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

[guanophore]

This has to be one of the most amazing things i have ever read. Christ and the catholic church are “one and the same”? Do you realize what you are claiming and follows from this? This would mean that Jesus Himself approved of the inquistions and other evils that the catholic church is responsible for.

You are confused, justasking4. Jesus created one church, His Body, of which He is the head. When Saul was persecuting the members of His body, he charged Saul with persecuting Himself. Of course they are one and the same! However, to make Jesus responsible for the individual sins of those in the Body is wrong. The members of the Body have free will, and can sin against the Body (Christ). He is not responsible for their rebellion and error, any more than He is responsible for the betrayal of Judas, or Peter. People’s sins belong to themselves, though the consequences of them do, indeed, affect the Body of Christ.

 

[guanophore]

This has to be one of the most amazing things i have ever read. Christ and the catholic church are “one and the same”? Do you realize what you are claiming and follows from this? This would mean that Jesus Himself approved of the inquistions and other evils that the catholic church is responsible for.

You are confused, justasking4. Jesus created one church, His Body, of which He is the head. When Saul was persecuting the members of His body, he charged Saul with persecuting Himself. Of course they are one and the same! However, to make Jesus responsible for the individual sins of those in the Body is wrong. The members of the Body have free will, and can sin against the Body (Christ). He is not responsible for their rebellion and error, any more than He is responsible for the betrayal of Judas, or Peter. People’s sins belong to themselves, though the consequences of them do, indeed, affect the Body of Christ.

If i follow you then, when catholics sin this means that Jesus to is sinning since you are members of His flesh and bone.
There is a close connection between Christ and His folllowers but that connection does not mean they are one and the same. To believe that would lead to all kinds of absurd conclusions.

Would one of those “absurd conclusions” be that the Church is infallible, and cannot err in teaching matters pertaining to faith and morals?

John 17:20-23

20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 **that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, **so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.”

Do you believe, then, that Jesus’ prayer was not answered?

 

[guanophore]

What this is referring to is Christians being in union with Christ. Notice that Jesus did not say “Why do you persecute My church”. We also can similar sayings in the gospels in Matthew 25:40. Should we take this to mean that when Jesus identifies Himself with His followers that His followers are actually Jesus Himself?
If Christ is the church as i understand the quote above, then it follows that it was Jesus who was involved in the inquisition and various other acts of evil in the catholic church to.

I think we agree that this verse is a reference to Christians in union with Christ. This is how we understand His Body to be. Yes, I notice that

Acts 8:3
3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison."

Saul was ravaging the church. Jesus confronts Saul saying “why are you persecuting ME”. Jesus identifies Himself with His Body, the Church, which Saul was ravaging. We should take this to mean:

Rom 12:5
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another."

I disagree with your premise that the Inquisition was evil, in and of itself, however, that is an issue for another thread. I will say that Jesus is not responsible for anyone’s sin, and that sins were committed during the Inquisition. Saying this is Jesus’ responsibility is like saying it is your fault if you find you have a tumor growing in your innards. It does not belong there, and brings illness and death, but since it is in your body, it is your fault.

 

[guanophore]

What this is referring to is Christians being in union with Christ. Notice that Jesus did not say “Why do you persecute My church”. We also can similar sayings in the gospels in Matthew 25:40. Should we take this to mean that when Jesus identifies Himself with His followers that His followers are actually Jesus Himself?
If Christ is the church as i understand the quote above, then it follows that it was Jesus who was involved in the inquisition and various other acts of evil in the catholic church to.

I think we agree that this verse is a reference to Christians in union with Christ. This is how we understand His Body to be. Yes, I notice that

Acts 8:3
3 But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison."

Saul was ravaging the church. Jesus confronts Saul saying “why are you persecuting ME”. Jesus identifies Himself with His Body, the Church, which Saul was ravaging. We should take this to mean:

Rom 12:5
5 so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another."

I disagree with your premise that the Inquisition was evil, in and of itself, however, that is an issue for another thread. I will say that Jesus is not responsible for anyone’s sin, and that sins were committed during the Inquisition. Saying this is Jesus’ responsibility is like saying it is your fault if you find you have a tumor growing in your innards. It does not belong there, and brings illness and death, but since it is in your body, it is your fault.

Does this mean Christ is only present in a catholic when they are without sin or just venial sin?

this probably belongs in another thread also. Sin is a refusal or rebellion against grace. When a person sins, it separates him from God. The more sin, the more grace is lost, until one can eventually separate one’self from God’s grace entirely. This is why the Catholic church teaches that salvation can be lost.

 

[guanophore]

A person made the claim that the church and Christ are the same. It was supported i think with Acts 9:5. If this is true then certain things will follow either good or bad.

Are you asserting that bad things come from Christ?

This union in Christ that we have is of a spiritual nature and can be difficult to grasp. It does not mean identical though. If it does, then there is no getting around the idea that Christ is responsible for evil because the church has done evil.

The Church, having the Soul of the Holy Spirit, cannot sin. Individual members can sin, and thus remove themselves from the Spirit of Christ.

Saul persecuted the Church. Jesus asked Saul why he persecuted Him. How is Christ not identified with His Church?

 

[guanophore]

A person made the claim that the church and Christ are the same. It was supported i think with Acts 9:5. If this is true then certain things will follow either good or bad.

Are you asserting that bad things come from Christ?

This union in Christ that we have is of a spiritual nature and can be difficult to grasp. It does not mean identical though. If it does, then there is no getting around the idea that Christ is responsible for evil because the church has done evil.

The Church, having the Soul of the Holy Spirit, cannot sin. Individual members can sin, and thus remove themselves from the Spirit of Christ.

Saul persecuted the Church. Jesus asked Saul why he persecuted Him. How is Christ not identified with His Church?

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

This, too, belongs on another thread. In the NT we read about the office of Apostle. The responsibility of this office was passed on to the Bishops, who in turn ordained priests to carry out their presbyterial duties when they were not able to be present.

Each of your points could be a thread in itself

Have at it! I am ready.

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

This is a very interesting statement. i wonder what you mean by this. It seems to me that the unity that exists is present BECAUSE the Catholic Churhc holds to it’s doctrines. We can see when people protest, and leave these doctrines, disunity multiplies.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This definitely belongs on another thread. The word “priest” derives from the word presbyter, or elder. They are one and the same int eh NT. The church has always allowed married priests. Some of the Apostles were married. Qualification for an elder was not made on the basis of being married, and having a family. In fact, it is the other way around. The reason Paul enjoins that an elder must be the husband of only one wife is that polygamy was common, and have a harem of wives took a person’s attention away from the flock of God. Paul preferred they all be celibate. Additionally, it was not required that an elder have a house ful of children to qualify, but if he did, that they not be unruly children. Jesus preferred a eunuch for the Kingdom also. The Church does not “forbid” anyone to marry. She recognizes that those who are unmarried can give more full attention to the flock of God, and prefers to choose shepherds who are called to celibacy.

 

[po18guy]

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

As we have all seen, it’s already taking effect!

 

[po18guy]

This definitely belongs on another thread. The word “priest” derives from the word presbyter, or elder. They are one and the same int eh NT. The church has always allowed married priests. Some of the Apostles were married. Qualification for an elder was not made on the basis of being married, and having a family. In fact, it is the other way around. The reason Paul enjoins that an elder must be the husband of only one wife is that polygamy was common, and have a harem of wives took a person’s attention away from the flock of God. Paul preferred they all be celibate. Additionally, it was not required that an elder have a house ful of children to qualify, but if he did, that they not be unruly children. Jesus preferred a eunuch for the Kingdom also. The Church does not “forbid” anyone to marry. She recognizes that those who are unmarried can give more full attention to the flock of God, and prefers to choose shepherds who are called to celibacy.

I suggest a user name change to JustTelling4!

OK, how about this: (Matthew 19:12)
“For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” This is Christ talking. He who has ears for hearing should hear.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2686452]No, but you persistently implied that it was. I am glad to learn that you know the difference now.

This word “implied” is a great word to use not only in catholic apologetics. I can see it also has a variety of uses.

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.

If the pope endorses something then it must be true for all catholics and it is something i think he would want all catholics to do. Would you agree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

Where can if find all the fullness of the truth in catholic church? I suspect some is in the catechism and papal pronouncements. Where else should i look?

 

[justasking4]

This definitely belongs on another thread. The word “priest” derives from the word presbyter, or elder. They are one and the same int eh NT. The church has always allowed married priests. Some of the Apostles were married. Qualification for an elder was not made on the basis of being married, and having a family. In fact, it is the other way around. The reason Paul enjoins that an elder must be the husband of only one wife is that polygamy was common, and have a harem of wives took a person’s attention away from the flock of God. Paul preferred they all be celibate. Additionally, it was not required that an elder have a house ful of children to qualify, but if he did, that they not be unruly children. Jesus preferred a eunuch for the Kingdom also. The Church does not “forbid” anyone to marry. She recognizes that those who are unmarried can give more full attention to the flock of God, and prefers to choose shepherds who are called to celibacy.

Where does Paul make any reference to polygamy in his qualifications for church leadership?

 

[justasking4]

I suggest a user name change to JustTelling4!

OK, how about this: (Matthew 19:12)
“For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” This is Christ talking. He who has ears for hearing should hear.

Where is this a requirement for church leadership?

 

[justasking4]

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

Or as long as Protestants hold to theirs

Where in the NT do we see an unmarried priest saying mass or hearing confessions? Where is he mentioned in any list of offices in the church by office?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Where can if find all the fullness of the truth in catholic church? I suspect some is in the catechism and papal pronouncements. Where else should i look?

Many of the Saints expanded on the basic ideas in Scripture and Tradition thorugh their writings.

It would be near impossible to even read all of the Papal encyclicals. Like the Epistles, Papal pronouncements apply to some communities more than others.

 

[justasking4]

Tim Kirchoff;2693178]Many of the Saints expanded on the basic ideas in Scripture and Tradition thorugh their writings.

Do you believe all the saints spoke the truth on what they spoke about?

It would be near impossible to even read all of the Papal encyclicals. Like the Epistles, Papal pronouncements apply to some communities more than others.

Do you read these encyclicals and pronouncements?

 

[justasking4]

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.

Paul nor Jesus nor anyone apostle never made celibacy a requirement for leadership. What the catholic church has done on this issue is to disregard the scriptures on this matter. Peter himself was married.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Do you believe all the saints spoke the truth on what they spoke about?

Do you read these encyclicals and pronouncements?

The saints were capable of error, but most of their work is highly relevant.

And have you been listening? It would be nigh-impossible to do so.

 

[justasking4]

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.

I don’t these kinds of things are off topic. Look at how broad it is. It seems to me almost anything can be discussed under this heading—Why do Protestants presume to know Catholic doctrine and dogmas when they don’t really know it?

What a great thread to uderstand what catholics believe and don’t believe.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Paul nor Jesus nor anyone apostle never made celibacy a requirement for leadership. What the catholic church has done on this issue is to disregard the scriptures on this matter. Peter himself was married.

Yes, but the fact that Peter’s wife isn’t mentioned in that passage suggests that Peter was a widower by the time he started following Jesus.

 

[justasking4]

The saints were capable of error, but most of their work is highly relevant.

And have you been listening? It would be nigh-impossible to do so.

Listening to what?