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

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Listening to what?

“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.”

 

[guanophore]

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

See? You are growing by leaps and bounds!

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?

No, I do not think this is right, justasking 4. The Pope is a human being like all of us, and is not, in and of himself, infallible. Just because he endorses something that does not necessarily make it “true for all Catholics”. Supposing he likes eating anchovies on his Pizza, and recommends it to all? But, I know you are speaking of a devotional here, s I will say that I am sure the Pope believes that the practice of this devotion would be beneficial to all,a nd that anyone who took his advice most likely would benefit. Unless it was you, of course. If you did it, it woule be a sin.

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?

Well, I am not one who endorses the notion that anyone will find the “fullness of truth” in the Catholic Church. As I wrote you elsewhere, I think this is an error of speech. However, if you are interested in the fullness of FAITH, I think the Catechism and Papal writings, as well as concilar writings are a good place to start.

 

[guanophore]

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

See? You are growing by leaps and bounds!

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?

No, I do not think this is right, justasking 4. The Pope is a human being like all of us, and is not, in and of himself, infallible. Just because he endorses something that does not necessarily make it “true for all Catholics”. Supposing he likes eating anchovies on his Pizza, and recommends it to all? But, I know you are speaking of a devotional here, s I will say that I am sure the Pope believes that the practice of this devotion would be beneficial to all,a nd that anyone who took his advice most likely would benefit. Unless it was you, of course. If you did it, it woule be a sin.

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?

Well, I am not one who endorses the notion that anyone will find the “fullness of truth” in the Catholic Church. As I wrote you elsewhere, I think this is an error of speech. However, if you are interested in the fullness of FAITH, I think the Catechism and Papal writings, as well as concilar writings are a good place to start.

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

You quoted it your own self!!! They must be the husband of ONE WIFE. This is because polygamy was common in that area in that time period, and they did not want the Church to have to support a harem of wives and children. Paul also wrote that he preferred all of them be as he was (celibate). Marriage is not a requirement for priesthood, but polygamy was a disqualifier.

 

[guanophore]

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

See? You are growing by leaps and bounds!

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?

No, I do not think this is right, justasking 4. The Pope is a human being like all of us, and is not, in and of himself, infallible. Just because he endorses something that does not necessarily make it “true for all Catholics”. Supposing he likes eating anchovies on his Pizza, and recommends it to all? But, I know you are speaking of a devotional here, s I will say that I am sure the Pope believes that the practice of this devotion would be beneficial to all,a nd that anyone who took his advice most likely would benefit. Unless it was you, of course. If you did it, it woule be a sin.

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?

Well, I am not one who endorses the notion that anyone will find the “fullness of truth” in the Catholic Church. As I wrote you elsewhere, I think this is an error of speech. However, if you are interested in the fullness of FAITH, I think the Catechism and Papal writings, as well as concilar writings are a good place to start.

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

You quoted it your own self!!! They must be the husband of ONE WIFE. This is because polygamy was common in that area in that time period, and they did not want the Church to have to support a harem of wives and children. Paul also wrote that he preferred all of them be as he was (celibate). Marriage is not a requirement for priesthood, but polygamy was a disqualifier.

Where is this a requirement for church leadership?

It is not. Jesus was encouraging those that were called to be celibate to accept their call, just as He had done, and He was pointing out that some people are given that gift so that they will be more free to serve the Kingdom. The Catholic Church takes this teaching very seriously, and prefers to choose priests from among those who have the gift of celibacy, so that they can devote more of their attention to Kingdom matters, and not be pre-occupied with family matters.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Paul was shown the Mass by Jesus Himself and taught the disciples to follow it.

1 Cor 11:23-34

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

These are the exact words that are used in the Mass today. Nothing has changed.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

There were some liturgical abuses, just like we still find today, but they gathered on the first day of the week, and the Mass was held. Only the bishop, or one appointed by the Bishop (priest/elder) was authorized to conduct the Mass.

Confessions are instituted by Jesus, and spoken about in the book of James:

James 5:16
16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

 

[justasking4]

See? You are growing by leaps and bounds!

No, I do not think this is right, justasking 4. The Pope is a human being like all of us, and is not, in and of himself, infallible. Just because he endorses something that does not necessarily make it “true for all Catholics”. Supposing he likes eating anchovies on his Pizza, and recommends it to all? But, I know you are speaking of a devotional here, s I will say that I am sure the Pope believes that the practice of this devotion would be beneficial to all,a nd that anyone who took his advice most likely would benefit. Unless it was you, of course. If you did it, it woule be a sin.

Well, I am not one who endorses the notion that anyone will find the “fullness of truth” in the Catholic Church. As I wrote you elsewhere, I think this is an error of speech. However, if you are interested in the fullness of FAITH, I think the Catechism and Papal writings, as well as concilar writings are a good place to start.

You quoted it your own self!!! They must be the husband of ONE WIFE. This is because polygamy was common in that area in that time period, and they did not want the Church to have to support a harem of wives and children. Paul also wrote that he preferred all of them be as he was (celibate). Marriage is not a requirement for priesthood, but polygamy was a disqualifier.

I don’t take the context for polygamy but divorce and remarriage. Although he could have meant in what you say i don’t think that is what Paul had in mind since it was not common in roman society and scripture forbids it.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Paul was show the Mass by Jesus Himself and taught the disciples to follow it.

1 Cor 11:23-34

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

These are the exact words that are used in the Mass today. Nothing has changed.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

There were some liturgical abuses, just like we still find today, but they gathered on the first day of the week, and the Mass was held. Only the bishop, or one appointed by the Bishop (priest/elder) was authorized to conduct the Mass.

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.

I think you are misinformed and confused, justasking4. Celibacy has never been a requirement for leadership. It was not then, and it is not now. You are confusing leadership with priesthood. The Catholic Church has more leaders that are married than they do priests. Most of the leadership is lay leadership. The next are deacons, who are not required to be married, but often are. we do not disregard the scriptures, but we take all the scriptures together, not peicemeal as some evangelical traditions tend to do. We value what Jesus and Paul said about celibacy, whereas most Protestant communities do not.

 

[justasking4]

Paul was show the Mass by Jesus Himself and taught the disciples to follow it.

1 Cor 11:23-34

23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

These are the exact words that are used in the Mass today. Nothing has changed.

27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. 30 That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. 31 But if we judged ourselves truly, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

There were some liturgical abuses, just like we still find today, but they gathered on the first day of the week, and the Mass was held. Only the bishop, or one appointed by the Bishop (priest/elder) was authorized to conduct the Mass.

If you look at those passages in scripture you don’t see how the changing of the bread and wine is done in the catholic sense though. It does not say much about it at all.

 

[SyCarl]

33 So then, my brethren, when you come together to eat, wait for one another - 34 if any one is hungry, let him eat at home - lest you come together to be condemned. About the other things I will give directions when I come.

There were some liturgical abuses, just like we still find today, but they gathered on the first day of the week, and the Mass was held. Only the bishop, or one appointed by the Bishop (priest/elder) was authorized to conduct the Mass.

Given verse 34, why does the Catholic Church impose a fast before receiving communion?

 

[guanophore]

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.

No, actually, all these questions of yours belong on another thread. I don’t know if you noticed, but nothing on the actual topic has been posted since you hijacked it. However, you do provide an excellent example of a person who thinks they know what Catholics believe when they do not!

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Given verse 34, why does the Catholic Church impose a fast before receiving communion?

To emphasize that the Eucharist is not just another meal, and to encourage a proper respect for the Blessed Sacrament.

 

[justasking4]

i missed this last part that you wrote. sorry

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
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.

 

[justasking4]

No, actually, all these questions of yours belong on another thread. I don’t know if you noticed, but nothing on the actual topic has been posted since you hijacked it. However, you do provide an excellent example of a person who thinks they know what Catholics believe when they do not!

I must have missed something. Since it seems you speak for everyone here, where was it defined exactly what this topic was about? Where is the criteria for the discussion?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

guanophore;2693295:

I’m referring to the real leaders in the catholic church who have the power to affect things. What your church has done is to outright disqualify a man from this kind of leadership just because he is married. There is not one office of church leadership in the NT where celibacy is a requirement.

Why should they need to affect things? What needs to be changed?

 

[guanophore]

If you look at those passages in scripture you don’t see how the changing of the bread and wine is done in the catholic sense though. It does not say much about it at all.

No, Jesus said it all. It is recorded in John 6 and at the Last Supper. The Apostles had no other understanding than this, and those who did not accept it, left. You can confirm this by studying the Eastern Orthodox, who preserve this same Apostolic teaching.

What we don’t see is any OTHER understanding up until some time after the reformation, in the last 400 years or so.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

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.

On the contrary, councils held in union with the Pope that teach to the whole of the Church on matters of faith and morals ARE held to be infallible. The college of Bishops, united and teaching together with the Pope at their head, is regarded as infallible.

Further, even the disciplines of the Church enjoy a negative infallibility, that is to say that at the least, they cannot lead the faithful astray.

 

[justasking4]

justasking4;2693311:

Why should they need to affect things? What needs to be changed?

What being married does in the catholic church is to keep these men out of the decision making process. They may be consulted but they have no real power to affect change like a priest can. Take church councils. Do married men make decrees for the church?

 

[guanophore]

If you look at those passages in scripture you don’t see how the changing of the bread and wine is done in the catholic sense though. It does not say much about it at all.

No, Jesus said it all. It is recorded in John 6 and at the Last Supper. The Apostles had no other understanding than this, and those who did not accept it, left. You can confirm this by studying the Eastern Orthodox, who preserve this same Apostolic teaching.

What we don’t see is any OTHER understanding up until some time after the reformation, in the last 400 years or so.

Given verse 34, why does the Catholic Church impose a fast before receiving communion?

This is a good question that also belongs on another thread. The fast is a discipline that evolved once the Eucharistic Celebration was separated from Sunday Dinner. As you can see from the letter, it was chaos, and the Eucharist was moved away from any other type of eating to preseverve it’s sanctity. Fasting is intended to turn the soul toward God, and improve the consciousness of hungering for the true bread of Life.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Tim Kirchoff;2693337:

What being married does in the catholic church is to keep these men out of the decision making process. They may be consulted but they have no real power to affect change like a priest can. Take church councils. Do married men make decrees for the church?

I don’t think most married men would like to be taken from their families to Rome that they might be consulted, do you?

God’s kingdom is not a republic.

 

[guanophore]

I’m referring to the real leaders in the catholic church who have the power to affect things.

I am not sure what this means, and I am sure it belongs on another thread. You are right that the priest only has the power to effect the consecration of the Eucharist. Other than this, what types of power are you talking about? Perhaps you are not familiar with how parishes are structured, with Pastoral Councils (made up of lay leaders) and Directors of Education, Directors of RCIA, Directors of Music, Directors of Lectors, Directors of Eucharistic Ministry, Directors of Liturgy, etc etc who are generally all lay people.

What your church has done is to outright disqualify a man from this kind of leadership just because he is married. There is not one office of church leadership in the NT where celibacy is a requirement.

I guess I just don’t understand what you mean by leadership. Most of the leadership in a Catholic parish is provided by lay persons, most of whom are married.

The church does not disqualify married persons from the priesthood, either, as they are received into the Church every day. However, she recognizes that marriage is a full time vocation, and that the priesthood is a full time vocation, and that an undivided man can have more focus on the flock of God.

1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord."

Why would the church NOT prefer a person in leadership who is undivided?