told. If your “opinion” is opposed to the CCC, then this is where I would say you are wrong. Don’t think I have said that. I have said that you have your opinion, and it is just that–an opinion. That does not make it fact.

 

[marci]

Justasking4, Scripture tells us that “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven. Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

When the Catholic Church declares something to be dogmatic, then we must believe as a matter of faith. When the church declares that Mary’s Assumption is dogmatic, we must believe because the Church, by Jesus’s own words, has bound us to believe.

I have read that when protestants set off on the path of study of the catholic church with the intention of conversion, the Saints and particularly Mary, are the last sticking points. When they come to understand the roles that they play, things like rosaries, scapulars, and statues are understood for what they are, not what protestants view them to be.

 

[Mannyfit75]

What exactly am i ignorant about? Can you give me a couple of examples?

You claim we worship Mary and make up new doctrines and call them false. This is clearly noted in your post. So you are ignorant of Catholic doctrine.

 

[Teflon93]

One of the reasons it is essential to understand the Catechism is that one must first understand WHY Catholics do what we do.

We’ve had numerous threads on this forum claiming that Catholics worship statues, simply because we have them.

Were Catholics as uncharitable and unwilling to understand Protestantism as Protestants are of Catholicism, one line of reasoning might be thus:

1. We Catholics use crucifixes which feature Christ on the cross.
2. Protestants use empty crosses.
3. Therefore, Protestants worship wood, not Christ.

And when Protestants point out how absurd such a conclusion would be, I would simply maintain that because they cannot prove to my satisfaction that the empty cross is a symbol of Christ nonetheless, they are just trying to hide the fact that they are pagan wood-worshippers.

 

[estesbob]

:

That is not naive. There are no prayers in scripture directed to Mary nor is anyone ever exhorted to pray to her. We should only pray to God and not anyone else

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

justasking, although the Bible does not explicitly proscribe veneration of Mary and the saints in prayer, Catholics believe that Mary herself has asked us to on several occasions. The miracle of Lourdes, for example, or Our Lady of Guadelupe-- St. Juan Diego’s tilma is a testament to that vision. Also, Fatima, where Mary specifically asked three young children to pray the rosary.

What do you think of these? If it wasn’t Mary herself, then who was it? Was it a figment of these people’s imaginations? Were they mentally insane, or, worse, were these visions in fact Satan’s work? The uncountable healings at Lourdes don’t smell of the devil to me. However, these visions belong in the realm of private revelation and no Catholic is obliged to believe in them, no matter how many witnesses there are to the visions.

It is important to note that it is not men who sought to give Mary this special status, but God. It is God who chose her to be mother of Jesus, and thus Mother of God. In other words, it wasn’t our idea, it was God’s idea that we should honor Mary.

 

[justasking4]

You claim we worship Mary and make up new doctrines and call them false. This is clearly noted in your post. So you are ignorant of Catholic doctrine.

This is not ignorance but a disagreement of what it is called. If someone is kneeling at a statute of her, praying to her and praising her these are all elements of worship. You should know full well that the scriptures never show anyone praying to Mary.

 

[justasking4]

Tim Kirchoff;2641615]justasking, although the Bible does not explicitly proscribe veneration of Mary and the saints in prayer, Catholics believe that Mary herself has asked us to on several occasions. The miracle of Lourdes, for example, or Our Lady of Guadelupe-- St. Juan Diego’s tilma is a testament to that vision. Also, Fatima, where Mary specifically asked three young children to pray the rosary.

Let me ask you. Do you think satan is able to appear as an angel of light?
Secondly, what is the theological message of these appearances?

What would you say to a Mormon who also claims that an angel appeared to him and gave him a message? Would you accept his message from God also?

What do you think of these? If it wasn’t Mary herself, then who was it?

I think it was the deceiever at work.Also your church has no way to know if it was Mary either. How would they know since all we know of her is found in the NT and NT never presents her like the catholic church does?

Was it a figment of these people’s imaginations? Were they mentally insane, or, worse, were these visions in fact Satan’s work?

See above.

The uncountable healings at Lourdes don’t smell of the devil to me. However, these visions belong in the realm of private revelation and no Catholic is obliged to believe in them, no matter how many witnesses there are to the visions.

Does not your church assume they are from Mary and are true?

It is important to note that it is not men who sought to give Mary this special status, but God. It is God who chose her to be mother of Jesus, and thus Mother of God. In other words, it wasn’t our idea, it was God’s idea that we should honor Mary.

The catholic church has gone far beyond honoring her. Have you read any of the writings of St Liguori in the Glories of Mary? If not, let me encourage you to do. What he writes about her goes far far beyond any honor given.

 

[estesbob]

This is not ignorance but a disagreement of what it is called. If someone is kneeling at a statute of her, praying to her and praising her these are all elements of worship. You should know full well that the scriptures never show anyone praying to Mary.

How could you disagree. You dont know enough to disagree. Every catholic you have taked to says we dont worship Mary, The Church makes it clear that we dont worship Mary yet you claim we do. It shows a profound ignorance of even the most basic teachings and doctrines of the Church.

As to whether scripture does or does not show people praying to Mary-so what? You are the only one here shackled by the inherent limitations of sola scriptura.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

This is not ignorance but a disagreement of what it is called. If someone is kneeling at a statute of her, praying to her and praising her these are all elements of worship. You should know full well that the scriptures never show anyone praying to Mary.

What about the angel Gabriel, or Elizabeth? They both gave great honor to Mary. The beginning of the Hail Mary is Gabriel’s greeting at the Annunciation. If Catholics worship Mary by saying the Hail Mary and such, Gabriel is guilty of the same sin. Think about that.

And also, something can have elements of worship and not be worship. Kings would often be greeted with a bow or with kneeling, and surely a worthy king would be praised by his subjects. These are "elements of worship, as you say. However, kings, even if they were reverenced in this manner, did not claim to be gods, and did not tell their subjects to worship them as such. There are exceptions, of course, but having similar characteristics as something else does not mean that it must be that something else.

A canadian goose has characteristics similar to a swan’s, but it does not follow that a canadian goose is a swan or that a swan is in fact a canadian goose.