Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[adrift]

Hey this is one we might really be able to sink our teeth in!

Only if you like half truths.

Do you agree that there is only one interpretation of Scripture? Or do you believe the Holy Spirit moves different Popes in different directions? For instance at one time Catholics only received the Bread and now both Bread and Wine.

Catholic receive the Body and Blood of Jesus not bread and wine. Jesus is present Body Soul and Divinity in both. That has not changed. You give a bad example but it does show that you do not understand.

By now many of you have heard that, on Friday April 20, Benedict XVI approved the release of a new document on limbo. According to news reports, this document teaches that limbo (the highest part of Hell where those who die in original sin only go) doesn’t exist. It concludes, therefore, that unbaptized infants go to Heaven. This document had been in the works for a long time; Benedict XVI officially approved its release on Friday. The implications of this blatantly heretical document are very significant, as I will discuss.

Lmbo was never dogma but speculation. NEW! The catechism published in 1983 states

1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Benedict XVI only is restating that which was ALREADY published.

*Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, On Original Sin, Session V, ex cathedra: “If anyone says that recently born babies should not be baptized even if they have been born to baptized parents; or says that they are indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but incur no trace of the original sin of Adam needing to be cleansed by the laver of rebirth for them to obtain eternal life, with the necessary consequence that in their case there is being understood a form of baptism for the remission of sins which is not true, but false: let him be anathema.” (Denz. 791)**Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Session 11, Feb. 4, 1442, ex cathedra: “Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil [original sin] and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people…” *

Has nothing to do with limbo and is still true. Baptism is a necessity even for babies.

I say there has to be one interpretation.

Scripture can have many meanings. They have the first glance meaning and then there are the layers. Nothing, however, that you have mentioned comes close to a discrepancy in interpretation. The article you quoted made unfounded conclusions as you are.

 

[schaick]

Good. Please share with us how you are currently working out your salvation with fear and trembling? Thanks!

(Philippians 2:12)
So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;

Well for starters I was born and raised a Christian. I have studied about many different religions and know that following Jesus is** The Way**!

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

I have spoken with many from other faiths on forums about the Gospel, especially Muslim:
Romans 1
16I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

I do believe that Jesus is Lord:
Romans 10
9That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

I know that I have the TRUTH in GOD’s Word.
Ephesians 1
13And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

Yep I love Jesus- I can’t believe that He would die on the cross for me a poor miserable sinner:
1 Peter 1
8Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

I have been baptized:
John 3
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

I try to spread the Good News- very dificult at times. It is nearly impossible to convince Muslims that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead:
Mark 16
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

Matthew 10
32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.”

John 14
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

I am truly sorrow for sins I know about and those I don’t. I don’t rate sins like Catholics do- speaking sharply at your children is just as horrible as stabbing them in the heart..

Think Butterfly Effect here- The scientific theory that a single occurence, no matter how small, can change the course of the universe forever.

2 Corinthians 7
10Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation and leaves no regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well for starters I was born and raised a Christian. I have studied about many different religions and know that following Jesus is** The Way**!

And where do you get your assurance that your interpretation is ‘infallible’?

 

[schaick]

Catholic receive the Body and Blood of Jesus not bread and wine. Jesus is present Body Soul and Divinity in both. That has not changed. You give a bad example but it does show that you do not understand.

You know what I meant I know you believe in the real presence- so do I.

I have had this conversation already on this forum- there is something about the Eucharist being a **fuller Eucharist ** now because the *“bread and wine” *are offered to Catholics instead of just the “bread”.

Jesus made a distinction.

Q. 872. When is the Holy Eucharist a Sacrament, and when is it a sacrifice?

A. …separate Consecration of the bread and wine, which signifies the separation of Our Lord’s blood from His body when He died on the Cross.

Although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting…although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread…it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission (Council of Constance, Session 13).

If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).

Lmbo was never dogma but speculation. NEW! The catechism published in 1983 states

1261
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Benedict XVI only is restating that which was ALREADY published.

Has nothing to do with limbo and is still true. Baptism is a necessity even for babies.

Scripture can have many meanings. They have the first glance meaning and then there are the layers. Nothing, however, that you have mentioned comes close to a discrepancy in interpretation. The article you quoted made unfounded conclusions as you are.

Why is this Catholic site so upset over the whole thing? It is a Catholic site isn’t it?

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_new_limbo_heresy.html

The staggering implications of Benedict XVI’s new blatant heresy on Limbo

 

[schaick]

And where do you get your assurance that your interpretation is ‘infallible’?

There is only one interpretation.

 

[schaick]

You know, as it’s been explained to you repeatedly. There are many, many different denominations with slight to great differences in doctrines, all based on someone’s interpretation of scriptures. That places, what you consider, the final authority into a contradicting position. Which interpretation is correct? Which interpretations have been wrested by the unlearned, unstable and unwise, even to their own destruction.

I hold the belief that there is only one interpretation.

Sacred Traditions go hand in hand with God’s word. To understand how, you have to use the interpretation as read in the tradition of the living Church. There are scriptures that support the Catholic Traditions.

Hopefully they would go hand in hand, but isn’t that using GOD’s Word as final authority?

No one has been able to tell me though what those traditions are!

elvisman has taken a good stab at it- but My church has all those traditions that he mentioned.

The Bible being the ‘final authority’ is a ‘tradition’ that is NOT in God’s word. There are no scriptures to support this man-made tradition.

There things not labeled in the Holy Bible:

Trinty-but the concept is definately there

**The Nicene Creed **-I have linked to that great website couple of times:
prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

Is there need for GOD to mention that HIS Word is the final authority on matters of our relationship with HIM - our salvation?

LOL! I just had a picture of GOD putting HIS hand to HIS forehead saying OY VEY!

 

[Cardinalsong]

I would like to find out peoples opinion on why they don’t like the Catholic religion so much.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen said it best:

There are not over a 100 people in the U.S. that hate the Catholic Church, there are millions however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church, which is, of course, quite a different thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You know what I meant I know you believe in the real presence- so do I.

I have had this conversation already on this forum- there is something about the Eucharist being a **fuller Eucharist ** now because the *“bread and wine” *are offered to Catholics instead of just the “bread”.

Jesus made a distinction.

Q. 872. When is the Holy Eucharist a Sacrament, and when is it a sacrifice?

A. …separate Consecration of the bread and wine, which signifies the separation of Our Lord’s blood from His body when He died on the Cross.

Although Christ instituted this venerable sacrament after a meal and ministered it to his apostles under the forms of both bread and wine, nevertheless and notwithstanding this, the praiseworthy authority of the sacred canons and the approved custom of the church have and do retain that this sacrament ought not to be celebrated after a meal nor received by the faithful without fasting…although this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds in the early church, nevertheless later it was received under both kinds only by those confecting it, and by the laity only under the form of bread…it should be held as a law which nobody may repudiate or alter at will without the church’s permission (Council of Constance, Session 13).

If any one saith, that, by the precept of God, or, by necessity of salvation, all and each of the faithful of Christ ought to receive both species of the most holy sacrament not consecrating; let him be anathema (Council of Trent, Session 21, Canon 1).

Why is this Catholic site so upset over the whole thing? It is a Catholic site isn’t it?

mostholyfamilymonastery.com/BenedictXVI_new_limbo_heresy.html

The staggering implications of Benedict XVI’s new blatant heresy on Limbo

You know very well that is not a Catholic, in communion with Rome, website. Now it’s turning from debate to anti ad hominem statements.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is only one interpretation.

So your interpretation is the only and one interpretation, infallible and correct over all others?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I hold the belief that there is only one interpretation.

And your interpretation is correct and infallilble over ALL others? Where is that written in scriptures?

Hopefully they would go hand in hand, but isn’t that using GOD’s Word as final authority?

No. One without the other is not having the fullness of truth.

No one has been able to tell me though what those traditions are!

elvisman has taken a good stab at it- but My church has all those traditions that he mentioned.

You’ve been on these forums long enough to know some of those traditions, at least I’ve seen you reject a number of them.

There things not labeled in the Holy Bible:

Trinty-but the concept is definately there

**The Nicene Creed **-I have linked to that great website couple of times:
prayerfoundation.org/nicene_creed_scripture_basis.htm

Smoke screen evasion of direct questions.

Is there need for GOD to mention that HIS Word is the final authority on matters of our relationship with HIM - our salvation?

YES, especially by the standards you hold the Catholic Church too.

Why is it God inspired it be written, ‘the Church of the living God is the pillar and ground of truth’, instead of scriptures?

Why is it God inspired it be written, ‘the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church’, instead of scriptures?

Why did Jesus teach disputes to be taken to the Church, instead of scriptures?

Why did Jesus see to it that the Church was established first, instead of scriptures? In fact, why didn’t Christ write, or at the very least have scribed, anything if the written word was to take place over the oral teaching?

God plainly inspired the above. What’s lacking is the ‘final authority’ you seem to be preaching on these forums. It’s not inspired, but you have made it so. Isn’t that the same as ‘adding’ to the book?

 

[adrift]

You know what I meant I know you believe in the real presence- so do I.

I can’t read your mind and no I didn’t know you meant that.

I have had this conversation already on this forum- there is something about the Eucharist being a **fuller Eucharist ** now because the *“bread and wine” *are offered to Catholics instead of just the “bread”.

Jesus made a distinction.

The priest is the only one who MUST receive under both forms. No the laity does not have to receive under both forms. The Laity receive all of Jesus under either form. The command is to Jesus’ priest only.

Why is this Catholic site so upset over the whole thing? It is a Catholic site isn’t it?

Not is isn’t rather it is a schismatic group who could not accept the Church’s authority and instead have substituted their own. The same thing happened after Vatican I. That group is called the Old Catholics and they to are not in union with the Catholic Church.

 

[elvisman]

Yes Elvis you’re the one who speculated John was alive when Ignatius wrote to the Smymaeans and the Catholic Encyclopedia speculates about a 10 yr gap inbetween. But of course Christ’s universal church existed. Catholic being defined as such. .

No, I didn’t.
I said that the writings of the Early Church point to the fact that the Church was being called “Catholic” while St. John the Apostle was still alive. If it were not the “Catholic Church” - he would have told them to stop calling it that.

I never said that he was alive when Ignatius died. I said that when Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans - the name, “Catholic Church” was already a well-established name.

You have to remember that they didn’t have the internet back then or television or newspapers. It took a long time for things to get established - especially when the word had to travel by foot from country to country by missionaries.

 

[elvisman]

I address part of that in the following:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6423280&postcount=329

You only addressed part of what I asked. To read the Scriptures in context – you must address ALL of what I asked.

---

As for your interpretation of Matt. 16:19 – it is preposterous. This verse directly correlates to Isaiah 22:22 – and not to some obscure allusion to a Jewich court system:
Isaiah 22:22**
“I will place the key of the House of David on his (Eliakim) shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.”

---

God replaces Shebna with Eliakim. The keys to the House of David are given to Eliakim and so is the power to bind and loose – to open and shut. This is the position of Prime Minister or agent (vicar) – just as Peter is given this office of Prime Minister of Jesus or Vicar:

---

Matt. 16:19
**“I will give you (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." **

 

[CMatt25]

No, I didn’t.
I said that the writings of the Early Church point to the fact that the Church was being called “Catholic” while St. John the Apostle was still alive. If it were not the “Catholic Church” - he would have told them to stop calling it that.

I never said that he was alive when Ignatius died. I said that when Ignatius wrote the Letter to the Smyrnaeans - the name, “Catholic Church” was already a well-established name.

You have to remember that they didn’t have the internet back then or television or newspapers. It took a long time for things to get established - especially when the word had to travel by foot from country to country by missionaries.

Then we agree if John was dead when Catholic Church was first used in written form in a letter, he could not have corrected Ignatius.

And from newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”

And of course Christ’s universal church was established. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Nicely put because? Does it fit your theology?

That’s the problem of private interpretation. It gives the reader the liberty of reading scriptures to fit their theology, as opposed to fitting their theology to scriptures.

Scriptures tells us, clearly, that Christ established an authority over His Church. Scriptures tells us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the place the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known. No where does scriptures tell us that scriptures will do this on their own. No where does scriptures tell us that every individual should interpret scriptures for themselves.

Many of the letters and epistles, of the New Testament, were specific instructions/teachings to Churches established by the Apostles. They confirmed and went in depth on things they had learned verbally, through oral instructions/teachings from the Apostles.

There are many examples of a teaching authority.

Scripture forms my beliefs Prod. You had it backwards. Nicely put because Roy recognizes the difference between 100% absolute knowledge and faith. And he spoke of bridges rather than barriers.

 

[Matthew_P_Muehl]

There is only one interpretation.

And what one interpretation is that? Is it your interpretation?
Where did you get your authority to interpret scripture?
There is only one church that has that authority “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH”

Matthew

 

[guanophore]

It’s starting to bug me that such a morally bankrupt institution has been offering it’s opinions on moral issues for millenia now.

I’m not a foe of the church but with all of this is starting to turn me into one. I’ve never liked how much the church lobbies in government on moral issues.I understood, though, that this was a church trying to submit to a moral ideal, so I respected it. Now I see that it never had a leg of morality to stand on.

18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades** will not overcome it.[c]

Hades won’t need to destroy the church. The Church is turning to Hades.

An immoral institution cannot offer advice on morality. It’s hypocrisy.**

I suppose it would be, if it were possible, but it is not. Institutions cannot have “morality”. Morality requires conscience, which is not a quality of an institution. It requires the freedom of will to make choices, and discernment among the choices. Neither of these qualities belong to “institutions” either. Therefore, the idea that an Institution can be immoral is a strawman.

People who are in institutions have those qualities, and certainly the quality of the institution is compomised by persons who are immoral. However, to blame the institution for the immoral acts of indiviuals is inappropriate and prejudicial. It is like laying the sins of Judas at the feet of Christ.

Well, Judas was a bad seed. Therefore, the Aposotic institution to which he belonged is immoral, and the Head of that group (Jesus) has no right to offer advice on morality. It is hypocrisy.

 

[guanophore]

Guan - I usually respect your opinion, but you are out of line here.
It seems that you have not read all of the posts.

I was reponding to post #73 by Ted DC - where he implied that Catholic teaching was “BS”. I took issue with that - as anybody should because it was completely uncharitable and uncalled for.

Now - back to the discussion . . .

You are right elvisman, and I apologize. I have not read all the posts. I do think that members need a little more latitude in this area, since most of them would not be “non-Catholic” if they did not think that the Teachings were BS. I just read a post by a non-Christian who asserted that the Church was an immoral institution because of the immoral actions of certain persons claiming to be members of her.

I also found it interesting that the member was sick and tired of the Catholic Church claiming to have moral superiority. It is interesting that someone who does not believe that Jesus is really the Head of His Body would be annoyed by such a thing. It goes to show that most everyone recognizes the claim of Catholicism to be the One True Church.

 

[elvisman]

Then we agree if John was dead when Catholic Church was first used in written form in a letter, he could not have corrected Ignatius.

And from newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm
The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.”

And of course Christ’s universal church was established. Peace.

Matt - I am going to attempt to exlain this to you one last time - but it’s getting pretty exasperating:

---

I was stating that John was probably alive when the Church was being called, “Catholic” - NOT when Ignatius died. Ignatius died around the year 110 A.D.

My claim was that the name, “Catholic Church” was already well-established and that it was probably called this for decades - when John was alive - BEFORE Ignatius was killed.

Is that any clearer?

 

[CMatt25]

Matt - I am going to attempt to exlain this to you one last time - but it’s getting pretty exasperating:

---

I was stating that John was probably alive when the Church was being called, "Catholic" - NOT when Ignatius died. Ignatius died around the year 110 A.D.

My claim was that the name, “Catholic Church” was already well-established and that it was probably called this for decades - when John was alive - BEFORE Ignatius was killed.

Is that any clearer?

No Elvis not any clearer because I understood you the last time. I fail to see why you continue arguing with me about this though. We agree John could not have told Ignatius he was wrong in yr 110 if John died in 100. And we agree the universal (catholic) church had already been established and people probably knew what the word “catholic” meant. Peace to you Elvis and have a most wonderful day. Hope you’re having a blessed Lenten season.