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

[ChadS]

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.

…

To say “I know exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, but I believe what Catholics do is the very thing they say the don’t do” reaches far beyond vice and “misrepresentation.”

I think it’s far more insidious what you are suggesting here. 1) Catholics have beliefs and practices that directly contradict official Church teaching; 2) They continue these practices knowing what they are doing is against Church teaching – that makes them dishonest or deceitful; 3) Or they’re idolaters.

Which one is it then giving your profession of knowing what the Catholic Church teaches and knowing that Catholic practices are going against Church teaching?

ChadS

 

[Teflon93]

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?

Those are two different questions. Dogmas are “required to be believed” and are simultaneously true. There are many truths which are true but not dogma. The existence of gravity is but one.

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 cannot. That’s why I rely on the Catechism in English, as people fluent in both Latin, Catholic teaching, and English ensure a faithful translation. Those who are familiar with the Catechism have a basic understanding of its teachings, those who do not—as you do not—do not.

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

Likewise, you’re not very good at Catholic theology. Read the Catechism and you’ll get better, though.

 

[Palladio]

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

ChadS

Google and ye shall find.

I read it in one of his books (within the last several years), the title of which escapes me.

I believe he is a Baptist.

His title at Harvard, I seem to recall, is Plummer Professor of Christian Morals.

His sermons are in a few books now.

 

[Nella]

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.

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Talk about grabbing at straws.

 

[Atemi]

Yes.

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

Wrong, constant.

If I say Catholic doctrine is X and it is not X…and I know better…then I am misrepresenting Catholic doctrine.

To hold the position, however, that some Catholic doctrines are invented is not, in any way, shape or form, misrepresenting RC teaching at all.

Yet what do we find?

We find the OP claiming that that is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

No way. If that was true, then any criticism made about Roman Catholicism would magically amount to “misrepresenting” Catholicism. That cannot be taken seriously at all.

So when the original poster just recently claimed in this thread that my faith is “man-made,” he also is guilty of misrepresenting Protestant doctrine because we don’t teach that.

This nonsense cuts both ways, but some only prefer it cut one way while they make the very errors they decry.

This is not convincing at all.

…

 

[guanophore]

The problem here is that you are assuming without any evidence that you can communicate with people who have died and who you believe can hear your audio or mental prayers. Even the sections in the catechism assume this without any evidence that i have seen. Also, there no evidence for this in the scriptrues. What you must rely on is the speculations of men.

This is not the case, justasking. “Hearing” in the spiritual realm does not require audio prayers, or even mental prayers. It is a communication of the Spirit. How did Elizabeth know Mary was coming? How did she know Mary was pregnant? The Spirit revealed it to her, just as the Spirit reveals things to us today, and conveys our intentions for the intercession of the saints. The Teaching of the Apostles is not the “speculation of men”.

How can you not know? I thought you were one of those who wanted to correct protestants who presume to know. The brown scapular is not irrelevant to catholic doctrine. It is part and partial of the teachings of the catholic church.

This is not true, Ginger2. The brown scapular is from a private revelation, and is not considered part of the Divine Deposit of faith, nor is it part of the official teaching of the Church. The Church permits it, because it does not violate any of the teachings, but the faithful are not bound by it.

Huh? I ask you a question and you brush me off. I was hoping your knowledge would help my lack of understanding.

If you wish to understand, I think it might be more productive to start with the Catechism.

I am and its amazing whats in there. Have you read the entire catechism?

ARe you finding it “the speculations of men”?

 

[guanophore]

I suppose i am ingnorant. Hopefully with all the knowledgable catholics here i will become more knowledgeable.

Does the catholic church endorse this by making it available to all catholics?

Are the claims of the Brown Scapular true or not?

Lets not just limit ourselves to just the catechism but the entire fullness of the truth found only in the catholic church. Certianly the Brown Scapular is part of this fullness. You claim that the Brown Scapular is a private revelation that you don’t have to believe. Have you read the promise given to those who wear it?
This promise is also endorsed by the pope. Here it is:
"Another important aspect of wearing the Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege. This concerns a promise made by Our Lady to Pope John XXII. In a papal letter he issued, he recounted a vision that he had had. He stated that the Blessed Virgin had said to him in this vision, concerning those who wear the Brown Scapular: **“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free, **so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.”

This is no trivial claim here nor just a mere “private revelation” but a major claim.
If you are a catholic and believe in purgatory and believe also your church cannot err in matters of faith you should wear this scapular. I can’t think of any good reason for a catholic not to wear this. If they don’t, why not?

Since it is a private revelation, not public, it is not taught as part of a formal curiculum. Many Catholics have never heard of it, and don’t know what it is.

 

[guanophore]

I suppose i am ingnorant. Hopefully with all the knowledgable catholics here i will become more knowledgeable.

Does the catholic church endorse this by making it available to all catholics?

Are the claims of the Brown Scapular true or not?

Lets not just limit ourselves to just the catechism but the entire fullness of the truth found only in the catholic church. Certianly the Brown Scapular is part of this fullness. You claim that the Brown Scapular is a private revelation that you don’t have to believe. Have you read the promise given to those who wear it?
This promise is also endorsed by the pope. Here it is:
"Another important aspect of wearing the Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege. This concerns a promise made by Our Lady to Pope John XXII. In a papal letter he issued, he recounted a vision that he had had. He stated that the Blessed Virgin had said to him in this vision, concerning those who wear the Brown Scapular: **“I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free, **so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting.”

This is no trivial claim here nor just a mere “private revelation” but a major claim.
If you are a catholic and believe in purgatory and believe also your church cannot err in matters of faith you should wear this scapular. I can’t think of any good reason for a catholic not to wear this. If they don’t, why not?

Since it is a private revelation, not public, it is not taught as part of a formal curiculum. Many Catholics have never heard of it, and don’t know what it is.
justasking4;2644483:

I’m getting the impression here that you and others can’t deal with these difficult issues. I don’t blame you. I wouldn’t want to defend this stuff either.

I would not find it necessary to attack somone else’s private revelation either.

You may want to read below about the Sabbatine Privilege which was endorsed by the pope. There is no higher endorsement in the church.

Endorsement does not a doctrine make!

If its true its for all.

If it was for all,then it would have been revealed publicly, instead of privately.

If its false then your church should rebuke those who promote this false teaching.

The church studied the matter,a nd could not find any violation of church teaching in it, so allows it.

Look at the claim below about getting out of purgatory the Saturday after a person’ death. If that is true, then it would make sense for all catholics to wear this. Would you agree?

I am sure it makes sense to some, and to those for whom it does, I hope their faith is strengthened by it.

Here you have a claim and a promise to get out of purgatory in no more than a week and you call this nonsense?
How am i guilty of being ignorant and letting my mind run wild when i have posted the Sabbatine Privilege right there for you to read?

I thought the response to your post was uncharitable, and I do not agree with it.

 

[Atemi]

To say “I know exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, but I believe what Catholics do is the very thing they say the don’t do” reaches far beyond vice and “misrepresentation.”

Then call it what you will, but what it is not is misrepresentation.

Catholics do no less with many claims about non-Catholic Christians.

This is my entire point.

We may classify the charges of our critics as outrageous, sure, but let us not make the mistake of labelling every single charge as some sort of misrepresentation.

…

 

[guanophore]

That is true but the claim that a person who wears it will be out of purgatory on the 1st Saturday after their death. That claim is either true or false. It must be part of the fullness of the truth found in the catholic church otherwise they would have renounced this and said it was false.

The fact that God gives private revelation to certain persons is part of the fullness of faith that is taught. It is not taught that one person is obligated to abide by a revelation given to another.

 

[rtconstant]

Wrong, constant.

If I say Catholic doctrine is X and it is not X…and I know better…then I am misrepresenting Catholic doctrine.

Yes that is true, and when you are shown that a previously held assumption of Catholic teaching or belief to be incorrect and yet simply choose to ignore that fact you are also misrepresenting. One’s acceptance or endorsement of fact are not required for dishonesty.

To hold the position, however, that some Catholic doctrines are invented is not, in any way, shape or form, misrepresenting RC teaching at all.

Oh you’re perfectly free to not personally endorse our beliefs. No one claimed otherwise. Its perfectly fine to say “I think Catholics are wrong about for believing X”. We will argue with you, because it is also perfectly fine for us to believe X. What isn’t OK, is to say “Catholics believe X”. Then to be told by Catholics that in fact we do not believe X and yet maintain that we do. It is even more so when one is presented with documented evidence to the contrary and then simply ignores it to maintain a position that they are in fact ignorant of. It is akin to an illiterate person arguing with a literary professor over a written word. At best it is willfully ignorant at worst it is dishonest.

Yet what do we find?

We find the OP claiming that that is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

Where?

No way. If that was true, then any criticism made about Roman Catholicism would magically amount to “misrepresenting” Catholicism. That cannot be taken seriously at all.

Well yes that would be true but I haven’t seen anyone espouse that so why bring it up? I know you always say that and that you want that to be true though.

So when the original poster just recently claimed in this thread that my faith is “man-made,” he also is guilty of misrepresenting Protestant doctrine because we don’t teach that.

No, that would be an opinion if a rather harshly worded one as you correctly stated above. Yet that has nothing to do with this thread.

This nonsense cuts both ways, but some only prefer it cut one way while they make the very errors they decry.

This is not convincing at all.

…

Do you actually burn calories with your histrionics?

 

[rtconstant]

Wrong, constant.

If I say Catholic doctrine is X and it is not X…and I know better…then I am misrepresenting Catholic doctrine.

Yes that is true, and when you are shown that a previously held assumption of Catholic teaching or belief to be incorrect and yet simply choose to ignore that fact you are also misrepresenting. One’s acceptance or endorsement of fact are not required for dishonesty.

To hold the position, however, that some Catholic doctrines are invented is not, in any way, shape or form, misrepresenting RC teaching at all.

Oh you’re perfectly free to not personally endorse our beliefs. No one claimed otherwise. Its perfectly fine to say “I think Catholics are wrong for believing X”. We will argue with you, because it is also perfectly fine for us to believe X. What isn’t OK, is to say “Catholics believe X”. Then to be told by Catholics that in fact we do not believe X and yet maintain that we do. It is even more so when one is presented with documented evidence to the contrary and then simply ignores it to maintain a position feigned ignorance. It is akin to an illiterate person arguing with a literary professor over a written word. At best it is willfully ignorant at worst it is dishonest.

Yet what do we find?

We find the OP claiming that that is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.

Except that there are two debates here Atemi. One is in relation to the OP. Where technically what he brought up may not actually be misrepresentation because those things can be done innocently through ignorance.

What you and I are discussing isn’t really the OP it is your particular assertions. You see the problem here is that when you personally make a statement like Catholics worship Mary as you did in this thread you personally are misrepresenting because you do in fact know better. Oh I know you try to cloak that with “I never actually said it was Church teaching!” yet that is really just compounding your dishonesty with obfuscation. To say “I know that neither Church doctrine or teaching espouses Marian worship but I go ahead and say Catholics do it anyway” is slimey. Again, I know now you’ll say “I’ve seen Catholics do it!”. Well, I’m going to jump out here and say no you haven’t.

Can I prove you haven’t? No. Yet then again you can’t prove you have. So I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree here.

No way. If that was true, then any criticism made about Roman Catholicism would magically amount to “misrepresenting” Catholicism. That cannot be taken seriously at all.

Well yes that would be true. I think OP simply didn’t word his original post well is all. I doubt seriously that he is thinking what you are asserting and I think you know that. To many Protestants who make reasonable arguments regularly attend these boards and they seem to get along quiet well here. Heck some of my favorite posters here are Protestant.

So when the original poster just recently claimed in this thread that my faith is “man-made,” he also is guilty of misrepresenting Protestant doctrine because we don’t teach that.

No, that would be an opinion if a rather harshly worded one.

This nonsense cuts both ways, but some only prefer it cut one way while they make the very errors they decry.

This is not convincing at all.

…

Do you actually burn calories with your histrionics?

 

[Palladio]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. Talk about grabbing at straws.

Talk about dismissing arguments: either he’s right or he’s wrong, but he is not merely to be ignored. Read him and find out for yourself.

 

[justasking4]

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.

Do you think when the pope endorsed this that he meant it for all catholics?

 

[justasking4]

The fact that God gives private revelation to certain persons is part of the fullness of faith that is taught. It is not taught that one person is obligated to abide by a revelation given to another.

What makes you think that this is just a “private revelation” for one person?

Was this promise just given to one person or to all?

 

[Mannyfit75]

What makes you think that this is just a “private revelation” for one person?

Was this promise just given to one person or to all?

On the side note private revelation is revelation revealed to individual Christians. This has happen even in the Bible and through the centuries. They are use to strengthen the faith. The CC states that the faithful may believe or may not believe in it. Because they are not part of Divine Revelation or the Deposit of Faith.

 

[estesbob]

Do you think when the pope endorsed this that he meant it for all catholics?

Why would it? Only someone with no understanding of catholicism would ask such a question. You really need to study up a bit before you come here and make a fool out of yourself.

You do know that is what you are doing dont you? You realize you are not the first Protetstant to come to CAF and wave the “Brown Scapular” like it is the sword if Excalibur and you are bringing down the Church by wielding it? The only difference is most who do so quickly realize how foolish they look and drop it.

 

[estesbob]

BTW-this is what we are talking about:

http://www.catholiccompany.com/images/150px/2010797.jpg

 

[justasking4]

estesbob;2661770]Why would it? Only someone with no understanding of catholicism would ask such a question. You really need to study up a bit before you come here and make a fool out of yourself.

I’m beginning to think that you don’t know to much about the catholic faith yourself by your lame responses. The way to help a fool like me is to answer my questions with what you think your church teaches.

You do know that is what you are doing dont you? You realize you are not the first Protetstant to come to CAF and wave the “Brown Scapular” like it is the sword if Excalibur and you are bringing down the Church by wielding it? The only difference is most who do so quickly realize how foolish they look and drop it.

Why drop it? It part of the fullness of the truth found only in the catholic church. Its a good topic to discuss.

 

[justasking4]

On the side note private revelation is revelation revealed to individual Christians. This has happen even in the Bible and through the centuries. They are use to strengthen the faith. The CC states that the faithful may believe or may not believe in it. Because they are not part of Divine Revelation or the Deposit of Faith.

I understand that a catholic may believe it or not. My other question deals with the truth. Is this true? Is it true that a person who dies wearing this scapluar will be set free from purgatory on the first Saturday after their death?