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

[Tim_Kirchoff]

There are major problems with the extra books in the catholic bible. For example none claim to be written by a prophet and the Jews rejected them as being Scripture. Other reasons could be given.

Don’t forget, Jews also rejected Jesus

In reference to your other post…

I don’t know if I’m the person to answer this, but the essential beliefs and practices of the Church are explained in the Catechism. Tradition (with a big T) is essential information about Truth not included in the Bible itself. For example, information about the Asssumption, absolutely true even though it is not recorded in the Bible.

As I said before, the Bible, for many years, was no more than Tradition. When St. Paul sent out his letters, he didn’t send a second copy to some council to decide whether or not it could be counted as scriptural

 

[guanophore]

Where do you get this idea? It’s not scripture. Is it not true also that the early church after the apostles did have married bishops etc ?

In the early Church, the celibate life was not yet common. What we seen it the NT is a mustard seed.What we have now is a large bush.

Paul is not talking about these kinds of offices but about bishops being married.

I am not disputing that there have been married priests and bishops. what I am disputing is your Sola Scriptura belief. You are incapable of recieving any other Authority, because you do not believe that the Authority given by Christ to the Apostles exists in the same form today.

This topic is a good forumn to discuss what the scriptures and what the catholic church teaches. The catholic church makes claims that their teachings are grounded in the scriptures but when we study them in light of what the catholic church teaches we see something different.

That is because you do not understand what the church teaches, and because you take the scriptures out of context. the context of the scriptures IS the Catholic church. they are written by, for, and about Catholics. Separating them from the Sacred Tradition from which they were produced can only result in misunderstandings of what they mean.

I also suspect that most catholics have not studied deeply what their church teaches nor what the scriptures teach on these matters.

I suspect that is true also, however, you won’t find many of THOSE on this forum!

 

[guanophore]

The church did not “create” scripture. God is the source not the church.

It is not possible to separate the two, justasking. THis is one of the problems you are having understanding what appears to you to be a dichotomy. Jesus’ Body is the Church. He is the Head. He is completely identified with His body. This is why, in Acts, he accuses Paul of persecuting Himself. Men, inspired by the HS, spoke from God. This is known as sunergesis, or “working together”. It was Catholic men, and the HS that created the NT.

It is clear from I Timothy 3 that married men with families were the best canidates for leadership

You cannot take passages out and make doctrine based on one verse. All the verses have to be taken into account together. Jesus and Paul both taught celibacy. However it was acceptable to have a married man, so long as he was the husband of no more than one wife.

and yet the catholic church has disqualified married from position of bishop because they are married.

they are not “disqualified”, justasking. The Church recognizes that married persons are differently qualified. The church has the authority to do this, just as she has the authority to excuse women from wearing veils in church.

 

[guanophore]

I’m trying to understand exactly what Sacred Tradition is. What are examples of it and who started it? Is there a list of it somewhere that i can see all of it to the present time?

Sacred Tradition started before recorded time, but we can see some evidence of it from the very beginning of the OT. The Jews are enjoined to teach their children the precepts of the faith, and not to allow the teachings to depart from the house. In the NT, we see Jesus teaching from the Sacred Oral Tradition, and we see both St. Stephen and St. Paul reciting their Sacred Oral History when they go on trial. Every Jew who became a son of the covenant had to be able to present the Sacred Oral Tradition just as Stephen did before the council prior to his martyrdom. In Peter, we read of Jannes and Jambres, who are figures in the Sacred Oral Tradition, as is the dispute over the body of MOses which he writes about.

 

[guanophore]

There are major problems with the extra books in the catholic bible. For example none claim to be written by a prophet and the Jews rejected them as being Scripture. Other reasons could be given.

Well, Jesus and His Apostles used them, and that is good enough for me. Why would you choose a canon chosen by unbelieving Jews, over the one Jesus used?

 

[justasking4]

Well, Jesus and His Apostles used them, and that is good enough for me. Why would you choose a canon chosen by unbelieving Jews, over the one Jesus used?

Do you happen to have direct quotes from them? Can you show in the NT where they do this?

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2755814]It is not possible to separate the two, justasking. THis is one of the problems you are having understanding what appears to you to be a dichotomy. Jesus’ Body is the Church. He is the Head. He is completely identified with His body. This is why, in Acts, he accuses Paul of persecuting Himself. Men, inspired by the HS, spoke from God. This is known as sunergesis, or “working together”. It was Catholic men, and the HS that created the NT.

Was Jesus completely indentified with the church when the popes sanctitioned the inquisitions?

You cannot take passages out and make doctrine based on one verse. All the verses have to be taken into account together. Jesus and Paul both taught celibacy. However it was acceptable to have a married man, so long as he was the husband of no more than one wife.

Where did Jesus or Paul make celibacy a requirement for a bishop?

they are not “disqualified”, justasking. The Church recognizes that married persons are differently qualified. The church has the authority to do this,

It may have auothority but it does not have power or authority to circumvent the clear teaching of the Word of God. To do is to teach falsely.

just as she has the authority to excuse women from wearing veils in church.

 

[justasking4]

guanophore;2755810]In the early Church, the celibate life was not yet common. What we seen it the NT is a mustard seed.What we have now is a large bush.

 

[Teflon93]

Nonsense. The writers of scripture never refer to themselves as catholics. Secondly if your church truly understood the context of the scriptures they would never claim they are supported by the scriptures.

Well, that’s a mighty claim to make!

So Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Erasmus, Pope Benedict XVI et al didn’t understand the context of Scripture?

You’ll forgive me for going with their interpretation rather than yours until you can top their theological accomplishments.

 

[ChadS]

Do you happen to have direct quotes from them? Can you show in the NT where they do this?

Actually there are several passages from the deutercanonical books alluded to and indirectly quoted in the New Testament. However it must be remembered that Catholics do not accept the inspiration of a Jewish writing just because it is quoted in the New Testament, and there are several books accepted by both Protestants and Catholics contained in the Old Testament as inspired but not quoted in the New Testament.

Take a look at this link: socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/08/possible-references-to-deuterocanon.html

ChadS

 

[Pier]

Where does Paul say…“To remain single as I do”? I don’t see it here.

As stated above:

1Cor 7:8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.

& from Matthew19:12 '… Christ Himself said: ‘and some there are who have freely renounced sex for the sake of God’s reign. Let him accept this teaching who can.’

The other day someone was trying to tell me that the reason He said this was because there was no mass transit back then - I couldn’t believe it.

 

[guanophore]

Do you happen to have direct quotes from them? Can you show in the NT where they do this?

scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html

Here is a start. I can get back to you on this one.

 

[guanophore]

Was Jesus completely indentified with the church when the popes sanctitioned the inquisitions?

This is not an appropriate thread to discuss the inquisitions, about which it is likely you know very little. But, let us say for the sake of discussion that sins were committed during the inquisitions, either by the Pope, or other Catholics. Fortunately the sinfulness of individual member’s of Christ’s body does not equate to Him losing identification with it. Another example of this is in

1 Cor 6:15
15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute?"

It creates a wound, but does not make Jesus less the Head of the body. the Catholic Church, however, does teach that continued mortal sins of this kind will eventuallly dismember a person from the Body completely.

Where did Jesus or Paul make celibacy a requirement for a bishop?

Jesus and Paul were both celibate. Jesus taught that some people were eunuchs for the Kingdom, and that persons who were given this gift should receive it. Paul wrote that he wished everyone could be as he was. Jesus gave His apostles the authority to legislate, so if the successors decide on that, they have His permission.

The Church chooses to use those recommended in this way by Jesus and the Apostle as bishops. Why does this bother you? Did you want to be a priest, or a bishop, and were not allowed?

No one has the “right” to be a priest or a bishop. It is a sacred vocation.There are some called to it that don’t answer (my own brother comes to mind) and some who think they are called whose calling is not confirmed by the Church. The Spirit is in charge of the Church and the Vocation coming together in one person. If God wants a person to become a priest or a bishop, He is able to make it happen.

It may have auothority but it does not have power or authority to circumvent the clear teaching of the Word of God. To do is to teach falsely.

We are in total agreement on that point. In fact, since the NT was written by all Catholics, and the Canon was chosen by all Catholics, we can be sure that this will not happen. Only books were included whose contents accurately reflected the Apostolic Teachings. That is why there is nothing in the NT that contradicts Catholic Teaching. If it seems that way, it is because you either don’t understand the scripture correctly, or you don’t understand the Church teaching correctly.

 

[guanophore]

You could say this about anything. The fact of the matter is that celibacy for a bishop was never taught by the apsostles.

What do you think Jesus meant when He was talking about the mustard seed growing into a tall tree? You are complaining that the tree you see does not look like the mustard seed from whence it came. Why would it? Jesus said it would not!

We consider Paul’s exemplary life a teaching on the value of celibacy. But if not, then his words are also sufficient for instruction:

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. 1 Cor 7:32-35

Why would you WANT a bishop who had to have his mind on worldly affairs? Why would you NOT want good order and undivided attention from the bishop?

The issue is not Sola Scriptura but what do the scriptures teach.

The scriptures teach that the Apostles have the keys to the Kingdom, and they have the power to bind and loose (govern). They passed this power to their successors, the bishops. The bishops have now made celibacy (in the Latin Rite) mandadory for priests. Both the East and the West (Orthodox) have it binding for bishops.

Not so. What i don’t accept any authority that claims to be incapable of error. That i reject.

Do you realize you are saying that you reject Jesus as an authority in your life?

Huh? You make the claim that celibacy is taught by the Scriptures when i continually show that where leadership is mentioned its never in the context of celibacy.

Celibacy is taught by the scriptures, both by the life of Christ, His own words, and by St. Paul as mentioned above. Paul writing that he did not want persons in leadership who had a string of failed marriages notwithstanding. One does not negate the other.
Both teachings are valid.

What does this have to do with the context of scripture?

One must read the scriptures in context to understand their meaning. The context of the verses on Church leadership is the Catholic Church.

Nonsense. The writers of scripture never refer to themselves as catholics.

We don’t see the word “catholic” emerge until about the year 110. However we do see that there is One Church, and that all the churches and believers are in unity with one another, and with the apostolic teachings. Those who did not receive the Apostolic Teaching are not considered part of the Church.

Secondly if your church truly understood the context of the scriptures they would never claim they are supported by the scriptures.

To an extent you are right. It is not the scriptures that support the Church, but the other way around. The church functioned with out any NT at all for decades, and after the contents of what we now know of as the NT was penned, it was centuries before it was ratified as a canon. It is the Church that is the support of the Truth. The sacred writings reflect what the church believes and teaches, not the other way around. If you think there is a discrepancy, then you either don’t understand the writing, or the teaching.

 

[qui_est_ce]

You could say this about anything. The fact of the matter is that celibacy for a bishop was never taught by the apsostles.

You seem obsessed with celibacy, because you think you can refute Catholicism with it, and thus your fundamental evangelical position’s correctness.

It is so petty. Such a minor issue in the entire Doctrine of Faith.

Celibacy was commonly practiced at the time of Jesus. viz. St. John the Baptist, the Essenes. It was a form of ascetecism…

What is it that are the REAL faith issues about the CC that bother you?

Please address the issues which are truly problem, such as John 6:51-63

this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
59
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
61
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

and
2 Peter 1:20-21
20
12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I have been following this thread from the beginning. May I make a simple request?

This thread is supposed to be about Catholic doctrine and dogma. Not discipline.

A discussion of celibacy is a discussion of discipline and is therefore off topic. I suggest it be moved to its own thread.

Can we please get back on topic?

 

[Teflon93]

I have been following this thread from the beginning. May I make a simple request?

This thread is supposed to be about Catholic doctrine and dogma. Not discipline.

A discussion of celibacy is a discussion of discipline and is therefore off topic. I suggest it be moved to its own thread.

Can we please get back on topic?

JustAsking seems to be obsessed with disciplines and devotions rather than doctrine. First it was the brown scapular, now celibacy. Basically anything non-Catholics can mock as odd or inconvenient.

So the real question is: why continue to avoid discussing Catholic doctrine?

Talk about practice in another thread. That way I can vent about the oddity of the altar call in a proper location.

 

[Kay_Cee]

JustAsking seems to be obsessed with disciplines and devotions rather than doctrine. First it was the brown scapular, now celibacy. Basically anything non-Catholics can mock as odd or inconvenient.

So the real question is: why continue to avoid discussing Catholic doctrine?

Talk about practice in another thread. That way I can vent about the oddity of the altar call in a proper location.

Is he saying such things are doctrine and dogma? If he is, he’s proven the question asked in the thread title.

If not, let’s please move on and discuss the relevant topic.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Is he saying such things are doctrine and dogma? If he is, he’s proven the question asked in the thread title.

If not, let’s please move on and discuss the relevant topic.

I have noticed he has been discussion disciplines as well rather than the main topic which is “doctrines and dogma”

I don’t think many Non-Catholic Christians (particularly Protestants) don’t know what the difference are between, devotions, disciplines vs. dogma and doctrine.

If they did know, they could have keep the topic on the right track.

 

[rlg94086]

Talk about practice in another thread. That way I can vent about the oddity of the altar call in a proper location.

And, why they even call it an “altar,” since for them there is no sacrifice.