Why does one hate the Catholic Church?

[guanophore]

No you are just taking it that way.

That is how it comes across, schaick. You have made a value judgement about something you clearly know nothing about, and persist in insulting our faith practices based upon your lack of knowledge and experience. It is called bigotry.

Man-made traditions are only bad if a Church says you have to follow these for your salvation when there is absolutely no proof that they are in fact required for your salvation.

Since you cannot discern the difference between a Sacred Tradition and a common human tradition, you are in a difficult position to judge, don’t you think? Complicate that with a deficient understanding of salvation, and what do you get? Someone criticizing something they know very little about, finding it deficient, and insulting the adherants.

You haven’t proved anything about these “Sacred Traditions” whatever they might be. Please, show the chain of transmission.

I thought you said you believed there was no Apostolic Succession?

That is like saying “I know there is no planet named Saturn, you made that up. Prove to me that there is a Saturn, but you can’t use any scientific evidence, a telescope, or anything that has been produced by someone who saw it.”

A person doesn’t interprete Scripture for themselves-You must alllow Scripture to interprete Scripture.

Interpretation is an activity of the human intellect. Since scripture does not have this characteristic, you are basing your understanding only upon yourself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

To that I say prove it!

In effect you are saying my baptism is also invalid, because it was not done in the Catholic Church.

Show me where it says that only the Catholic Church, not the universal Church but the Catholic Church has the only access to the Holy Spirit.

Read John 13 through 18 and tell me who received His promises that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead them and guide them in all things. As far as I can see, these words were only spoken to the Apostles, and not the multitude. The Apostles were chosen and appointed by Him, the multitude were not. Today, we compare the multitude to the layperson, because they did not receive the authority.

This doesn’t mean the teaching, as written by John, is of no use to us, it is. We can see some of the things Christ taught the authoritative men of the Church and that He commanded them to teach us to observe.

Nowhere in scriptures will you find someone who ‘appointed’ themself to a position of authority within the Church Christ built.

History, both Church and secular, shows us the Catholic Church has been in existence since the very early years. It also shows us the ‘birth’ of the Protestant Churches through the reformation, in the 1500s. Show us with supporting documentation that there was in fact another Church, a Church that had possession of the scriptures and held those scriptures for hundreds of years until we have them today.

Christ built a Church, first, that gave us the scriptures, in that order. The men wrote scriptures and passed them along to those they had appointed into the Church. They also passed along the interpretations. Paul wrote letters of instruction, or correction, and stated he would set things in order when he got there. We do not have that information he set in order when he did get there. That was spoken. That was explanations of those things he wrote.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A person doesn’t interprete Scripture for themselves-You must alllow Scripture to interprete Scripture.

Then explain why scripture interprets scripture differently for different people. Show us with scriptures where it tells us that scriptures will interpret itself.

Scriptures cannot come out of scriptures to give itself the ‘final authority’. Scriptures do not state that scriptures are the ‘final authority’.

 

[guanophore]

To that I say prove it!

In effect you are saying my baptism is also invalid, because it was not done in the Catholic Church.

If and when you are ready to come home to the Church founded by Christ, your baptism will be evaluated for validity before you are received. If it involved proper form, manner, and intention, then it is considered valid.

In order for the Eucharist to be valid, those celebrating it must be in union with the bishop. Your unity with the bishops was severed by the Reformers about 500 years ago.

No Catholics don't seem to understand that a new "church" was not made.  My Church is a part of the universal Church that Jesus is building.

I am sure that you wish to believe that. It is a comforting thought, certainly.

**Where Trinitarian Christians see unity in the one faith of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and diversity in celebrating that faith, Catholics simply see division and confusion.**

No, Schaick. This statement is just another bigoted accusation. If you really want to know the Catholic point of view on these eccleisal communities, I suggest the catechism, which is a sure norm for the faith. In it, you will find something quite the opposite of what you have stated here.

This is a very interesting statement:

This changed the gospel message so that what is now preached is a “different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles

Most of our separated brethren have never heard the Apostolic Gospel, so when they receive the modern American Evangelical version (an abridged gospel) they think that Catholics have “added” to the gospel. They have no idea how much has been subtracted in the last 500 years.

Show me where it says that only the Catholic Church, not the universal Church but the Catholic Church has the only access to the Holy Spirit.

This is an invention of your imagination. How can I “show you where” you got it?

If I had to guess, I would say that it emanates from the anti-Catholic bigotry and prejudice that I see in your posts. However, that is pure speculation on my part.

Where do you think it says that?

 

[guanophore]

Until I found this site:
stjameshopewell.org/questions/question_traditions.html
*Most of the beliefs and practices found in sacred tradition have their basis in Scripture, but some do not. Catholics’ belief that Mary was assumed into heaven is an example of a sacred tradition that has no reference in Scripture. The Assumption of Mary was nonetheless an important belief in the early Church, and that is why it has been passed on through the generations as part of sacred tradition. ***

Sorry that you are the victim of so much misinformation, schaick. The truth is that none of the Catholic doctrines “have their basis in Scripture”.

Furthermore, there are references that influence our understanding of the Assumption in scripture.
schaick;6455924:

Can you show me how this tradition has been passed down- Who was the first Apostle to mention it?

It was Paul who first wrote about the putting on of the heavenly body. However, at the time he wrote, we don’t know if Mary was still here on earth. We have the most testimony from the Apsotle John, who spent more time with Mary than the others.

What I am taking as a Catholic site:

davidmacd.com/catholic/mary_in_the_early_church.htm

In 130 Irenaeus and then St. Justin in 110-165 A.D write about Mary.

Where is the connection between the Apostles and the early Church Fathers?

The better question would be, where do you think the connection was broken? When you read about the relationship of Paul to Timothy and Titus in the NT, where do you see the connection? If you don’t see any, then that explains the problem.

*There were also feasts in memory of the Assumption of Mary in Antioch dating back to 380 A.D. *

Do you find this problemantic? If so, do you realize that these took place before your Bible was formed? Do you realize that it was people of this faith that formed your Bible, based entirely upon Sacred Tradition? If you cannot believe that they were able to apprehend the Truth, how can you accept the canon of Scripture?

Back to that first site:

A few examples of beliefs and practices that do have their basis in Scripture would include the following:
· The Apostles’ Creed, an early summary of important Christian beliefs.
· The role of bishops, priests, and the pope in Christian ministry.
· The authority of the pope – the belief that the pope cannot teach falsely when he speaks officially as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals.
· Our understanding of the Sacraments and their place in Christian life.
Although Scripture touches on these matters, it is through sacred tradition that we fully understand their meaning and significance to the Church.

Again, I am sorry that you are reading misleading websites, Schaick. None of these Sacred Tradititons have their basis in Scripture. None of the Catholic faith does.

**This information can not be trusted because there is no basis for the authority of a single Pope in Scripture or the believe that the pope cannot teach falsely when he speaks officially as head of the Church on matters of faith and morals.**

Although I disagree with your reasons, I do agree that the information cannot be trusted.

I do have the teachings of the Apostles- the Creeds.  Actually I have in my Church the ** Sacred Tradition that the Bible is GOD's Word and infallible**

The bible as “infallible” is a human tradition that was invented during the Reformation by men who wished to reject the authorities appointed by Christ.

No axe to grind.  Just trying to understand how people have put trust in immoral Popes through the ages, yet can't put it solely in the most moral thing on the face of the earth GOD's Word.

I don’t know any faithful Catholics that put their trust in immoral leaders at any level. We trust in God, and we know that He is in our boat with us, and even if the boat gets swamped by waves, we can cling to Him.

Morality requires elements that Scripture does not, that is why Scripture can be neither moral, or immoral. Those that believe it is ultimately fall back on their own morality. this is why we have such a splintering in Protestantism today.

I have yet to see a chain of command so to speak on the "Sacred Traditions".

No, I doubt you will. You can also denythe existence of Saturn, but that will not change the facts.

 Yes, I do have authority in my Church as laid out by Scripture, but not the way Catholics do added to over the ages.

Schaick, you may not realize this, but the Catholic Church “added” that Bible you are trying to whack us over the head with. It is a Catholic book. there is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

 

[schaick]

Where in scriptures does scriptures tell us the Bible is the ‘final authority’?

GOD’s Word is the only concrete evidence that we have showing us what we need for our salvation.

How do you test to see that something the Pope says is from GOD? How do you know if a Pope really does have the Holy Spirit with him? How do you test- look for the fruits of the Spirit. Can an immoral Pope, Priests, whoever that doesn’t exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit have revalation from the Holy Spirit?

I say a person must look to GOD’s Word. Catholics must just go along with whatever a Pope says.

Where in scriptures does it teach each individual is to interpret scriptures for themselves?

There is one interpretation anything added is obvious. I have given may examples in various threads on how you must interprete in context of Scripture itself.

It is something we learned in Junior High. Interpretation means to get to the root of what the author is trying to tell us. So you must search through Scripture to back up what you are saying. And all must revolve around Jesus.

Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was conceived is in Scripture - that she remained a virgin or not is not mentioned in Scripture.

There is real presence in the Bread and Wine that is scripture- how it happens or the exact form is not in Scripture.

A localized authority of the Church Jesus is building is in scripture- that this Church is only the Catholic Church or that it involves a Pope is not.

If it is not mentoned in Scripture is belief in it needed for our salvation? If Catholics say yes then you are saying that GOD’s Word is insufficient.

I do not wish to add these outside, non-biblical traditions to my worship of Jesus, yet I am condemned for wishing to place all authority on the Word of GOD.

Where in scriptures do you get an assurance that the interpretation you received of the Holy Spirit is the correct interpretation over others who also claim their interpretation comes from the Holy Spirit, when interpretations differ from each other?

Are you grouping in the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses again- you can’t just Trinitarian Christians.

Again there is one interpretation but many applications.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

GOD’s Word is the only concrete evidence that we have showing us what we need for our salvation.

Then why can’t you show me that using scriptures?

How do you test to see that something the Pope says is from GOD? How do you know if a Pope really does have the Holy Spirit with him? How do you test- look for the fruits of the Spirit. Can an immoral Pope, Priests, whoever that doesn’t exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit have revalation from the Holy Spirit?

Read John 13 through 18 and you’ll see Jesus’ promises to be with His Church until the consummation of the world. You’ll also see Christ promised the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead them, guide them, and to make all things known to them.

The Bible clearly shows that the men, Jesus appointed, read scriptures and understood a vacated office was to be filled. Offices that Christ made the promises too.

I say a person must look to GOD’s Word. Catholics must just go along with whatever a Pope says.

Ok, that’s what you say, but you still haven’t shown us where scriptures say that.

You throw in your misconception of what Catholics must do to distract from your own inability to support your view with scriptures, it appears.

There is one interpretation anything added is obvious. I have given may examples in various threads on how you must interprete in context of Scripture itself.

I apologize, but I have not seen your scriptural argument stating that you and only you have received the correct interpretation. There are many interpertations, all coming from the one set of scriptures. Show us from scriptures where it’s obvious what is added?

You have not addressed Paul’s letters of correction and how he stated he would set things in order when he got there. There is nothing written about the things he set in order. Those things were a part of the oral tradition, traditions we are to hold too, whether spoken or written. Now, that is scriptural.

John tells us that there were many things Christ did, that are not written. More traditions we are to hold too, whether written or spoken.

Why did the people of Nehemiah 8 need the priests to explain scriptures to them and cause them to understand, if scriptures interpret themselves to us?

Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was conceived is in Scripture - that she remained a virgin or not is not mentioned in Scripture.

There is real presence in the Bread and Wine that is scripture- how it happens or the exact form is not in Scripture.

You are throwing things you reject, that Catholics interpret, to avoid the issue, which is where is the scriptures telling us the scriptures are the ‘final authority’? You are using a double standard here. Catholic teachings are not in scriptures to my satisfaction, but my teachins not in scriptures are acceptable? You’re the one claiming scriptures to be the ‘only and final authority’. Just show us where that is written.

A localized authority of the Church Jesus is building is in scripture- that this Church is only the Catholic Church or that it involves a Pope is not.

Peter received a new name, name changes were significant in scriptures. Peter received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Peter received the authority to bind and loose. Sounds very localized to me.

If it is not mentoned in Scripture is belief in it needed for our salvation? If Catholics say yes then you are saying that GOD’s Word is insufficient.

I do not wish to add these outside, non-biblical traditions to my worship of Jesus, yet I am condemned for wishing to place all authority on the Word of GOD.

By adding scriptures to be the final authority, or that they interpret themselves, you have added non-Biblical traditions to your beliefs, otherwise these things would be written.

You continue to want to say Catholic teachings are non-Biblical, yet we explain our interpretation. Why can’t the scriptures interpret them for us as you say?

Are you grouping in the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses again- you can’t just Trinitarian Christians.

Again there is one interpretation but many applications.

Where in scriptures do they tell us that there is one interpretation, but many applications?

I’m sorry here schaick, but it appears you’re floundering and eitheravoiding providing the scriptures to support your view, or there are no scriptures to support your view.

 

[Carlan]

Hello all,
I have been reading the various debates for a good while now.
When a good number of our separated brothers visit CA they usually begin with what seems to be sincere interest in learning the beliefs of the faith,however before long
a familiar pattern begins to emerge.
A question will be asked, and it will be answered. Most of the time the answer is not acknowledged to show acceptance or even understanding. They will then come back with repeated questions, not to learn what we believe but to more or less, underhandedly, attack our Church and her doctrine. So the debate goes no where, to me it is the obvious ploy of a number of them. So I am saying solong for now.

Myself, I have learned much from all of our very good Catholic Apologists faithful to these threads and I thank you. I am going on a break for awhile now. God bless you all , happy Easter, happy Resurrection day,Carlan

 

[guanophore]

GOD’s Word is the only concrete evidence that we have showing us what we need for our salvation.

That is because you reject all the other concrete evidence!

You are a true child of the Reformers.

 How do you test to see that something the Pope says is from GOD?

We evaluate what is said according to the Apostolic Teaching, which is found in Scripture, and the Sacred Traditions of the Church, preserved infallible by the HS.

How do you know if a Pope really does have the Holy Spirit with him?

How do we know that with anyone who claims to be of God? We judge them by their fruits.

   Can an immoral Pope, Priests, whoever that doesn't exhibit the fruits of the Holy Spirit have revalation from the Holy Spirit?

Well, sure! Why not? Jesus encountered a wayward Saul of Tarsus, and revealed Himself. God can even reveal Himself to someone through a donkey.

I say a person must look to GOD’s Word.

This is a very Catholic activity, using a Catholic book.

Catholics must just go along with whatever a Pope says.

The calumny and lies coming out of you are getting quite tiresome. If you want to have a discussion, why throw blatant falsehoods into it? How does that serve anyone? You are only storing up wrath for yourself by bearing false witness.

There is one interpretation anything added is obvious. I have given may examples in various threads on how you must interprete in context of Scripture itself.

Catholics interpret the scripture through the lens of what the Apostles believed and taught. That is why we understand it differently from those who are separated from the Sacred Tradition.

 It is something we learned in Junior High.  Interpretation means to get to the root of what the author is trying to tell us.  So you must search through Scripture to back up what you are saying.

Then you should have learned in HS that books do not “interpret” other books. We can certainly be informed by other writings, but they don’t have the ability to “get to the root” as the human mind does.

  And all must revolve around Jesus.

Do you honestly believe that Jesus would reveal something to an individual 1600 years after the fact that is opposite of what He revealed to His church?

Mary was a Virgin when Jesus was conceived is in Scripture - that she remained a virgin or not is not mentioned in Scripture.

A localized authority of the Church Jesus is building is in scripture- that this Church is only the Catholic Church or that it involves a Pope is not.

Well, we read it differently,don’t we?

**If it is not mentoned in Scripture is belief in it needed for our salvation? **

Where in scripture does it say that everything you need for salvation is contained therein?

If Scripture was all that was needed, why did He found a Church, and promise to guide it into all Truth?
schaick;6456173:

If Catholics say yes then you are saying that GOD’s Word is insufficient.

Formally insufficient only. Jesus appointed pastors, teachers, etc. He built the Church upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets. We say He did this because He felt it was necessary.

 I do not wish to add these outside, non-biblical traditions to my worship of Jesus,

How do you suppose the early church worshipped, until the Bible was formed in 382? Do you think they sat around and refused to worship for 350 years?

yet I am condemned for wishing to place all authority on the Word of GOD.

A person who embraces heresies has condemned themselves. On the contrary, we are here to strongly urge you to flee from such departures from the Apostolic faith.

 

[Nicea325]

I

**Are you grouping in the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses again- you can’t just Trinitarian Christians.

Again there is one interpretation but many applications.**

JW’s and Mormons DENY the Trinity…a heresy whether you accept it or not! Learn early church history and not what you are fed by your church preachers.

One intepretation but many applications? Says who? You? Or the man-made church to follow?

 

[CMatt25]

I suppose you can make a case for that, but what good will it do if the baptized person is in a state of mortal sin? What benefit is there to calling oneself Catholic if one rejects the Teachings of the Church? What benefit is it to be called Catholic when one has fallen away from Catholicity?

Is there any eternal value to being a “lapsed” Catholic?

Of course you can make a case for that Guan. It seems I have to spend half my time on CAF doing exactly that! Unfortunately it is the Catholics to whom I have to make the case!

Lots of benefits. One gets to worship the Lord in the manner they may prefer. While following his or her informed conscience after much prayer and study and contemplation of his or her understanding of where the Holy Spirit is leading. But for an answer perhaps more to the liking of some, there is also always the chance the HS might call someone to repentence as prescribed by the CC and there is of course always Anointing of the Sick. But in any case always in faith with the knowledge of and hope in God’s infinite mercy for us all. Peace and God bless always.

 

[CMatt25]

Hello all,
I have been reading the various debates for a good while now.
When a good number of our separated brothers visit CA they usually begin with what seems to be sincere interest in learning the beliefs of the faith,however before long
a familiar pattern begins to emerge.
A question will be asked, and it will be answered. Most of the time the answer is not acknowledged to show acceptance or even understanding. They will then come back with repeated questions, not to learn what we believe but to more or less, underhandedly, attack our Church and her doctrine. So the debate goes no where, to me it is the obvious ploy of a number of them. So I am saying solong for now.

Myself, I have learned much from all of our very good Catholic Apologists faithful to these threads and I thank you. I am going on a break for awhile now. God bless you all , happy Easter, happy Resurrection day,Carlan

Carlan, my friend, if you should still be “lurking”, I do believe your words, ** “what we believe” ** ring true. Perhaps when some reach the point of not recognizing that when you get right down to it, it is simply faith and belief, is when the sparks fly. God bless you as well with a most blessed Holy Week in Christ our Risen Lord! Whom in unity with all things are possible! Amen.

 

[TedDC]

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 . . .

Sir, you are bearing false witness against me - not very charitable! I said that a specific doctrine was BS:

Yes, of course we are all sinners, and I for one don’t expect the clergy to be without sin. The problem is, the Church claims for itself an extraordinary degree of authority, which it asserts comes directly from God. Doesn’t that come with an corresponding expectation of extraordinary goodness? When the same hierarchy which failed to protect innocents against this abuse commands that I not eat meat on certain days, under pain of eternal damnation - and wraps itself in the “unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit” - well, sorry, I’m callin’ BS!

 

[elvisman]

Sir, you are bearing false witness against me - not very charitable! I said that a specific doctrine was BS:

I am not bearing false witness - but the truth.
You called a doctrine of the Catholic Church, “BS”.
YOUR term – not mine.

---

Next time - watch what you write if you don’t want to be quoted.

 

[TedDC]

I am not bearing false witness - but the truth.
You called a doctrine of the Catholic Church, “BS**”.
YOUR term – not mine.**

---

Next time - watch what you write if you don’t want to be quoted.

I don’t mind being quoted at all - I stand by what I said regarding that particular doctrine.

 

[TedDC]

You are free to view it that way; I do not. I agree with many of the Church’s teachings - just not the one which binds me to obey a mere fallible man under pain of eternal damnation.

Also, it would be perhaps prudent to remember the title of this forum perhaps using such combative terms regarding the teachings of the Church again.

Eternal damnation, which is the implication of that doctrine, it pretty strong stuff to be throwing around, so I’ll respond to it in kind.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are free to view it that way; I do not. I agree with many of the Church’s teachings - just not the one which binds me to obey a mere fallible man under pain of eternal damnation.

It’s the promises of Christ to His Church which is infallible, through the work of the Holy Spirit. This is what you’re disagreeing with. God’s ability to maintain a Church, even through sinful men.

By deciding to make your own decisions on all things, are you now binding yourself to more than a mere fallible man? It’s really that simple.

Christ taught that we can have confidence in God’s truth, even through sinful men with authority.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

 

[TedDC]

It’s the promises of Christ to His Church which is infallible, through the work of the Holy Spirit. This is what you’re disagreeing with. God’s ability to maintain a Church, even through sinful men.

By deciding to make your own decisions on all things, are you now binding yourself to more than a mere fallible man? It’s really that simple.

Christ taught that we can have confidence in God’s truth, even through sinful men with authority.

I have more faith in my own (God-given) fallible judgment than I do in the judgment of a hierarchy which proved itself incapable of carrying out so basic a Christian duty as protecting innocents.

The notion that a man in such an office has any authority from God to bind me to do anything is patently absurd.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have more faith in my own (God-given) fallible judgment than I do in the judgment of a hierarchy which proved itself incapable of carrying out so basic a Christian duty as protecting innocents.

The notion that a man in such an office has any authority from God to bind me to do anything is patently absurd.

Then Christ’s teaching about the chair of Moses is patently absurd?

 

[TedDC]

Then Christ’s teaching about the chair of Moses is patently absurd?

So you’re saying that Jesus wants us to regard today’s Church hierarchy as the modern-day scribes and Pharisees?