F
ferdie
Guest
catholiccrusade, if everyone goes to hell except catholics, how do you explain puragatory? Is it just for caholics?
- Status
M
michaelp
Guest
Not only that, but I even heard on the radio (from a professional apologist, mind you, someone I have a great deal of respect for). Someone called in and said several members of her family converted to another religion, and wanted to know if they would still be saved. The answer was:
“If they left the Catholic Church knowing that Christ was the center of it, then they can not recieve salvation. But if they left the Church not knowing Christ was the center of it, then they still can recieve salvation.”
Keep in mind this person works for the official Catholic radio station, and his program is heard all throughout America. Needless to say he has more credability than most of you, at least as far as I’m concerned. And he’s talking about people actually leaving the Church, so definitely people already outside the Church should be fine. No doubt we have an advantage as Catholics, but “through God all things are possible”, which means it can’t be impossible for a protestant to recieve salvation.
[/quote]
But is this guys interpretation infallible?
If not, do you think that it is wise to base this essential belief on someones fallible interpretation?
And if it is not, who is to say that his interpretation is better than anyone elses?
“If they left the Catholic Church knowing that Christ was the center of it, then they can not recieve salvation. But if they left the Church not knowing Christ was the center of it, then they still can recieve salvation.”
Keep in mind this person works for the official Catholic radio station, and his program is heard all throughout America. Needless to say he has more credability than most of you, at least as far as I’m concerned. And he’s talking about people actually leaving the Church, so definitely people already outside the Church should be fine. No doubt we have an advantage as Catholics, but “through God all things are possible”, which means it can’t be impossible for a protestant to recieve salvation.
[/quote]
But is this guys interpretation infallible?
If not, do you think that it is wise to base this essential belief on someones fallible interpretation?
And if it is not, who is to say that his interpretation is better than anyone elses?
S
Sherlock
Guest
Michaelp,
You asked, “But is this guys interpretation infallible?”
The person was merely echoing Church teaching. The Church is protected from teaching error in certain areas, hence the infallibility. If an individual simply repeats Church teaching, he himself may not be infallible but the teaching might be.
You asked, “If not, do you think that it is wise to base this essential belief on someones fallible interpretation?”
Is it wise to base one’s essential beliefs on Church teaching, which is what this example represents? Yes, absolutely. Having been a Protestant, I can see that within Protestantism infallibility is merely claimed on a personal level instead of residing in the Church that Jesus founded—which leads to contradictory “truths”, which leads to rampant relativism, which leads to a breakdown in our understanding of reality…
You asked, “And if it is not, who is to say that his interpretation is better than anyone elses?”
If a person wishes to judge another’s interpretation for its orthodoxy, one can compare it to the Catechism (the “sure norm”, as JPll puts it). I have not found the Catechism to be difficult to understand, and suspect that those who do are trying to dodge it or mold it to fit their own agenda. I think that common sense applies here…we aren’t Protestants. We have a standard by which to say that “that guy is relating orthodox Church teaching”, or “that guy’s views are contrary to the Church’s teaching.” That doesn’t guarantee that all will submit, mind you—but it does mean that there IS truth, whether people will submit to it or not. It’s not hard, really.
You asked, “But is this guys interpretation infallible?”
The person was merely echoing Church teaching. The Church is protected from teaching error in certain areas, hence the infallibility. If an individual simply repeats Church teaching, he himself may not be infallible but the teaching might be.
You asked, “If not, do you think that it is wise to base this essential belief on someones fallible interpretation?”
Is it wise to base one’s essential beliefs on Church teaching, which is what this example represents? Yes, absolutely. Having been a Protestant, I can see that within Protestantism infallibility is merely claimed on a personal level instead of residing in the Church that Jesus founded—which leads to contradictory “truths”, which leads to rampant relativism, which leads to a breakdown in our understanding of reality…
You asked, “And if it is not, who is to say that his interpretation is better than anyone elses?”
If a person wishes to judge another’s interpretation for its orthodoxy, one can compare it to the Catechism (the “sure norm”, as JPll puts it). I have not found the Catechism to be difficult to understand, and suspect that those who do are trying to dodge it or mold it to fit their own agenda. I think that common sense applies here…we aren’t Protestants. We have a standard by which to say that “that guy is relating orthodox Church teaching”, or “that guy’s views are contrary to the Church’s teaching.” That doesn’t guarantee that all will submit, mind you—but it does mean that there IS truth, whether people will submit to it or not. It’s not hard, really.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Paris Blues:
Perhaps by now you are getting a picture of why some Protestants hate the Church. What if you were raised to be a good Christian, not to judge, to love Christ, to do good works, etc, by parents who are perfectly well-meaning and as far as they know doing everything right? Maybe you’ve never made up your mind about Catholics because you knew nothing about them, and then read this thread?
If it were I, and I had lived my whole life as a faithful Protestant, and then read all this garbage about how anyone who isn’t Catholic is going to hell, including all my relatives, friends, etc, I might just cop a bad attitude about Catholics, too.
Now add in a little bit of scandal here, a little bit of publicized arguments among bishops there, and I say the Church has created her own formula for Protestants hating her by claiming to be the fountain of all holiness when in fact she is a fountain of both holiness and evil – maybe not through her teachings, but at least by her actions.
Does that mean that Catholic teachings are false? By no means. It means that the Catholic Church’s assertions (if this thread is any example) plus her actions earns her disrespect, if not out-and-out hatred.
For those who have this attitude and belief about non-Catholics going to hell, I’d like to know what this passage is supposed to mean:
Mark 9:38-41:
Matt 7:1-5:
Here’s one more little passage I never noticed before:
John 12:47-49:
And we wonder why Protestants hate us?
Alan
Dear Paris Blues,So if Protestants or whatever are comfortable with their teaching plus do what Christ said, they’re still condemned then? I’m taking it like that.No doubt then, the CC IS THE TRUE Church and no matter if you obey what the Bible says, etc. follow Christ’s teachings, etc. you’re still condemned if you don’t join the CC?
Perhaps by now you are getting a picture of why some Protestants hate the Church. What if you were raised to be a good Christian, not to judge, to love Christ, to do good works, etc, by parents who are perfectly well-meaning and as far as they know doing everything right? Maybe you’ve never made up your mind about Catholics because you knew nothing about them, and then read this thread?
If it were I, and I had lived my whole life as a faithful Protestant, and then read all this garbage about how anyone who isn’t Catholic is going to hell, including all my relatives, friends, etc, I might just cop a bad attitude about Catholics, too.
Now add in a little bit of scandal here, a little bit of publicized arguments among bishops there, and I say the Church has created her own formula for Protestants hating her by claiming to be the fountain of all holiness when in fact she is a fountain of both holiness and evil – maybe not through her teachings, but at least by her actions.
Does that mean that Catholic teachings are false? By no means. It means that the Catholic Church’s assertions (if this thread is any example) plus her actions earns her disrespect, if not out-and-out hatred.
For those who have this attitude and belief about non-Catholics going to hell, I’d like to know what this passage is supposed to mean:
Mark 9:38-41:
Again, regarding knowing that anybody, Catholic or not, is condemned to hell, what did Jesus say?
Matt 7:1-5:
What part of “stop judging” do some Catholics not understand? In case anybody misses that one, this teaching is repeated in Luke 6.
Here’s one more little passage I never noticed before:
John 12:47-49:
So Jesus will not condemn them, but Catholics will.
And we wonder why Protestants hate us?
Alan
M
michaelp
Guest
Alot of people here think that they are accurately representing the Church’s teaching. Who is right.
But if you are not infallible, how do I know that you are right. Could you be wrong in trusting in an infallible Church? If not, then you are infallible, right?
This is the exact statement that some Protestant would make about Scripture. Everyone thinks that they have the right interpretation.
But you have an opinion, right or wrong, that begins the process. Your opinion is that the Church is infallible. Anothers is that it is not. Who is right??
A
anjel13
Guest
Well, Why go into the seminary? Earlier you were saying that “not all seminarys are exactly orthodox in teaching” and tried very hard to make me think that my Grandfather recieved false teaching in a false seminary and his 7 years in the seminary was basically pointless because he was so misled. When you go into the seminary I hope that you choose a good one. I don’t know where one might be since there are SOOOO many out there that are teaching our priests lies.
Sorry I would rather attend a mass where I can actually understand what the priest is saying. But you can have fun at your latin mass.
I will not argue with you anymore, I hope that God fills your heart with love instead of such meaningless judgments on others. God Bless.
S
Sherlock
Guest
Michael,
You wrote: “Alot of people here think that they are accurately representing the Church’s teaching. Who is right.”
Compare what a person says against the Catechism, for starters. It isn’t at all difficult. Of course, it does take common sense and a willingness to be taught, but with those two ingredients a person is in good shape—this isn’t rocket science, Michael.
You wrote: “But if you are not infallible, how do I know that you are right.”
See above. Use brain.
You wrote: " Could you be wrong in trusting in an infallible Church? If not, then you are infallible, right?"
As I said, it does take common sense. Of course, if you want to apply modernist deconstructionist relativism to this, then you probably will be left confused. But then you’ll be confused about a lot more than just trusting a Church: can I be wrong in trusting God? If I trust in God, does that make me infallible? If I don’t trust in God, does that make me fallible? How can I trust myself, since I am fallible? What time is it? How do I really “know” what time it is? Is that a book? How do I “know” it is a book? Do I trust myself in knowing that the object is a book? If so, am I infallible? If not, how can I trust my perceptions, since I am fallible? Who am I ? How do I know I exist?
I take it you are an agnostic, then? Presumably any other position puts you in the position of confronting your own fallibility in knowing whether God exists.
I don’t have that problem, thank God. I trust in Him, and I trust in the Church that He founded.
continued…
You wrote: “Alot of people here think that they are accurately representing the Church’s teaching. Who is right.”
Compare what a person says against the Catechism, for starters. It isn’t at all difficult. Of course, it does take common sense and a willingness to be taught, but with those two ingredients a person is in good shape—this isn’t rocket science, Michael.
You wrote: “But if you are not infallible, how do I know that you are right.”
See above. Use brain.
You wrote: " Could you be wrong in trusting in an infallible Church? If not, then you are infallible, right?"
As I said, it does take common sense. Of course, if you want to apply modernist deconstructionist relativism to this, then you probably will be left confused. But then you’ll be confused about a lot more than just trusting a Church: can I be wrong in trusting God? If I trust in God, does that make me infallible? If I don’t trust in God, does that make me fallible? How can I trust myself, since I am fallible? What time is it? How do I really “know” what time it is? Is that a book? How do I “know” it is a book? Do I trust myself in knowing that the object is a book? If so, am I infallible? If not, how can I trust my perceptions, since I am fallible? Who am I ? How do I know I exist?
I take it you are an agnostic, then? Presumably any other position puts you in the position of confronting your own fallibility in knowing whether God exists.
I don’t have that problem, thank God. I trust in Him, and I trust in the Church that He founded.
continued…
S
Sherlock
Guest
continued…
You wrote: “This is the exact statement that some Protestant would make about Scripture. Everyone thinks that they have the right interpretation.”
Yup, and that’s why I left Protestantism: too many popes with contradicting “truths”. Contradicting “truths” are not truth after all, and relativizing truth is an unfortunate but entirely predictable outcome of Protestantism. Truth is objective, not subjective. Jesus founded a Church, and so THERE is where I expect to find His truth, not in an entirely man-made structure, or in individuals’ whims.
You wrote: “But you have an opinion, right or wrong, that begins the process. Your opinion is that the Church is infallible. Anothers is that it is not. Who is right??”
I am, because Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and Scripture calls it the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Since I have good reason to accept the historical reality of Jesus, and good reason to accept the historicity of the New Testament, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is God the Son. Therefore, when I look to see the Church that Jesus founded, I see the Catholic Church. I don’t see Him founding any of the thousands of Protestant denominations. I don’t see Scripture supporting the idea that we’re all on our own in regards to the interpretation of Scripture. So—I’m right. I know it shocks the ears of modern relativists to hear such a bold statement, but I say it in all humility but with full confidence—because I trust in God.
You wrote: “This is the exact statement that some Protestant would make about Scripture. Everyone thinks that they have the right interpretation.”
Yup, and that’s why I left Protestantism: too many popes with contradicting “truths”. Contradicting “truths” are not truth after all, and relativizing truth is an unfortunate but entirely predictable outcome of Protestantism. Truth is objective, not subjective. Jesus founded a Church, and so THERE is where I expect to find His truth, not in an entirely man-made structure, or in individuals’ whims.
You wrote: “But you have an opinion, right or wrong, that begins the process. Your opinion is that the Church is infallible. Anothers is that it is not. Who is right??”
I am, because Jesus founded the Catholic Church, and Scripture calls it the “pillar and foundation of truth”. Since I have good reason to accept the historical reality of Jesus, and good reason to accept the historicity of the New Testament, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that He is God the Son. Therefore, when I look to see the Church that Jesus founded, I see the Catholic Church. I don’t see Him founding any of the thousands of Protestant denominations. I don’t see Scripture supporting the idea that we’re all on our own in regards to the interpretation of Scripture. So—I’m right. I know it shocks the ears of modern relativists to hear such a bold statement, but I say it in all humility but with full confidence—because I trust in God.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Paris Blues:
Peace…
It is ignorance and ill-will. They are the root. To cut off the root, you must use understanding and lovingkindness. That’s what Buddhism teaches anyway.Could anyone explain to me why some people absolutely “hate” (I don’t like to use that word much!) the Catholic religion? I myself wonder that? The only people that I know that don’t dislike the Catholic religion are my own parents. They are Protestant but they don’t care if I’m Catholic or not. As long as you’re happy with it and are faithful to God and Jesus, is what they would say to me. They have an open heart and mind to it as well. No, they’re not going to convert but they are not “anti-Catholics” either! Whew!
It just bothers me when bad things are said about Catholicism. I will admit at first that when I heard these “things”, I thought Catholicism WAS a “fake”, “false-doctrine” religion! But having an open heart and mind to it, I’m learning much and it’s starting to make more sense now!
Nicole
Peace…
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
Excellent post.
This is truly where opinions diverge. “Who is right?” is an excellent question. It is one I’ve yet to totally come to grips with. Many people have come to these same conclusions. There are so many views and apparent evidences for each one. But yet, one view doesn’t seem to include the complete truth as we can understand it.
It is circular reasoning to say, “It is so because the pope says it is so.” “It is so because the Dalai Lama says it is so.” “It is so because Muhammed says it is so.” That’s not correct thinking. That’s closed thinking - circular reasoning. It leaves no room for error.
Peace…
H
hlgomez
Guest
Ahim,
The very big difference among all leaders of religions around the world is that in Catholicism, God himself has promised from the beginning that He will guide it into all truth until the end of time. So if the Church says so, we have to believe it. Or else we put our mistrust on Him who promised to guide her into all truth. Dalai Lama, Mohammed, Bin Laden, etc. didn’t receive any promise directly from God that they’re gonna preach the truth-nothing but the truth.
Pio
S
serendipity
Guest
I’m sure this was said many times, but people are misinformed. They think their church was created in some sort of vacuum, not broken away from tradition.I love this "who started your church t-shirt: catholicposters.com/shop/product.php?prodId=631&cat=32+33+47+
Darn it! I can’t get the plus sign to become part of the link. At any rate, I have been tinking about buying it, but fear that rather than starting discussions, it might get me stoned in rural North Carolina.
Something that sometimes amuses me and other times annoys me beyond description, is why are the Catholic books in the book stores on one or two rungs of a book shelf, right above the Jewish, Islamic and “other Eastern relgions” rung (yeah, I would love to see the reaction of Muslims and Jews to know they are considered “Eastern religions” here, but that will not happen becuae they do not live here), and not mixed up with the rows and rows of Christian writings or Inspritational writings. We’re the original Christians!!!
But the funny thing is that sometimes you will see a book by some one known like Augustine, or Theresa of Avila or Tomas a Kempis, mixed up with the general Christian books and not the Catholic seciton, because I guess those people are not considered Catholic in their eyes. Soemtimes I see Frances de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” in the “Christian (not Catholic)” section too, which crakcs me up, because of his extensive work to encourage the Calvinists to return to the real Church…you better believe that the book with that story is not in the store…but they always seem to have the book about why “Catholics can’t sing.” Needless to say, I buy my books online
Darn it! I can’t get the plus sign to become part of the link. At any rate, I have been tinking about buying it, but fear that rather than starting discussions, it might get me stoned in rural North Carolina.
Something that sometimes amuses me and other times annoys me beyond description, is why are the Catholic books in the book stores on one or two rungs of a book shelf, right above the Jewish, Islamic and “other Eastern relgions” rung (yeah, I would love to see the reaction of Muslims and Jews to know they are considered “Eastern religions” here, but that will not happen becuae they do not live here), and not mixed up with the rows and rows of Christian writings or Inspritational writings. We’re the original Christians!!!
But the funny thing is that sometimes you will see a book by some one known like Augustine, or Theresa of Avila or Tomas a Kempis, mixed up with the general Christian books and not the Catholic seciton, because I guess those people are not considered Catholic in their eyes. Soemtimes I see Frances de Sales’ “Introduction to the Devout Life” in the “Christian (not Catholic)” section too, which crakcs me up, because of his extensive work to encourage the Calvinists to return to the real Church…you better believe that the book with that story is not in the store…but they always seem to have the book about why “Catholics can’t sing.” Needless to say, I buy my books online
C
caroljm36
Guest
I’ve got Catholic-haters in my family. It’s kind of hard to recall now just how powerful the Church used to be…there were some gruff old monseignors back in the 1950s. My mother got in a snit when one called to to inquire about her baptism, because my dad was trying to invalidate his civil marriage to her so that he could marry a Catholic. I think they tried to prove the marriage wasn’t valid because my mother was never baptized. She still gets upset about that, though I used to wonder if she’s an agnostic and doesn’t believe in all that, why does she care what they say? But i guess it’s human nature. Her father was very anti-Catholic, though I never read his letters to her. I think he based his hatred on Catholics in history, and Catholic dogma. I believe he was an atheist.
And remember the buggery problem goes way, way back. There was a 60 Minutes story on the (I think) Christian Brothers orphanages in Australia back in the 1930s and 1940s, where the English sent its alleged “orphans” (many were not in fact) who were sexually abused by the monks. Atrocious story that was huge in Australia of course, and I imagine you’d find some Catholic-haters among the victims.
And remember the buggery problem goes way, way back. There was a 60 Minutes story on the (I think) Christian Brothers orphanages in Australia back in the 1930s and 1940s, where the English sent its alleged “orphans” (many were not in fact) who were sexually abused by the monks. Atrocious story that was huge in Australia of course, and I imagine you’d find some Catholic-haters among the victims.
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
From the outside looking in your assertions are without merit. Your belief that God has promised such and such is only that - it is a belief (with evidences). I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m trying to get you to step out of yourself and see the worldview and not just simply the Catholic view or Christian view.
The Muslim can point to Scripture and say - “look here! it says in the Koran - this and this.” You see what I mean. Anybody can point to their Scriptures and claim they possess the truth and the absolute truth.
Your assertions are based on the preconceived notion that the Christian God has done certain things and revealed certain things through men and through Holy Scriptures. And again, don’t misinterpret what I am saying. There are evidences of course for our Christian God and Jesus Christ and His resurrection, etc. But, in the end, given the evidences, one must still place their faith that such things are true.
My point of the post was to get you to see through preconceived notions and bias. I’m not denying or confirming your Catholic faith. I’m encouraging openness and reflective thought. I also encourage actually studying other religions (without as much internal bias as possible).
Peace…
S
sparkle
Guest
Sort of a “non-denom” extreme Fundamentalist make your own church for $35.00 sect.
I think they were probably really deep-inside taken with the richness of it all–knowing their “church”, BTW what they think is nothing more than anyone who is a believer, anywhere, is the “church”-----.
I hope this was the case. Been praying for these folks in my family (there’s alot of them–Dad a pastor too)…but it only gets argumentative and nasty if I try to explain anything. They get totally and completely defensive–bringing up “indulgences” of the past and how they think all Priests are closet gays, etc. etc.,
Any advice Robby S—or anyone else?
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Says the Church, that is. The Church wrote the Bible which says Christ gave the “keys” to Peter. From that the rest is highly extrapolated. Then again, the Church wrote the Bible. Therefore we’re back at the same place – the judge and the advocate are the same person. Circular.
The firm belief that God will guide the Church into all truth is based on the faith that the Church is telling the God-given truth. Unless you were there and got the message straight from the person Jesus, it is through faith that any of these assertions are made at all. It is our faith that we believe the modern Church teaches anything at all from God; to claim that people who have other beliefs are definitely wrong is presumptuous, and to tell them they are going to hell because they are not Catholic is just asking for them to dislike and distrust us.
A whole lot of people, including the 9/11 hijackers, gave their own lives convicted that their leader was telling them the God-given truth. What makes us smarter than them? We used to burn people at the stake out of kindness and concern for their everlasting soul.
Alan
A
ahimsaman72
Guest
You read my mind - or was I reading your mind with my post above??
Excellent points.
Peace…
R
Rara_Avis
Guest
The Catholic Church is “The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” there is no other
and that is why protestant hate the Catholic Church! because they do not say the same of their religions
That is the 4 marks of the True Church now if Jesus gave marks for a True Church than there must be false churches.
Do you think they like being told they are false churches!! I don’t think so.
But it doesn’t change that which is Truth!
T
The_Dead_Bishop
Guest
Inside every human soul, there is a Catholic faith trying to come to the knowledge and Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Though not all the souls in purgetory proclaimed the Catholic faith in this world,… they would have come to the fuller understanding of the One, True, Church and become Catholic,…had they lived longer in this world. Dominus Vobiscum!
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
Rara Avis:
This is not a difficult concept. Nearly every institution claims their product is the best, and maybe according to some criteria they all have a characteristic in which they are. Maybe one has the biggest sales, another has the fewest returns, another has the most famous actors advertising it. It’s all in how you define “best.”
What is Truth, and how shall we identify it when we hear it? If we define Truth as whatever the church says, then the question is reduced to a word game. We are True because we say we are – and we know we’re right because we are True. It is a word game. It is reassuring for us to think that the leader of our team is able to answer divine mysteries beyond human comprehension, because then we can quash any personal uncertainty and just follow the leader. That’s great for us, but it is presumptuous and inflammatory to go around saying everybody who isn’t on our team is wrong and is going to hell.
Now, on the other side of the coin is “faith.” If we have faith that the Church is true, then that’s great. Don’t be surprised, though, when others don’t take as God-given truth what we believe on faith. Inviting them to the faith is one thing; telling them we are right and they are wrong is bad.
I see I’m repeating myself, but perhaps that’s what it takes to convey an obvious point.
Alan
You are correct that Protestant dislike for what we say does not change that which is Truth. Similarly, our telling them they are false churches doesn’t change that which is Truth, nor does it make their churches false. Similarly, our claim that we are the only true Church doesn’t make it true; it merely feeds the presupposition that it is.
This is not a difficult concept. Nearly every institution claims their product is the best, and maybe according to some criteria they all have a characteristic in which they are. Maybe one has the biggest sales, another has the fewest returns, another has the most famous actors advertising it. It’s all in how you define “best.”
What is Truth, and how shall we identify it when we hear it? If we define Truth as whatever the church says, then the question is reduced to a word game. We are True because we say we are – and we know we’re right because we are True. It is a word game. It is reassuring for us to think that the leader of our team is able to answer divine mysteries beyond human comprehension, because then we can quash any personal uncertainty and just follow the leader. That’s great for us, but it is presumptuous and inflammatory to go around saying everybody who isn’t on our team is wrong and is going to hell.
Now, on the other side of the coin is “faith.” If we have faith that the Church is true, then that’s great. Don’t be surprised, though, when others don’t take as God-given truth what we believe on faith. Inviting them to the faith is one thing; telling them we are right and they are wrong is bad.
I see I’m repeating myself, but perhaps that’s what it takes to convey an obvious point.
Alan
- Status