Judging non-Catholics

OSV.com ^ | 08-17-16 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[af_vet_1981]

again, the one who knew his lord's will, but "prepared not himself, neither did according to his will" does not describe a believer,

Read the text again. He commanded to sell all that ye have, and give alms, as well warning to always be ready for His return at any hour. There is nothing in the text about believers, but rather about servants, who either obey the LORD, or do not obey the LORD, in various degrees.

[boatbums]

The Catechism orderd and approved by JPII and there were a couple of fine tunes. Dogma DEVELOPS without contradicting so more to come.

So, I guess your assertion that, "The catechism of JPIi can be used with confidence that it contains authentic teaching. It can be found on Vatican website.", isn't really accurate. If dogma is always at risk of further "development" (aka CHANGE), then how do you know you believe in the truth?

Are you familiar with the Vincentian Canon? It stated:

Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike. http://www.ancient-future.net/vcanon.html

If you cannot show the doctrines you believe were the same as what has always been believed by Christians, then you can't claim they ARE part of the rule of faith and you can't truthfully claim the Roman Catholic church is THE church Jesus established. The truth doesn't change because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. Paul told the Ephesians:

Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:26-28)

Did Paul leave out anything? Did he need to wait on the Roman Catholic church to develop the truth?

[metmom]

Pope only infallible when speaking ex cathedra. Authentic teaching found when bishops (AND pope ratifying) speak usuall in council.

And just what is the procedure for that?

Cause he says so?

Cause someone votes that it's so?

What are the Scriptural guidelines for ex cathedra statements?

[Coleus]

wow, almost 500 posts...

[metmom]

Any gayness is against the teachings of the Chuch. Beauty and art lift the soul. The lack of it in most other churches starves one.

Then you are depending on the wrong thing.

It should be the HOLY SPIRIT who does that, not man-made things,.

[boatbums]

Well, seeing as it's supposedly only been done TWO total times, I'd guess it is very carefully. ;o)

[amihow]

Yes. Familiar. Go to Trent then.

[metmom]

Why then do the actual satanists mock Catholicism? Why do they stab Consecrated Hosts in their satanic rituals? Why do they desecrate Catholic holy places and ignore the church of billy bob? What was all that business with the satanists in Oklahoma City last week about, were they trying to upset Oral Roberts University?

Is what satanists supposed to somehow be proof that Catholicism is correct?

Satan is a liar and the father of lies. Why on earth would you trust anything they say or do or even take it seriously?

They could just be doing it for the in your face value and the enjoyment of watching the reaction of Catholics when it happens, just like any bully bullies for the pleasure of watching the reaction to the provocation.

[metmom]

My my, what in your humble post could have unleashed such a firestorm of Anti-Catholic vitriol? Usually your Msgnr. Pope articles draw 6-10 rather benign replies but not this time. What could anyone have against God looking into their heart and judging them according to His will? After all He IS God. Prayers for everyone on this thread that they will be charitable and kind to each other.

You seem to have missed the point entirely.

It's the hypocrisy of posting stick in the eye threads for the purpose of non-Catholic bashing and the hypocrisy of Catholics running whining to the mods whenever they see a thread they even think is Catholic bashing simply because they don't like the way they think it represents Catholicism.

The *Do as I say, not as I do* double standard mentality which seems to commonly infest FRoman Catholics is the problem, not what Msgr Pope wrote.

[metmom]

No St. JPII Didn't write the CCC, it was edited by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn who has since turned into a complete loon. It has turned out to be an awful tool for catechesis (the purpose of a catechism I would think) evidenced by the fact that most of the world that has been heavily exposed to it has lost the faith. We've had it for 20 (very) odd years and rather than being the foundation of a "new springtime" it has helped to usher in Catholicism's nuclear winter.

OK, so now when FRoman Catholics appeal to *official church teaching*, then the CCC is NOT the place to go?

Then what is?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Placemarker -———> X

[metmom]

Well, seeing as it's supposedly only been done TWO total times, I'd guess it is very carefully. ;o)

Hey, dan, ....

How many ex cathedra statements have you found out to have ever been made?

Is there any official church record of them? Like an ex cathedra on the ex cathedra's?

[CraigEsq]

“For 2000 years many millions of Catholics (and even Luther) believe in the TRANSUBSTANATION.”

Just a mild correction - Luther/Lutherans do not believe in transubstantiation. We do accept the real presence of Christ physically in the Eucharist. This is supported both Biblically and by the writings of the Church Fathers:

“1] Of the Sacrament of the Altar we hold that bread and wine in the Supper are the true body and blood of Christ, and are given and received not only by the godly, but also by wicked Christians.” Smallcald Articles, Part 3, Article 4.

However, the concept of transubstantiation is not accepted by Luther or Lutherans (or Eastern Orthodox, as I understand it, one may correct me if I’m wrong there), which we feel to be no more than sophist mumbo-jumbo.

“5] As regards transubstantiation, we care nothing about the sophistical subtlety by which they teach that bread and wine leave or lose their own natural substance, and that there remain only the appearance and color of bread, and not true bread. For it is in perfect agreement with Holy Scriptures that there is, and remains, bread, as Paul himself calls it, 1 Cor. 10:16: The bread which we break. And 1 Cor. 11:28: Let him so eat of that bread.” - Smallcald Articles, Part 3, Article 4.

[amihow]

I am trying to defend a Church. Seems like all you are defending your own opinion. So did Luther, Henry8, , Calvin, Joseph Smith and Mohammed et al and et al.. You have lots of company.

Suggest you really study Catholicism.

[infool7]

So it bothers/offends you that some Catholics actually believe they are part of Christ’s true Church and dare suggest it to non-Catholics. If you didn’t believe you belonged to His true Church how long would you stay in it? Last I checked no one on this thread has claimed that non-Catholics faith is guided by satan himself. Give me a break. I am sorry if you are injured by my beliefs but if we are trying to save each other’s souls I am only asking for some christian charity among His brothers and sisters.

I apologize that looked right past the Catholic / Non-Catholic issue because this simple point pales in comparison with all of the petty bickering.

Do you believe God is just?

Do you believe He can look into our hearts?

Do you believe He will judge us according to His will?

Do you believe there will be eternal consequences according to how He judges us?

No stick in anyone’s eye, a beam perhaps but not a stick. I’ll work on the beam in my eye if you can take care of your sliver... deal?

[ealgeone]

I tell ya....for a group that claims to have a lock on the truth roman catholics sure have a lot of doubters of their materials.

[metmom]

I was raised Catholic in a Catholic family that included priests and a nun in the extended family.

I KNOW Catholicism.

And the more I learn, the less it resembles Scripture.

Why on earth would I want to waste my time studying a man-made religious system that can’t even promise me what it claims it can give me, when I can read and study the very word of God?

And your claim that Catholicism is correct is no less an opinion than what you claim mine is. You re just throwing in your lot with someone else instead of thinking for yourself.

You are defend your opinion that the church is correct, which has no basis since you can’t even use Scripture to support so much of it..

[metmom]

So it bothers/offends you that some Catholics actually believe they are part of Christ’s true Church and dare suggest it to non-Catholics

Nope, not in the least. That is not what bothers me at all.

You clearly missed the point of what I was saying.

What bothers me is the FRoman Catholics on this forum who try to muzzle dissenting opinion with charges of *catholic bashing* by whining to the management to have them silenced, and then turn around and engage in the very behavior they will not tolerate themselves from other when they suppose it's directed at them.

It's called "hypocrisy".

If you didn’t believe you belonged to His true Church how long would you stay in it?

Not long, which is why I left the Catholic church, because I recognized that no one church is the one true church, that the true church, the true body of Christ, is an organism, not an organization. It's comprised of those who truly believe in their heart, and not those who have been water baptized into some religious organization.

And *Yes* to all the first four questions.

I know God has work on me to do, all too well,, but neither can I left pass what I see as misrepresentations of God or the truth of what is found in His word.

[af_vet_1981]

You simply have no basis for asserting that "neither of the latter two classes of servant behavior result in assignment to portion of the unbelievers," and that instead they are believers who will have their portion with the redeemed, which is simply not in the text, and you can only wish it was. What is in the text as regards location is unfaithful stewards being with the lost, and of differing degrees of punishment for such. The varying degrees of punishment easily flows from the basic judgment of the first, detailing the basis for the degree of punishment.

The Messiah tells of four cases of servant behavior and four outcomes. The unbelievers are only mentioned for one of them.
1. One will be ruler of all He has
2. One will he cut asunder and assigned a portion with the unbelievers.
3. One will be beaten with many stripes (nothing is said about being assigned a portion with unbelievers).
4. One will be beaten with few stripes (nothing is said about being assigned a portion with unbelievers).

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Luke, Catholic chapter twelve, Protestant verses forty one to forty eight,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine

[boatbums]

Yes. Familiar. Go to Trent then.

Yet, you sent me there (JPII Catechism) first anyway. See, I don't think you ARE familiar with that. Now you're sending me to Trent??? What happened to the JPII catechism? Are you aware that a lot of Trent's "rulings" and "anathemas" got some further development (AKA changed) in both Vatican I and Vatican II. I'm starting to think you don't really know where to tell people they should go for the "confidence that it contains authentic teaching". The ROCK, my friend, is Jesus. It's NOT the Roman Catholic church.