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

[Tantum_ergo]

Regarding the Sabbatine privilege, this is taken from New Advent:

We reproduce here the whole passage dealing with the Sabbatine privilege, as it appears in the summary approved by the Congregation of Indulgences on 4 July, 1908. It is noteworthy that the Bull of John XXII, which was still mentioned in the previous summary approved on 1 December, 1866, is no longer referred to (cf. “Rescript. authent. S.C. Indulg.”, Ratisbon, 1885, p. 475). Among the privileges, which are mentioned after the indulgences, the following occurs in the first place: "The privilege of Pope John XXII, commonly [vulgo] known as the Sabbatine, which was approved and confirmed by Clement VII (“Ex clementi”, 12 August 1530), St. Pius V (“Superna dispositione”, 18 Feb., 1566), Gregory XIII (“Ut laudes”, 18 Sept., 1577), and others, and also by the Holy Roman General Inquisition under Paul V on 20 January, 1613, in a Decree to the following effect:

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, have ever observed chastity, have recited the Little Hours [of the Blessed Virgin], or, if they cannot read, have observed the fast days of the Church, and have abstained from flesh meat on Wednesdays and Saturdays (except when Christmas falls on such days), may derive after death – especially on Saturdays, the day consecrated by the Church to the Blessed Virgin – through the unceasing intercession of Mary, her pious petitions, her merits, and her special protection.
With this explanation and interpretation, the Sabbatine privilege no longer presents any difficulties, and Benedict XIV adds his desire that the faithful should rely on it (Opera omnia, IX, Venice, 1767, pp. 197 sqq.). Even apart from the Bull and the tradition or legend concerning the apparition and promise of the Mother of God the interpretation of the Decree cannot be contested.

The Sabbatine privilege thus consists essentially in the early liberation from purgatory, through the special intercession and petition of Mary, which she graciously exercises in favour of her devoted servants preferentially – as we may assume – on the day consecrated to her, Saturday. Furthermore, the conditions for the gaining of the privilege are of such a kind as justify a special trust in the assistance of Mary. It is especially required of all who wish to share in the privilege that they faithfully preserve their chastity, and recite devoutly each day the Little Hours of the Blessed Virgin. However, all those who are bound to read their Breviary, fulfil the obligation of reciting the Little Hours by reading their Office. Persons who cannot read must (instead of reciting the Little Hours) observe all the fasts prescribed by the Church as they are kept in their home diocese or place of residence, and must in addition abstain from flesh meat on all Wednesdays and Saturdays of the year, except when Christmas falls on one of these days. The obligation to read the Little Hours and to abstain from flesh meat on Wednesday and Saturday may on important grounds be changed for other pious works; the faculty to sanction this change was granted to all confessors by Leo XIII in the Decree of the Congregation of Indulgences of 11 (14) June, 1901.

 

[estesbob]

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.

There is not a single catholic in this thread that has stated you dont have to follow all the teachings of the Church. Not one. You have let justking4 sucker you into commenting on a disagreement that does not exist.

It would be helpful if you would read the entire thread before jumping in and claiming the rest of us are wrong. If I sound angry its because I am-for 16 pages we have tried to patiently explain to justking4 about papal infalibility, what consititutes faith and morals, how one had to examine scripture, tradition and the teachings of the magestrium to understand Catholicsim. in one swell swoop you assure him we are all wrong and he is now waving you comments around like the sword of exclibur claiming we have been wong all along. You have undermined days of hard work by a lot of people. More importantly you have affirmed his ignorance for him.

 

[Atemi]

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.

Exactly. You are absolutely correct.

This is the way it should be, but this is the first correction of this kind in this thread that I am aware of.

This is entirely unfortunate, but I appreciate your deeper understanding here.

Charging others with vice (“misrepresentation”) when they are not even speaking about official RC teaching to begin with is a serious mistake, but an entirely avoidable one.

…

 

[Atemi]

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.

No.

Just because somone does not believe your apologetic does not make them “misrepresenters.”

No.

I have explained over and over again to some Catholics that I do not worship the Bible, but again and again they insist I do.

That is not a misrepresentation, but a denial of my apologetic. They do not believe me. Fair enough. They don’t have to.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are misrepresenting anything. Unfortunately, too many Catholics seem to think that because someone disgagrees with them, and does not automatically take their word for it, that somehow amounts to willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

No way. Silliness, IMV.

…

 

[Nella]

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.

My friend, this is not so. I never said that Catholics worship Mary and I knew that the mass wasn’t a re-sacrifice since I was 10 years old. Your argument here isn’t very accurate. I know much about your faith than you give me credit for.

 

[Atemi]

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

Yes, but if one redefines “worship” to only mean it can be only given to God, then no.

That is a different thread, of course.

 

[Atemi]

To say that Catholics “worship” Mary is indeed misrepresenting Catholic teachings and is as well a reflection of your beliefs about Catholics.

Not in the least.

If I say the Catholic Church teaches that Mary is to be worshipped as God, only then I am misrepresenting Catholic teaching (if I know better).

Until then, it is my opinion and position, just like the many Catholics hold against Protestant teaching and practice.

Has a Catholic ever said to you “I pray to Mary because she is God’s equal?”

Nope, and it is irrelevant if they did or didn’t.

But that is not the point of the thread.

…

 

[Fisher]

Does this answer the question?

Few people in America hate the Catholic religion,
but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion
–and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion,
Catholics would hate it too.
Bishop Fulton Sheen

All I hate is sin!

 

[Nella]

No.

Just because somone does not believe your apologetic does not make them “misrepresenters.”

No.

I have explained over and over again to some Catholics that I do not worship the Bible, but again and again they insist I do.

That is not a misrepresentation, but a denial of my apologetic. They do not believe me. Fair enough. They don’t have to.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are misrepresenting anything. Unfortunately, too many Catholics seem to think that because someone disgagrees with them, and does not automatically take their word for it, that somehow amounts to willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

No way. Silliness, IMV.

…

AMEN…

 

[Nella]

My friend, this is not so. I never said that Catholics worship Mary and I knew that the mass wasn’t a re-sacrifice since I was 10 years old. Your argument here isn’t very accurate. I know much more about your faith than you give me credit for.

 

[Mannyfit75]

My friend, this is not so. I never said that Catholics worship Mary and I knew that the mass wasn’t a re-sacrifice since I was 10 years old. Your argument here isn’t very accurate. I know much about your faith than you give me credit for.

I never give any Non-Catholic any credit. I just don’t trust them.

 

[Nella]

I never give any Non-Catholic any credit. I just don’t trust them.

Well I just told you that what you accused me of not knowing I knew good and well long before I left the RCC. I can’t help it if you trust me or not and It really doesn’t matter to me either way. i just pointed out to you that ignorance of the Catholic faith certainly isn’t why I left it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Well I just told you that what you accused me of not knowing I knew good and well long before I left the RCC. I can’t help it if you trust me or not and It really doesn’t matter to me either way. i just pointed out to you that ignorance of the Catholic faith certainly isn’t why I left it.

Why did you leave in the first place? Did you have trouble with doctrinal issues, and not accepting the authority given to the Pope? Answer this in PM, since I have no intension to derail this topic.

 

[ChadS]

No.

Just because somone does not believe your apologetic does not make them “misrepresenters.”

No.

I have explained over and over again to some Catholics that I do not worship the Bible, but again and again they insist I do.

That is not a misrepresentation, but a denial of my apologetic. They do not believe me. Fair enough. They don’t have to.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are misrepresenting anything. Unfortunately, too many Catholics seem to think that because someone disgagrees with them, and does not automatically take their word for it, that somehow amounts to willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

No way. Silliness, IMV.

…

Actually if a Catholic does accuse you of worshipping the Bible that is a misrepresentation of your position. Protestants in general and you in particular never claimed to worship the Bible. Not accepting your apologetic is an entirely different thing.

ChadS

 

[Palladio]

Actually if a Catholic does accuse you of worshipping the Bible that is a misrepresentation of your position. Protestants in general and you in particular never claimed to worship the Bible. Not accepting your apologetic is an entirely different thing.

ChadS

On the other hand, Reverend Peter Gomes, at Harvard, claims Protestants do, falsely, worship the Bible. Enough must do for him to have taken notice and to oppose it.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Atemi:

Just because somone does not believe your apologetic does not make them “misrepresenters.”

They do misrepresent the faith which they do no profess. Even some Catholics here do not fully understand Protestantism, though most Catholics here who are Former Protestants attest the erroneous doctrine that stem from man-made religion of Protestantism.

I have explained over and over again to some Catholics that I do not worship the Bible, but again and again they insist I do.

That is not a misrepresentation, but a denial of my apologetic. They do not believe me. Fair enough. They don’t have to.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are misrepresenting anything. Unfortunately, too many Catholics seem to think that because someone disgagrees with them, and does not automatically take their word for it, that somehow amounts to willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

No way. Silliness, IMV.

Shame on the Catholic who accuse you as such. Though I never called a Protestant worship the Bible. One reason could be that viewing Protestant worship and see them put the Bible like an idol.

One such example is when a Protestant minister on TV had his Bible raised up, and told the congregation to make an oath to it. All they talk about was the Bible but not Jesus.

This itself does not seem worship ut all, but could be mispresentative as a type of worship.

 

[rtconstant]

No.

Just because somone does not believe your apologetic does not make them “misrepresenters.”

No.

I have explained over and over again to some Catholics that I do not worship the Bible, but again and again they insist I do.

That is not a misrepresentation, but a denial of my apologetic. They do not believe me. Fair enough. They don’t have to.

Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are misrepresenting anything. Unfortunately, too many Catholics seem to think that because someone disgagrees with them, and does not automatically take their word for it, that somehow amounts to willfully misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

No way. Silliness, IMV.

…

Yes.

Atemi, by your very weak argument on this it would be impossible for anyone to ever “misrepresent” anything.

Your example of supposed worship of the Bible is an example. If I accuse you of worshipping the Bible and you simply say:

“no I don’t”

If I continue I’m already misrepresenting at least you. If further I claim that: “OK, maybe you don’t but Protestant belief is that the Bible is God!” Then the burden of proving is on me. If you present evidence of your denomination’s definition of God and Bible and none of it even implies that the Bible is God". While I can offer nothing but anecdotal evidence but continue to accuse you and other protestants of Bible worship I most certainly would be misrepresenting your beliefs.

Your mistake here is that somethings are not a matter of opinion. Simply not liking being wrong doesn’t mean you get wallow in ignorance and not take responsibility for it. I can make wild assertions about all manner of things but in the end If I ignore the evidence and instructions of those who would know the subject and instead hold to my own anecdotal evidence (which I may have misinterpreted to begin with). I’d still be both foolish and dishonest.

 

[guanophore]

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

That the Catechism is sufficient document for understanding the Catholic faith. I just ready that you did not want to be “limited” to it!

Why don’t you try?

He is right. It is not appropriate to move on until a foundation is laid.

Is it a true teaching and practice is it not?

If you are referring to the brown scapular, it is a private devotion, and not a required belief or practice for Catholics. The Church has not forbidden it, and does not require it.

This is not a trivial one that is part of the catholic church and its fullness. Those are important to be sure but so is this.

Perhaps “trivial” is not the best word. Non-essential may be better. there are many private devotions in the church, which does have the fullness of faith. However, no one is bound by the private revelation of God to another person. It would make more sense for you to focus on those matters that the church defines as essential.

 

[ChadS]

On the other hand, Reverend Peter Gomes, at Harvard, claims Protestants do, falsely, worship the Bible. Enough must do for him to have taken notice and to oppose it.

I haven’t heard of this person. Do you have a source or a link to see some of his writings?

ChadS

 

[Pixie_Dust]

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.

Endorsing something is not the same as commanding that it be binding on all faithful Catholics. That only happens when the pope is speaking ex cathedra on a matter of faith and morals. The scapular is a matter of private devotion.

This is my best understanding: it’s not so much the wearing of the Scapular, as it is the prayers and works of charity that wearing the scapular requires. It’s a tangible reminder to live a prayerful life that is glorifying to the Lord.

Someone can correct me if I’ve misspoken here.