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

[estesbob]

Yes, it is a spiritual one.

But again, according to your interpretation of a doctrine you do not believe in first place.

I disagree.

it is an interesting assertion. He says the doctrine is false but if the doctrine is true then those of us who follow this doctrine are not interpreting it correctly. I suspect his answer to all this will be to ask whether people who wear the brown scapular will get out of purgatory the next Saturday.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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.

**2 **is debatable, because it depends what one means - by the standards of Catholic theology, Catholic doctrines are not invented; consider them by the standards of a different theological method, & they can seem very different.​

The reason is that Catholic theology & that of Calvinism (say) have many of the same elements in common; but they arrange them differently. The overall balance & emphasis & inter-relationship between the elements in the two forms of Christianity is different: therefore, it is not difficult for the names of doctrines to be a very poor guide to their content; which can lead to mistakes about what is taught by the religion one does not share.

1. 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
2. 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.

Why does anyone think he knows what he does not ?​

1. Human fallibility
2. The state of having been sold a pup
3. Do Catholics have a right understanding of the beliefs of others ?

 

[justasking4]

po18guy;2679349]Basically, it is the deposit of faith that has been kept sacred by the “Church of Christ”, known to you as the Catholic church:

1. It still has the seven Sacraments (not just two) that Luther celebrated.
2. It still has Apostolic succession, how Luther was trained and ordained. Every Priest can trace his ordination back to one of the twelve Apostles.

On #2 that is not the case. There is no office of priest in the catholic sense in the NT.

1. It still has the complete bible-not the edited/censored Luther’s version.

4. It still has the Eucharist

, like Jesus commanded us to eat in John 6.
5. It still drinks the Blood of Christ, like Jesus commanded us to drink in John 6.
6. It still has the Communion of Saints, as Luther prayed.
7. It compiled and has maintained the bible for almost 2,000 years-including every word in the version that YOUR church uses.

Each of your points could be a thread in itself

The foregoing are just some of the reasons why we call all Christians to unity in His body. Eternal life is that important. Can you see how much was lost in the “reformation”?

There can never be true unity as long as the catholic church holds to it doctrines.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

On #2 that is not the case. There is no office of priest in the catholic sense in the NT.

What are you talking about? When the apostles and Paul traveled into a town and taught there, there would be an elder in that town who would function similarly to a priest. The elders (who did not have to be old) would appoint their successor, and so on, and each Catholic priest was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop… and so on, but each would ultimately trace back to one of the twelve Apostles

There can never be true unity as long as the catholic church holds to it doctrines.

Or as long as Protestants hold to theirs

 

[justasking4]

Tim Kirchoff;2683328]What are you talking about? When the apostles and Paul traveled into a town and taught there, there would be an elder in that town who would function similarly to a priest. The elders (who did not have to be old) would appoint their successor, and so on, and each Catholic priest was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop… and so on, but each would ultimately trace back to one of the twelve Apostles

An elder is not a priest. The elders and bishops for example were allowed to marry. In fact being married was one of the major ways it was determined for a man to lead. If he was the husband of one wife and managed his children well this helped to qualify him. A catholic priest on the other hand is forbidden to marry. We also don’t see any priest saying “mass” or hearing confessions in the NT.

Or as long as Protestants hold to theirs

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

An elder is not a priest. The elders and bishops for example were allowed to marry. In fact being married was one of the major ways it was determined for a man to lead. If he was the husband of one wife and managed his children well this helped to qualify him. A catholic priest on the other hand is forbidden to marry. We also don’t see any priest saying “mass” or hearing confessions in the NT.

Chastity for priests developed later, and for excellent reasons. For example, if a priest were to die, do the assets of his parish belong to his family for their support or to the Church?

Being unmarried helps a priest be more dedicated to doing Christ’s work.

And where do you draw the idea that being married was a qualification? The elders of individual church communities often had been traveling with the apostle, as in the case of St. Timothy, and stayed in the town to help guide the Christian community. Bringing a family along on such a journey would have been impractical and dangerous.

 

[MariaG]

An elder is not a priest. The elders and bishops for example were allowed to marry. In fact being married was one of the major ways it was determined for a man to lead. If he was the husband of one wife and managed his children well this helped to qualify him. A catholic priest on the other hand is forbidden to marry. We also don’t see any priest saying “mass” or hearing confessions in the NT.

What did that make Paul or what Paul said? Paul taught that a celibate life was the best way to serve God. Doesn’t God deserve the Best?And a Catholic priest is not forbidden to Marry. He chooses not to marry in order to serve God. As for Mass, what exactly do you think the breaking of bread is? Jesus instituted that one with the last supper as well as confession as seen in John 20:21-26.

 

[po18guy]

1. Do Catholics have a right understanding of the beliefs of others ?

As Catholics, we do not generally devote time to the study of error. We call those of all other faith traditions to the fullness of truth, as revealed by God in Christ to the Apostles. Since Catholic doctine is being challenged on a Catholic site, does it matter if we know the myriad of alternative beliefs? Better we illumine other consciences than darken our own. Thus, we take no pride in ourselves, but in the Gracious God who revealed the truth to our fathers, who passed it on to us.

Christ’s peace.

 

[guanophore]

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?

I know this because I can trust the Magesterium of the Church, which researches and defines these things. the Chuch teaches us that public revelation of the gospel ended with the death of the last Apostle. Since that time, the Church has developed in her understanding of that revelation, but no new public revelation has taken place. Therefore, revelation that has occurred to some of the saints, Popes, religious and laity is all private. The Church has endorsed some of these private revelations as beneficial for the faithful to practice, such as praying the rosary,but they are not required practices or beliefs.

In answer to the second question, I believe the promises given in private revelation generally apply to all who receive them, so if I chose to partake of the Brown Scapular, then it would apply to me.

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?

It seems to me that you consider this particular devotion a baseless superstition and are offended that a person would believe such things, or suggest that you should do so. In order for a person to find themselves in Purgatory, one must be heaven bound. That means that they have died to sin, and their life is hidden with Christ in God. They have chosen that narrow way that the Lord calls us to follow and placed all of their hope and trust in the precious blood of Christ shed for us on the cross. Given that, a person may still need some degree of cleansing with fire so that they can enter the presence of God unblemished, as He requires. The Spirit of God can accomplish this however He wills. I don’t think there are really “days” in eternity as we understand them on this earth, but if God wishes to purify someone for heavenly glory on a day we would consider a third Saturday, He is more than capable and able to do so. It he wishes to involve His spouse in that process, He can certainly do that too. So, in answer to your question, I think all these things are true.

 

[Zooey]

How can a Muslim etc be righteous when the scriptures are clear that all those outside of Christ are dead in their trespasses and sins and are by nature children of wrath (see Ephesians 2:1-3)?

Let me take a stab at this one, confident that, if I hopelessly fluff it, one of my Catholic brethren will correct me:
The news media have revealed clearly the horrors of “honor killing”, the pernicious practice among Muslims, of killing women in the family who have somehow become, in the eyes of their male relatives, what might be called “damaged goods”.
Very well. Here is this 14 or 15 year old Muslim girl, from a family of conservative Muslims. She has been kept away from the world since she was born. She may not even know that such a Person as Jesus Christ existed, much less have heard that He is God in human form.
On the way home from school one day, she is abducted by some violent pervert with a taste for young girls. He brutalizes her, in every way possible, and then turns her loose to find her own way home.
When she returns home, her family is appalled. She is no longer a virgin. To their minds, she must have “done something to cause this”. In any case, her very existence is a detriment to the family name, & her eldest brother, let us say, takes it upon himself to “clear the family’s honor”, by soaking his still bleeding sister in kerosene & setting her on fire.
She :crying: burns to death, :crying: screaming out to the only name she knows God by: Allah…(Her brother, having been engaged in an accepted practice, receives no penalty from his government nor from his religious congregation).
What the CCC is saying, is: Jesus Christ said, “Let the little children come unto me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven”, and that this poor, untutored, abused, and murdered child is eligible for entrance into Heaven. Because she really is, you see, a child…
I know that many fundamentalists would say, that she is “only a pagan”, & there is no chance of salvation for her…(One more reason I am not a fundamentalist).
Catholics, on the other hand, believe that this little one, for whom, after all, Christ died, has at least as good a chance at Heaven as some of the self-righteous bigots one meets on the street corner, waving a banner; indeed, since she committed no serious sins in her life, her chance may well be better. She is righteous…by any standard (other than that of her brother).
We do not decide who goes to Heaven. We *dare *not decide, because we are not in charge. Personally, I think the poor dear has a better chance than you & I do.
But hey! That’s just me & my :twocents: …Positing an example of how, indeed, a Muslim just might come to enter into Heaven.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know why Justasking can’t get past the scapular. He could just as easily ask about Fatima or any other private revelation. There’s not that much of a difference…

I think justasking was offended when a family member sent one, and believes that it is superstitious Catholic drivel.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t know why Justasking can’t get past the scapular. He could just as easily ask about Fatima or any other private revelation. There’s not that much of a difference…

I think justasking was offended when a family member sent one, and believes that it is superstitious Catholic drivel.

It may not be a defined dogma but it is a doctrine by definition.
This is a definition of doctrine:
rule or principle: a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy ideas taught as truth:

It seems that your definition of a doctrine of the faith is not consistent with that of the Apostles, or your understanding of the word is inadequate. The Brown Scapular, while an acceptable devotion for use by Catholics, is not one of the rules or prinicples that forms the basis of the Catholic faith. That is one of the elements that distinguishes public revelation (the Divine Deposit of Faith given to all) and a private revelation.

Did i read correctly that in this blog the nun said that catholics are to believe this when she writes:
The Pope extended the promise to the rest of us, meaning, the Church Militant…which means, we believe the same thing. He didn’t extend the promise to the separated brethren or the Wiccans.???

A nun, however devoted and faithful she may be, is not the Source of what Catholics “are to believe”. Jesus is the Source of these revelations, and they have been entrusted to the magesterium.

I think that if Protestants or Wiccans were to accept this devotion, they would no longer be Protestants or Wiccans. One must be in union with the Pope in doctrine, and a participant of the faith brought to us by the Apostles in order to inherit promises made to the Apostolic Succession.

 

[guanophore]

“You know very well that there are 20+ rites in the church, of which the Latin (Roman) is only one. The Church does NOT teach one must practice the Latin Rite in order to be saved.”

Umm, the Pope said just that recently.

Are you saying that you believe the Pope said recently that a person must practice the Latin Rite in order to be saved? If this is what you are believing you heard, then you misunderstood.

 

[patrick457]

A catholic priest on the other hand is forbidden to marry.

Not exactly ‘forbidden’; it is the Priest himself is the one who forsakes marriage to serve the Kingdom. Of course, in the early ages of the Church (and still today on the Eastern Catholic Churches and among the Orthodox), priests can and did marry and had children; even Peter and a lot of early popes had wives and children.

The discipline (note that it is not a ‘doctrine’) was eventually reinforced in the Western Church at the year 390 at the Council of Carthage, which said:

It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.

Of course, many areas had enforced it with more or less rigor but it was at least recognized at the time of Pope Leo the Great. This went on until the end of the Carolingian Empire, wherein “impurity, adultery, sacrilege and murder” were widespread and many of the clergy openly took wives and had children; the bishops appointed their children to high clerical offices. The discipline suffered, yet instead of allowing clergy to marry, the Church as it was released edicts and laws to combat this trend until in 1123, it was enacted that whatever marriage that those in the clerical status had taken is invalid. Since then, the discipline had become the hard rule for the western Church.

The discipline of celibacy is based on Jesus’ celibate lifestyle and His words in Matthew 19 (parallels on Mark 10: 27-30 and Luke 18: 26-30):

And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. -verse 29

And Paul’s advice on 1 Corinthians:

Wast thou called, being a bondman? care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a bondman, is the freeman of the Lord. Likewise he that is called, being free, is the bondman of Christ. You are bought with a price; be not made the bondslaves of men. Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.

I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But if thou take a wife, thou hast not sinned. And if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

And they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.

We Catholics understand the union between Christ and His Church to not simply be a metaphor, but an actual union (the same as a union between a flesh-and-blood man and wife). So it is for priests. Christ is married to the Church (His Bride) in spirit, so if the Priest is ‘in Persona Christi’ (‘in the Person of Christ’ in a sense) then he as well should not marry since he is already bound; after all, if he was already bound to the Church, would not marrying someone else constitute adultery?

We also don’t see any priest saying “mass” or hearing confessions in the NT.

But we also don’t see anyone who does an ‘altar call’ or clapping during worship in the NT.

 

[guanophore]

In the catechism it states in paragraph 841
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

I don’t quite understand this. How could there be salvation for Muslims since they reject that Christ was God in the flesh, died for our sins and rose again? To reject these things means that person cannot be saved.

justasking, you should really start a new thread when you want to do this. You are way off topic now. Have you decided to abandon your grind on the Brown Scapular and move on to something else?

God can save whoever He wants, however He wants. He saved people before Christ came, and will save some who have never heard of Him. Only God knows the heart of a Muslim, and whether he has rejected the Son of God. Any Muslim may be in the same state you are, and reject truth because they misunderstand what is being said, just like you misunderstand the teaching of the Church, and therefore, reject a Catholicism that only exists in your imagination, and not in reality.

 

[guanophore]

In the catechism it states in paragraph 841
The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.
“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]

I don’t quite understand this. How could there be salvation for Muslims since they reject that Christ was God in the flesh, died for our sins and rose again? To reject these things means that person cannot be saved.

justasking, you should really start a new thread when you want to do this. You are way off topic now. Have you decided to abandon your grind on the Brown Scapular and move on to something else?

God can save whoever He wants, however He wants. He saved people before Christ came, and will save some who have never heard of Him. Only God knows the heart of a Muslim, and whether he has rejected the Son of God. Any Muslim may be in the same state you are, and reject truth because they misunderstand what is being said, just like you misunderstand the teaching of the Church, and therefore, reject a Catholicism that only exists in your imagination, and not in reality.

Let me answer with Acts 4:12

“And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”

Certainly, but some have met Christ, and don’t recognize Him, just as those disciples on the road to Emmaus did not recognize Him for who He was. Only God can judge their hearts.

 

[guanophore]

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).

This is the teaching of the Apostles, justasking. Jesus founded a Church, which is His body. There is only One Church (One Body) of Christ. Those who are “in Christ” are members thereof. THe Church is the normative means on earth whereby we are saved. Persons who are not part of the Body are not part of Christ (the Head of the Body). Therefore, all persons who are saved are members of that Body that Christ established. Do you not agree with this?

How can a Musim etc be righteous when the scriptures are clear that all those outside of Christ are dead in their trespasses and sins and are by nature children of wrath (see Ephesians 2:1-3)?

Jesus has revealed Himself to mankind many times before He came in the flesh. A Muslim may be righteous in the same way that many Jews were righteous prior to the saving death of Christ. Those born under the law are judged by the law.

Only God can judge whether a person has been faithful to the revelation of the Divine that he has received.

i’m aware of the passage in I Peter to Christ descending but i’m not sure what you are referring to when you say “did Christ not descend to pluck the righteous Jews from Sheol?” What is this a reference to?

1 Peter 3:18-20
that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; 19 in which he **went and preached to the spirits in prison, **20 who formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark"

51 And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom; and the earth shook, and the rocks were split; 52 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many."Matt 27:51-53

I thought someone said here on this thread that only saints are in heaven. If this is true then the church does know some that are there. Correct?

Yes, but only those whom God has revealed to us that they are there.

 

[guanophore]

You can go back to my posts and see i never claimed it was required, infallible or dogmatic.

No, but you persistently implied that it was.

Is this the “fullness of the truth in the catholic church”? If so, then what they say also has bearing on what church teaches.

Not, this is erroneous reasoning. Catechists, Deacons, Priests, etc. are bound to teach according to the fullnes of truth, but none of them are infallable, and therefore, their personal efforts to teach the doctrine of the faith does not have any bearing on the nature and content of that doctrine. The magesterium (teaching authority) of the church decides alone on what has bearing, and this is done according to the Divine Deposit of faith revealed by Christ to His disciples through Sacred Writing and Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

You can go back to my posts and see i never claimed it was required, infallible or dogmatic.

No, but you persistently implied that it was. I am glad to learn that you know the difference now.

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.

You posted yourself the quote from the Pope encouraging this, did you not? So, what is the problem? The Pope has done what you have determined he should do.

Is this the “fullness of the truth in the catholic church”? If so, then what they say also has bearing on what church teaches.

Not, this is erroneous reasoning. Catechists, Deacons, Priests, etc. are bound to teach according to the fullnes of truth, but none of them are infallable, and therefore, their personal efforts to teach the doctrine of the faith does not have any bearing on the nature and content of that doctrine. The magesterium (teaching authority) of the church decides alone on what has bearing, and this is done according to the Divine Deposit of faith revealed by Christ to His disciples through Sacred Writing and Sacred Tradition.

 

[guanophore]

Why would a catholic need this kind of support. It was said by Mary and endorsed by the pope. Isn’t that enough?

Catholics don’t. It was apparently you that needed more support for believing this particular devotion.

Authority has nothing to do with something being true or not.

This is a very interesting statement, and probably also deserves it;s own thread. I think this may not apply to matters of faith, and morals. As we can see, there is a great plethora of beliefs in Christendom about what is “true” for Christians and what is not, as evidenced clearly right on this thread. Since Jesus has invested His Authority in the Catholic Church to make determinations on matters of faith and morals what is “true” and what is not, I think in this case, Authority has EVERYTHING to do with something being true or not!

Is there a offical statement from the catholic church itself that defines what the “fullness of the truth” is?

Yes. The Catechism defines the fullness of truth as the Divine Revelation of God that has been handed down to us through Apostolic Succession in the Sacred Scripture, and Sacred Tradition. This fullness is safeguarded, defined, and disseminated by the teaching authority of the Church (Magesterium)

i have never said such a thing as this. But you do bring up another point though. What exactly is this "fullness of the truth"? Who determines it? Is there a list somewhere of the "fullness of the truth"?

I think this is just a mispoken phrase of the poster. There is a difference between the fullness of truth, and fullness of faith. I am sure there exists fullness of Truth in Christ Himself, but the Church does not claim to posess all knowledge of that, or of any other “truth” known to man, such as scientific proof. The Church only claims to define and safeguard the fullness of faith.