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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I did a some research…The Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical (and hence “infallible”)…(Denzinger 714).
Ummm, “Councils” are not infallible. We hold that the appointed successor to Peter, when addressing the entire church, then ONLY in the areas of faith and morals, is infallible. His opinion on the weather, or the latest game is as good as yours or mine.

Pope. Entire Church. Faith. Morals.

This is infallibility. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Christ’s peace.
 
Actually my friend…there have been times when I have been on different sites with forums…and the same series of questions or comments have been posed or made…exactly identical. SO it tends to lend credence to the hypothesis that there are playbooks out there…or some Sunday school or church school teacher is giving out “homework” assignments that are always the same.

Tell me…why is it that after 500 years of asking the same questions the same ones are still being asked and getting the same answers…y’all keep asking?😃
Generally when you see a well-written (although lacking in substance)attack on a church you can google the first paragraph and find the same attack on a multitude of anti-Catholic websites.

Some of favorites are the brown scapular ,quotes from the Council of Trent,quotes from council of Venice various out of context quotes from papal Bulls and out of context quotes of the Church Fathers. They post these attacks and are totally incapable of discussing them other than to post them again.
 
I did a some research on this and this is what the catholic church has said:
The Council of Florence, the 17th Ecumenical (and hence “infallible”) Council of the Roman Catholic Church, said the following:

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger 714).
Tell me how the above differs from the following: "At this the Jews began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” They said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’? (They questioned His infallibility)

“Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth,unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever.” He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”
From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

This is excerpted from a Protestant bible (NIV). It seems that Luther kept John 6 for some reason, but threw the baby out with the bath water. Why would Christ teach one of the longest discourses in the NT, all about His Body and Blood? So that future generations could change it to bread and grape juice? Not!

Christ’s peace.
 
Generally when you see a well-written (although lacking in substance)attack on a church you can google the first paragraph and find the same attack on a multitude of anti-Catholic websites.

Some of favorites are the brown scapular ,quotes from the Council of Trent,quotes from council of Venice various out of context quotes from papal Bulls and out of context quotes of the Church Fathers. They post these attacks and are totally incapable of discussing them other than to post them again.
Hey everyone! Oh, No! You can google my post and find it in…John 6. Now what? 🙂

Christ’s peace.
 
Hey everyone! Oh, No! You can google my post and find it in…John 6. Now what? 🙂

Christ’s peace.
There Catholics go again twisting Scripture by quoting it extensively rather than by cherrypicking it.

Why, you might think Catholics actually READ the Bible or something…😉
 
You can go back to my posts and see i never claimed it was required, infallible or dogmatic. What i did ask was it true and i don’t recall getting an answer. I also said that if the promise of the scapluar was true and endorsed by the pope himself, it would follow then to encourage all catholics to wear them since they would be out of purgatory by the Saturday after their death.
Why would it follow? On what basis do you presume it not to be true? Perhaps if you produce a saint fresh from Purgatory who wore the scapular and maintains he wasn’t released until Sunday, you would have a case.

Until then, you have the exact same authority I do to make such a statement—which is to say, none.
Is this the “fullness of the truth in the catholic church”? If so, then what they say also has bearing on what church teaches.
As we’ve told you time and time again, “fullness of truth” pertains to faith and morals, which is why we keep telling you that the scapular is not a dogmatic teaching and therefore not part of the “fullness of truth” of the Church. That does not make it untrue, however. You seem not to grasp the fact that while “infallible” is synonymous with “true”, “fallible” is not synonymous with “false.”
That may be true of some but not in my case.
That remains to be seen, doesn’t it?
 
There Catholics go again twisting Scripture by quoting it extensively rather than by cherrypicking it.

Why, you might think Catholics actually READ the Bible or something…😉
It fell on the floor and opened. Accidentally read it as I picked it back up to put it under all my infallible writings. 👍
 
Yeah! What’s the Opus Dei website again?
Opus Dei doesn’t have a website, silly—anything which must be written down is written in lemon juice on parchment only, and then only in the Da Vinci code.
 
I simply wondered, given the prevalence lately of the tactic employed as noted in my post above, whether there was an external source advocating for such a tactic, such as some Protestant apologetics website. …

The drumbeat of “ask a question based on misinterpreting some obscure Catholic reference, ignore any response, ask again” presumably comes from somewhere, and is such an odd way to argue that I simply wonder if there’s a single source for it.
Not that I’m aware of. I think it comes more from the stance of your Church that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. That being the case, if there is some Church declaration regarding faith and morals from, say, the year 792 that todays seems pretty ridiculous then many Protestants are going to want to put the Church to the test, e.g., …"is this what this document really means?..“you’ve changed your position on this point haven’t you?”…"the Church was wrong here, can’t you see?.., etc.
 
Ummm, “Councils” are not infallible. We hold that the appointed successor to Peter, when addressing the entire church, then ONLY in the areas of faith and morals, is infallible. His opinion on the weather, or the latest game is as good as yours or mine.

Pope. Entire Church. Faith. Morals.

This is infallibility. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Christ’s peace.
How is the teaching of a general church council on faith and morals ***not ***infallible as a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church? I believe that your Church does not teach that the Pope speaking ex cathedra is the only source of infallible taught doctrine.
 
Not that I’m aware of. I think it comes more from the stance of your Church that it cannot err in matters of faith and morals. That being the case, if there is some Church declaration regarding faith and morals from, say, the year 792 that todays seems pretty ridiculous then many Protestants are going to want to put the Church to the test, e.g., …"is this what this document really means?..“you’ve changed your position on this point haven’t you?”…"the Church was wrong here, can’t you see?.., etc.
True, but then they persist when presented with clear and consistent teaching as though never answered.

It is this which is odd and flummoxing, not that they would seek to put Church teaching to the test, not that they misunderstand infallibility to presume it encompasses a much broader array of things than it does.

The Pope may well have a Super Bowl pick for this season. If he is mistaken, it will not jeopardize the faith of one billion Catholics one whit.
 
How is the teaching of a general church council on faith and morals ***not ***infallible as a teaching of the Magisterium of the Church? I believe that your Church does not teach that the Pope speaking ex cathedra is the only source of infallible taught doctrine.
This passage from the Catechism might help:
891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when,** together with Peter’s successor**, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium **proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” **This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
When we summarize this by noting the Pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra regarding faith and morals, this is what we’re referring to.

Not every concilar utterance is infallible. There are lots of discussions, lots of differing points of view. That’s the difference between a council and the Pope simply proclaiming dogma.
 
This passage from the Catechism might help:

When we summarize this by noting the Pope is infallible when teaching ex cathedra regarding faith and morals, this is what we’re referring to.

Not every concilar utterance is infallible. There are lots of discussions, lots of differing points of view. That’s the difference between a council and the Pope simply proclaiming dogma.
Well responded to, as usual. 👍 Thanks for having the catechism handy. But, it’s not in the bible. Oh, neither is the word “Trinity”, but we all believe that, right?
 
Well, when I was young I used to get my doctrine from Nuns, but they were aren’t always charitable ( to their defense , I wasn’t easy), and eventhough this contributed to my “rebellious nature” towards our Church it took me several years or more to fully understand that some of the things we were taught were from not “perfect” teachers , then again who is perfect. But I , like a lot of the Catholics who fell away from the Church had no clear direction , either from our families or the Nuns. But as I got older ( and more mature in thought and reason ) I took responsibility for my sins against our Church . But I think that if you don’t have direction from your families/Catholic friends ( which in mine was weak) and combine that learning through uncharitable teachers ( laypeople or Nuns) and put that with the already rebelliousness of our hearts towards authority, and …wa la …you get “Protestant/Ex-Catholic”. I think to combat this and to defend our Church we need more charity in teaching, both from our families and from the Catechists . We must all get involved in bringing back our fallen brethren and praying for them and being the Catholic example to everyone who watches, otherwise we will see this over and over…Catholics , unsure about their faith and doctrine and hence easy prey for the nearest Protestant Church.

Oh by the way, I love my Catholic Church and faith , ( going on 2 years in returning ) now I understand more of it’s doctrine. I wouldn’t be the same without my faith in Jesus . My life is back on track! I know I’m not perfect either, I make mistakes but without Confession and direction to mold my conscience how else will I be able to attain true holiness . We also have the Sacraments , which help me heal through their graces , especially through the Holy Eucharist ( something I missed while I was the corner Protestant church . And I do believe what St. James said as well " Faith without works is dead", and St. Paul who said that “love covers a multitude of sins”.

Well , I’ve said my peace! :knight2:
 
Well, when I was young I used to get my doctrine from Nuns, but they were aren’t always charitable ( to their defense , I wasn’t easy), and eventhough this contributed to my “rebellious nature” towards our Church it took me several years or more to fully understand that some of the things we were taught were from not “perfect” teachers , then again who is perfect. But I , like a lot of the Catholics who fell away from the Church had no clear direction , either from our families or the Nuns. But as I got older ( and more mature in thought and reason ) I took responsibility for my sins against our Church . But I think that if you don’t have direction from your families/Catholic friends ( which in mine was weak) and combine that learning through uncharitable teachers ( laypeople or Nuns) and put that with the already rebelliousness of our hearts towards authority, and …wa la …you get “Protestant/Ex-Catholic”. I think to combat this and to defend our Church we need more charity in teaching, both from our families and from the Catechists . We must all get involved in bringing back our fallen brethren and praying for them and being the Catholic example to everyone who watches, otherwise we will see this over and over…Catholics , unsure about their faith and doctrine and hence easy prey for the nearest Protestant Church.

Oh by the way, I love my Catholic Church and faith , ( going on 2 years in returning ) now I understand more of it’s doctrine. I wouldn’t be the same without my faith in Jesus . My life is back on track! I know I’m not perfect either, I make mistakes but without Confession and direction to mold my conscience how else will I be able to attain true holiness . We also have the Sacraments , which help me heal through their graces , especially through the Holy Eucharist ( something I missed while I was the corner Protestant church . And I do believe what St. James said as well " Faith without works is dead", and St. Paul who said that “love covers a multitude of sins”.

Well , I’ve said my peace! :knight2:
And said it beautifully!

Welcome home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top