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

[Teflon93]

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.

Excellent point. Since Purgatory involves temporal punishment (not spiritual—non-Catholics really miss this point), some do conclude that time is experienced within it. It seems a reasonable line of thinking.

Given the power of binding and loosing, it likewise seems reasonable that indulgences, another concept non-Catholics don’t get, which are merely acts of holiness and charity which remit temporal punishment, would have an impact on Purgatory. The reasoning goes something like this:

1. We cannot enter Heaven until our sins have been spiritually and temporally remitted through perfect contrition.
2. Those who die repentant but physically unable to complete the act of contrition through penance are saved but unable to enter Heaven.
3. There must be a cleansing of remaining sin before they can enter Heaven.
4. We call the cleansing purgation. The state of cleansing is called Purgatory.
5. Certain holy or charitable actions may be undertaken which similarly complete the act of penance and contrition. These are called indulgences.
6. Since indulgences offer alternate methods of completing the act of penance and contrition, they reduce the amount of temporal punishment required at Purgatory.
7. Reducing the amount of temporal punishment required at Purgatory reduces the time in Purgatory.
8. Therefore, indulgences reduce time in Purgatory.

 

[Yerusalyim]

In another thread someone made the point that indulgences applied to temporal punishment, but that this occurs before death, or at the moment of death. So it’s not a matter of "getting out of Purgatory early, but of remission here and now."I just don’t like talking about “TIME” in connection with eternal matters.

 

[DanB]

I never understand this. Why do Protestants especially Ex-Catholics persume to know Catholic Church doctrines and dogma, but they don’t really know it.

1. They think we worship Mary, we don’t.
2. They think think our doctrines are invented doctrines but they aren’t.
3. They think the whatever the Popes says is infallible, when in fact it that infallibility is that the Holy Spirit preserves the Pope from teaching error when speaking moral and faith teaching
4. That the sacrifice of the Mass is re-sacrifice when it isn’t. It is to make presence the sacrifice at the cross which transcends time itself.

These are some false presumption of Protestants of what the Catholic Church supposedly believe. There of course countless others, which they think we believe and professed.

Mannyfit,

When we as Catholics, clergy and laypeople, catechize our children in love, history, and pray effortlessly that the Holy Spirit will enkindle in the the fire of His love, then hopefully there will not be so many ex Catholic in other churches telling us everything they didn’t learn.

Let’s keep praying for our prodigal brothers and sisters to be able to see their errors and come home!

 

[Atemi]

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.

No. Maybe you are not getting my point.

The claim that Catholics worship Mary is NOT a misrepresentation of RC teaching as it is not a claim about RC teaching at all.

The same with the status of some RC teachings: invented or not.

If some of us believe some of these teachings are indeed invented doctrines, that does not mean we are saying that the RCC teaches that it invented those doctrines.

To say that some Catholics worship Mary or that some RC doctrines are invented is not saying that the RCC teaches that. Of course the RCC does not teach they worship Mary!

It seems like some Catholics want to condemn others for what they practice themselves. They are more than willing to make claims about Protestant doctrine that we do not teach, but if we naturally do the same, we somehow “misrepresent” Catholic teaching.

That is nonsense.

…

 

[Atemi]

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

Who shall we believe—Atemi or our own eyes?

Of course they claim that. I do to! I have seen it with my own eyes as well.

But does that mean, in the slightest, that we are misrepresenting RC teaching when we claim that?

No.

That is the whole point.

The OP states that such charges are somehow misrepresentations of Catholic teaching when they actually say nothing at all about RC teaching.

Still, no Catholics have corrected such a basic error.

…

 

[Teflon93]

Of course they claim that. I do to! I have seen it with my own eyes as well.

But does that mean, in the slightest, that we are misrepresenting RC teaching when we claim that?

No.

That is the whole point.

The OP states that such charges are somehow misrepresentations of Catholic teaching when they actually say nothing at all about RC teaching.

Still, no Catholics have corrected such a basic error.

…

You do see that this is a distinction without a difference, don’t you?

The Catholic Church teaches that we worship God, and only God. Is not the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me?”

Is not the accusation of Mary worship simultaneously an accusation we violate the first commandment, and that the Church condones it?

 

[justasking4]

Teflon93;2645994]1. I don’t have any idea whether or not you’ve presented whatever “teaching” this is accurately or not.

1. 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.

Are the teachings that are claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit the only ones that you know are true and required to believe?

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?

I can’t read Latin. Can you?
What about those who cannot read Latin and are catholic? Do they have basic understanding of Catholicism?

Did your mathematical education begin with calculus?

I’m not to good at math. I can do simple stuff and that’s about it.

 

[Palladio]

Are the teachings that are claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit the only ones that you know are true and required to believe?

I can’t read Latin. Can you?
What about those who cannot read Latin and are catholic? Do they have basic understanding of Catholicism?

I’m not to good at math. I can do simple stuff and that’s about it.

This may have been covered in the previous sixteen pages, but since my dear wife was just catechized and admitted into the RCC (and our two children baptized) I can mention something perhaps forgotten by cradle Catholics: being a Catholic means believing everything the Church teaches. Not part. All.

It follows that understanding is one thing, believing another. Faith grows as each does, and sometimes these interpenetrate, and sometimes they do not, according to our gifts (as Paul often reminds). But all Catholics are bound to believe all that the RCC teaches.

Nice to delve into what we may in Latin–a language I do read–and Greek–same–but after years of much study I can see how vain the efforts of any one man or woman to penetrate all the RCC, all the Bible, and I find joy in reading the CCC and speaking with priests and nuns: wonderous!

To reason right is to submit, the great Catholic poet Alexander Pope wrote.

God bless.

 

[Atemi]

You do see that this is a distinction without a difference, don’t you?

The Catholic Church teaches that we worship God, and only God. Is not the first commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me?”

Is not the accusation of Mary worship simultaneously an accusation we violate the first commandment, and that the Church condones it?

Yes.

But that is not a misrepresentation of RC teaching. It is a statement about Catholic practice and a rejection of Catholic claims to the contrary.

This is plain.

Calling charges of Marian worship “misrepresentations” of Catholic teaching makes no sense at all. Catholics have no problem making judgments about Protestant doctrine or practice that have nothing to do with misrepresenting our teachings, so they should be able to deal with the same.

…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Of course they claim that. I do to! I have seen it with my own eyes as well.

But does that mean, in the slightest, that we are misrepresenting RC teaching when we claim that?

No.

That is the whole point.

The OP states that such charges are somehow misrepresentations of Catholic teaching when they actually say nothing at all about RC teaching.

Still, no Catholics have corrected such a basic error.

…

I’m a little confused here. Are you saying that you have seen Catholics worship Mary with your very own eyes?

 

[SyCarl]

Yes.

But that is not a misrepresentation of RC teaching. It is a statement about Catholic practice and a rejection of Catholic claims to the contrary.

This is plain.

Calling charges of Marian worship “misrepresentations” of Catholic teaching makes no sense at all. Catholics have no problem making judgments about Protestant doctrine or practice that have nothing to do with misrepresenting our teachings, so they should be able to deal with the same.

…

I would think that saying the Catholic Church teaches the worship of Mary is a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. You may feel that what they do actually amounts to worship of Mary but that is not the same as saying that they teach or think they worship worship Mary.

 

[ChadS]

No. Maybe you are not getting my point.

The claim that Catholics worship Mary is NOT a misrepresentation of RC teaching as it is not a claim about RC teaching at all.

The same with the status of some RC teachings: invented or not.

If some of us believe some of these teachings are indeed invented doctrines, that does not mean we are saying that the RCC teaches that it invented those doctrines.

To say that some Catholics worship Mary or that some RC doctrines are invented is not saying that the RCC teaches that. Of course the RCC does not teach they worship Mary!

It seems like some Catholics want to condemn others for what they practice themselves. They are more than willing to make claims about Protestant doctrine that we do not teach, but if we naturally do the same, we somehow “misrepresent” Catholic teaching.

That is nonsense.

…

To say that Catholics “worship” Mary is indeed misrepresenting Catholic teachings and is as well a reflection of your beliefs about Catholics. I have no idea what you’ve seen with your own eyes, but I sincerely doubt those Catholics you condemn were “worshipping” Mary. Has a Catholic ever said to you “I pray to Mary because she is God’s equal?” I doubt it and if they said it then they aren’t really Catholic.

Growing up I was accustomed to seeing the pastors of my church on their knees in front of Bibles praying, or kneeling in front of a wooden table with offering plates on it praying or perhaps in front of gold plated cross praying. The whole time I thought they were praying to God, but considering how well you know the inner thoughts of Catholics and their prayer life perhaps I should reconsider my thoughts as to what these pastors were actually praying to and about.

ChadS

 

[rtconstant]

Yes.

But that is not a misrepresentation of RC teaching. It is a statement about Catholic practice and a rejection of Catholic claims to the contrary.

This is plain.

Calling charges of Marian worship “misrepresentations” of Catholic teaching makes no sense at all. Catholics have no problem making judgments about Protestant doctrine or practice that have nothing to do with misrepresenting our teachings, so they should be able to deal with the same.

…

Well first off your over position is false. Simply put most Protestants who haven’t bothered look beyond propaganda to understand Catholic teaching do think that the Church teaches that we “worship Mary”. In fact I had a conversation with too evangelical buddies just last week on this. They had held to the beliefe that this was Catholic teaching and were rather shocked that it wasn’t the case. They had based none of their beliefs regarding this on knowing for a fact that many Catholic really do perceive that Mary is a Goddess as you are claiming as the sourse for these rumors.

When I was a Protestant I did not base my belief that Catholics worshiped Mary because I knew Catholics who worshiped Mary. Oh I thought I knew Catholics that did but I based that on seeing them recite the Hail Mary and on what my Church taught me about them.

So yes indeed I like my friends and pretty much every Protestant that I’ve met in my life believed that the RCC does in fact teach the worship of Mary and I percieved that the Rosary and the Communion of Saints was worship. This is what we call a misconception. I was told a lie by my church teachers and I took that lie and applied it to the lens of my perceptions and thus drew an incorrect conclusion of what Catholics were doing. I never asked since there seemed to be no reason too.

Of course at this point we’re still not dealing with misrepresentations were dealing completely with misconceptions. Most Protestants who believe this silliness do so innocently. They’re told these things by family and church teachers (who they obviously trust) and if your religious paradigm tells you that talking to anyone other than God and people on earth is worship then many things Catholics do appears to fit with the stories you’ve been told. They don’t hold to these things with malicious intent so most of these Protestants just need to be told what Catholics actually believe and then they’re good to go.

Now to misrepresentations. Misrepresentations become apparent when Protestants are told the truth, giving proof of the truth and are done so from multiple people who would know and chose willfully to disbelieve or at least to continue to propagate the misconception. That is a misrepresentation. It happens here often.

The misrepresentation becomes apparant when a protestant states that we worship Mary for instance. At this point he has a misconception. He is then corrected by multiple Catholics. He denies what they say because he knew one guy once that said something that seemed to him to mean they did worship Mary. So 20 are wrong 1 (if even that) is correct. To clarify the Catholics offer up the official teachings of the Church. The Protestant then denies this evidence by trying to say that what the Church is saying actually amounst to worship since pray and worship mean the same thing. He is then given vocabulary aids to help him understand that pray can mean and be used in many different conotations. He then further resists because we should use the Protestant use of the word since that is what “everyone” understands it to mean. Then a week latter the same person claims we worship Mary. This is misrepresentation.

 

[justasking4]

This may have been covered in the previous sixteen pages, but since my dear wife was just catechized and admitted into the RCC (and our two children baptized) I can mention something perhaps forgotten by cradle Catholics: being a Catholic means believing everything the Church teaches. Not part. All.

It follows that understanding is one thing, believing another. Faith grows as each does, and sometimes these interpenetrate, and sometimes they do not, according to our gifts (as Paul often reminds). But all Catholics are bound to believe all that the RCC teaches.

Nice to delve into what we may in Latin–a language I do read–and Greek–same–but after years of much study I can see how vain the efforts of any one man or woman to penetrate all the RCC, all the Bible, and I find joy in reading the CCC and speaking with priests and nuns: wonderous!

To reason right is to submit, the great Catholic poet Alexander Pope wrote.

God bless.

I have been discussing with a number of catholics on the the Sabbatine Privilege and what they say is that they do not have to believe it since its not infallilby defined. What you are saying is something different. Both cannot be true.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

I have been discussing with a number of catholics on the the Sabbatine Privilege and what they say is that they do not have to believe it since its not infallilby defined. What you are saying is something different. Both cannot be true.

The RCC’s official teachings are contained within the Deposit of Faith, which I have mentioned. Scapulars are part of “tradition” as opposed to Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is part of official Church teaching, whereas scapulars are not.

Catholics can choose to believe private revelation and apply it to their lives if they so wish. Private revelation can well be part of the Truth, just as those deeds of Jesus not recorded in the Gospels are no less part of Jesus’ life, only less significant in the overall meaning of the Gospels. Tradition (with a small “t”) need not be any less true than Sacred Tradition, only less important.

 

[justasking4]

The RCC’s official teachings are contained within the Deposit of Faith, which I have mentioned. Scapulars are part of “tradition” as opposed to Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is part of official Church teaching, whereas scapulars are not.

Catholics can choose to believe private revelation and apply it to their lives if they so wish. Private revelation can well be part of the Truth, just as those deeds of Jesus not recorded in the Gospels are no less part of Jesus’ life, only less significant in the overall meaning of the Gospels. Tradition (with a small “t”) need not be any less true than Sacred Tradition, only less important.

What then of this comment by Palladio who says otherwise?
This may have been covered in the previous sixteen pages, but since my dear wife was just catechized and admitted into the RCC (and our two children baptized) I can mention something perhaps forgotten by cradle Catholics: being a Catholic means believing everything the Church teaches. Not part. All.

It follows that understanding is one thing, believing another. Faith grows as each does, and sometimes these interpenetrate, and sometimes they do not, according to our gifts (as Paul often reminds). But all Catholics are bound to believe all that the RCC teaches.
Both of you cannot be right on this. Where can i find support for your statement that only “Sacred Traditions” are to be believed but not the others?

 

[Palladio]

I have been discussing with a number of catholics on the the Sabbatine Privilege and what they say is that they do not have to believe it since its not infallilby defined. What you are saying is something different. Both cannot be true.

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

I listened to our Holy Father–when he was a Cardinal–speak very carefully (after all, he approved the CCC) with minute attention to modes and shades and nuances, and he confirms this in effect by speaking with such utmost care.

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.

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

God bless.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I have been discussing with a number of catholics on the the Sabbatine Privilege and what they say is that they do not have to believe it since its not infallilby defined. What you are saying is something different. Both cannot be true.

If your Sunday School teacher says, “I think everyone should read a chapter in your Bible and spend 30 minutes a day in prayer” does that automatically make it part of your church’s official doctrine?

 

[justasking4]

If your Sunday School teacher says, “I think everyone should read a chapter in your Bible and spend 30 minutes a day in prayer” does that automatically make it part of your church’s official doctrine?

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.

 

[estesbob]

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.

Another example of your gross ignorance of Catholicism.