C
CMatt25
Guest
and if you say you follow all Catholic teaching, then don’t say a Catholic is not a Catholic and can not ID as one.
Why is there not a single Protestant Understanding of the Bible?
- Status
N
Nicea325
Guest
And who determines,if one is still a Catholic?and if you say you follow all Catholic teaching, then don’t say a Catholic is not a Catholic and can not ID as one.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
The person.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Not quite exactly!The person.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Well then how exactly.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Hi Tom. I agree with you. I have no doubt my good friend PR is more than capable of answering for herself. She may already have and I just haven’t gotten there yet.Hi, CMatt25,
I am not really sure what it is you are addressing here. I re-read the post from PRmerger you quoted and found no error. Now, PRmerger is quite capable of responding on her own … but, when I read your post, it just called out to me to offer a thought or two.
While I have no personal knowledge of how Luvtosew identified her Religion when she began with CAF, she chose to state that she is a Christian - just as you chose to leave this section blank. It should be pointed out that Luvtosew identified in posts that she is a Catholic and has been one for 50 years, yet denies she believes in the Real Presence. Based on this and other comments Luvtosew freely made, she appears to have no real knowledge of the Catholic Faith and continues to use a Protestant model in describing her religious beliefs.
I must commend you on using an excellent metaphor - shopping - to present your idea. While not a new idea, it was refreshing to see you use this so well. Let me offer a Scriptural context for what you are presenting. In John 6:60 we find Christ addressing a group of Jews that apparently had followed Christ expecting a free meal. Christ presents the ‘Eucharistic Discourse’ - and these Jews, who were apparently shopping for doctrine or a Messiah or a preacher - rejected Christ. These people were not ‘buying’ what Christ was offering (in this case His Flesh for them to eat) and they walked away.
Our role in Salvation is to believe in Jesus Christ through the Church He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) and then to act (works) on that belief… like as identified in Matthew 25. Our role is not to try and find a Savior of our own creation - one made in our own image - one that will ‘conform’ to the shade of color that we have determined we now want. This is what the Jews did in John 6:60, it is what those who lead the Protestant revolt beginning in 1517 did - and that continues to splinter to this very day.
God bless
I have no knowledge either of Luv’s prior status. I was merely going by what PR said in a post about Luv. I wouldn’t necessarily say I was given a choice but that’s neither here nor there.Re: Jn 6 I understand the following is not Catholic teaching. But in contrast to the belief you presented very well, others might hold for instance to a belief the people walked away because they were hung up on the literal when Christ perhaps wasn’t literally talking about eating His flesh. They might believe He was speaking figuratively as He sometimes did. And so instead they might believe He was speaking about believing in His Sacrifice for us on the cross. In the same chapter He spoke a lot about believing in Him and said He would turn no one away. And when the people complained about eating His flesh, He explained the Spirit brings life. But they were still thinking He was speaking literally so they walked away. They also might hold to a different view in regard to who /what the Church was founded on.
Again I fully understand this is not the Catholic understanding and want to make it very clear it is not so no one is confused. But just offering up another belief some may have. I’m not saying Luvtosew. I’m not sure of her belief in this regard. But in any case God bless you and all the best on your move back to LA. Peace be with you.
N
Nicea325
Guest
The Church. Much like when a military member receives a court-martial. He or she is no longer a member due the fact their DOD Separation Form will read: Dishonorable Discharge.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well since it’s the answer given by the Catholic Church, I suppose the Catholic Church. Not necessarily those of us on a private internet forum.
In my correspondence with a Catholic bishop, he explained it this way. Baptism makes one a member of the Catholic Church, albeit perhaps non practicing. So until the Church changes who She claims as Catholic, I’ll go with the Church’s answer. The Church is not the military. Now having said this though, if a person chooses not to describe themselves as a Catholic, I’ll respect that as well.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Well I see no valid reason why a non-practicing Catholic wouldn’t be considered a Catholic? He or she may be viewed as poor practicing Catholic,but not so much as not being Catholic. Now if one goes against its teachings,albeit heresies,schisms,etc than yes I would believe the church would assert one no longer is Catholic.Well since it’s the answer given by the Catholic Church, I suppose the Catholic Church. Not necessarily those of us on a private internet forum.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
I do believe those days are over with Nicea,
like they said on EWTN last night, although talking about politicians, when Raymond asked his Priest guest, what about excomunication, and the Priest responded what would we do bring them all to the Vatican?
Make everyone leave the RCC that doesn’t believe in every dogma and I think the pews would be pretty sparse on Sundays. Then of course there are many that aren’t aware they don’t believe in what the RCC teaches.
N
Nicea325
Guest
You have a Vatican reference where the church allows everyone the liberty to decide his or her own status…officially?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Well apparently they do allow everyone liberty, they know not everyone agrees with every dogma.
C
CMatt25
Guest
I still have the bishop’s reply because this conflict within the Catholic Church among Her members as to who is a Catholic always has facinated me. But as I recall I described to the bishop a hypothetical Catholic who did not hold to transubstantiation, who was even pro choice, among I believe other things. And that was the answer he gave me. I suppose though you’ll have to take up any concerns you may have about the Church definition of whom She at least claims as a Catholic with someone higher up the chain than me though. I’m only going by what the bishop told me. And here I’ve had some Catholics too tell me even excommunicated Catholics are still considered Catholics. But it can vary here. In any case God bless and peace.
L
Luvtosew
Guest
Heres a link, apparently CMatt24 was told the correct infomation.
salinadiocese.org/vicar-general/1297-once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic
and at the end of the article
it says,
N.B. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio entitled Omnium in Mentem dated October 26, 2009 and made public on December 15, 2009 adjusts canon law and removes all references to “defecting from the Catholic Church by a formal act” in canons 1086.1, 1117, and 1124 as excusing Catholics from the canonical form of marriage. This action strengthens the proposition Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic).
salinadiocese.org/vicar-general/1297-once-a-catholic-always-a-catholic
and at the end of the article
it says,
N.B. Pope Benedict’s motu proprio entitled Omnium in Mentem dated October 26, 2009 and made public on December 15, 2009 adjusts canon law and removes all references to “defecting from the Catholic Church by a formal act” in canons 1086.1, 1117, and 1124 as excusing Catholics from the canonical form of marriage. This action strengthens the proposition Semel Catholicus Semper Catholicus (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic).
N
Nicea325
Guest
But does the individual have the empowerment by the church to make it official? Does the church give me as a lay person to say: I am NOT Catholic and it is official? Or is there another external entity who decides?
L
Luvtosew
Guest
No I think OCAC is like the same as OSAS(which is not my belief-once saved always saved- and not that the inits mean the same thing of course)
But the RCC teaches those who choose to leave the Church ,will loose their salvation, since OCAC and well they are not participating in the sacraments, now I assume thats why the RCC believes they loose their salvation.
N
Nicea325
Guest
I am sorry,but I need to check the official and current church position on this matter.
N
Newsy
Guest
You and Nicea seem to be talking past each other. May I offer a little something?Again, there is NO SINGLE CATHOLIC understanding of every passage of scripture…there is allowed in Catholicism a range of interpretation that can conflict with other Catholics interpretation…as has been stated on this forum more than once, the Catholic church has except for a few passages NOT “infallibly” interpreted every passage of scripture…my question is why are Protestants expected to interpret every passage the same, when Catholics are not required to do so?
The title of this thread seems to suggest…at least to me, or why would it be asked in the first place… there is something “wrong” with Protestant understanding because we don’t understand scripture in the exact same way…Catholics don’t…so why are we expected to?
All Catholic Churches teach the same beliefs. Fact. All protestant churches teach different beliefs. Fact. You will find all Catholic Churches teaching the same interpretation of John 6, for example. They have a uniform understanding of Scripture as it is read in light of Church teaching. Now, there may be differing opinions on some matters, but if one is in communion with the Church, then their interpretation is guided by Church teaching (i.e. Oral Tradition and the Magesterium).
If you are stating that some people inside the CC reject the Church’s official teaching, then yes. Are there people in every protestant church that reject some facet of that church’s teaching, yes. This is not an issue of individuals accepting the teaching of their church, it is an issue of churches teaching the same doctrines. Or at least that is what I thought this thread was about.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I think the best response to this is this:
When you are speaking about being a Catholic, by virtue of your baptism, you are talking about how you are recognized canonically.
When we are speaking about some not being Catholic, despite being baptized into the One, Holy and Apostolic Catholic Church, we are talking idiomatically.
Best post by 1ke originally here:
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Arizona Samson,
Interesting.
Not to sound chronological, but it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. If, as you claim, the Church was not being guided and protected from error by the Spirit. Take a look at John 16:12-13
*12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.*
So, if the Catholic Church got this wrong… all of Scripture is truly suspect!
You really can’t have it both ways Arizona - either the completed Canon of 400AD was correct or it was not correct. Trying to pick and choose from scripture is simply not honest. But, as you see with the 30,000+ Protestant denominations today that all hold Sola Scriptura and all disagree with one another on interpretation - Luther’s development of private interpretation is a disaster.
As you realize, Luther’s unilateral removal of 7 books from the Canon is another example of the ‘traditions of men’ in trying to tailor the Word of God to fit this guys newly minted belief system
Then there are about 1,500 years of Church teaching concerning Scripture that Luther essentially wanted to pitch out the window if he didn’t agree with him. Honest, this little heretical monk had an ego as big as all out doors, and was not going to be told anything.
God bless
Interesting.
Not to sound chronological, but it was the Catholic Church that gave the world the Canon of Scripture in about 400AD. If, as you claim, the Church was not being guided and protected from error by the Spirit. Take a look at John 16:12-13
*12 I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now.
13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.*
So, if the Catholic Church got this wrong… all of Scripture is truly suspect!
You really can’t have it both ways Arizona - either the completed Canon of 400AD was correct or it was not correct. Trying to pick and choose from scripture is simply not honest. But, as you see with the 30,000+ Protestant denominations today that all hold Sola Scriptura and all disagree with one another on interpretation - Luther’s development of private interpretation is a disaster.As you realize, Luther’s unilateral removal of 7 books from the Canon is another example of the ‘traditions of men’ in trying to tailor the Word of God to fit this guys newly minted belief system
Then there are about 1,500 years of Church teaching concerning Scripture that Luther essentially wanted to pitch out the window if he didn’t agree with him. Honest, this little heretical monk had an ego as big as all out doors, and was not going to be told anything.
God bless
- Status