Posted on 07/11/2009 6:11:46 AM PDT by GonzoII
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
We will have to disagree on this point, I’m afraid. The injunction is for all believers to present the Gospel - all. I am a disciple and follower of Christ - but not Catholic as that is a denomination.
Yes very illuminating that you beleive that the only way to heaven is through the “Catholic Church” you have more faith in your religion than you do in Christ. Tell me what I had wrong, do you pray to Mary? Do you beleive the pope is infalliable? Do you beleive the Catholic Church is the only way to heaven? If your answers are yes then you have more explaining to do than I ever will.
If you can’t post an intelligent answer just say so.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Yaaawn.
This is about to give me whiplash of the cortex.
I’m seeing something that I’m having a hard time shoe-horning into words. The accusations and arguments that are being made against the Church are not merely incorrect: they are incorrect in a way that renders them difficult to rebut. This is not to say that they can’t be rebutted. I mean that it would take a great deal of time, effort, and typing to do so.
But no, that’s not exactly what I mean, either.
Take, for example, the statement that “There are NO Catholics in the earliest Church in the Bible.” This is wrong in a way that gives me vertigo. Is the basis for this statement the fact that the word “Catholic” does not appear in the Bible? I hate to assume that, for such an assumption would appear to lack charity.
If we start with Our Lord’s statement that “thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven,” and follow that Church forward in history, we find that the road leads without interruption to Benedict XVI.
While it is true that Scripture does not tell us that Our Lord used the English word “Catholic,” of what significance is that? The thing is what it is, regardless of the words we men choose to use. To say that “There are NO Catholics in the earliest Church in the Bible,” then, is not merely meaningless: it is misleading. Was a horse something other than a horse before the English word “horse” was coined and applied to it? Are we to think that there were no horses in antiquity, because they were not called “horses?”
Do you see my point? One cannot rebut the statement that there were no Catholics in the earliest Church by simply saying, “Yes, there were,” and proving it. One must take the time and trouble to explain why the premise itself is dizzyingly flawed, and that’s not always easy to do in a way that is easily understood by everyone.
It reminds me of this passage from an article on physics: “The worst models are not the ones that are wrong, they are the ones that cannot be wrong. As Pauli noted about a model proposed by Heisenburg, ‘that’s so bad it’s not even wrong.’ ” That is the type of argument we so often see from those who attack the Church, and we’re seeing a lot of them here.
Exactly.
“God established ONE Church, and it wasn’t Baptist. No Baptists existed before the year 1600. Period. You’re in a sect. Period.”
If you are in a car, and it is headed down the wrong road, and the driver won’t turn around, the only option is to get out and head towards the point the car left the real road.
God established the church. The Bishops of Rome went astray, uniting with the state and seeking ever greater power for themselves. Notice not all joined them, but far too many found it easier to unite with state power than follow God in opposition to the state.
When people got hold of copies of scripture (printing press, thank you), they realized how far the Catholic Church had gone astray.
In response, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church claimed sole power to interpret scripture correctly.
When you cut the rope to the anchor, your boat drifts. It is your church that won’t listen to scripture, and makes up doctrines like Indulgences and Purgatory. You are the ones denying what Jesus taught. Time to repent.
“Yes very illuminating that you beleive that the only way to heaven is through the “Catholic Church” you have more faith in your religion than you do in Christ.”
It seems that you didn’t read even the first few paragraphs of the root article. The second sentence of the first article is, “But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven.”
Why, then, do you insist that we Catholics believe something when you have just read an entirely different proposition?
“Tell me what I had wrong”
Pretty much everything.
“do you pray to Mary?”
No, I ask her to pray for me, just like you (I presume) ask other people to pray for you. Even if you believe that she cannot hear me asking, it’s still nothing more than one creature asking another to pray for him to the Lord our God.
“Do you beleive the pope is infalliable?”
In all circumstances? Of course not. I often disagreed with the late John Paul II, and suspect that I may be in disagreement with Benedict XVI on a topic or two. Catholics only believe that the Holy Father’s pronouncements are infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. Those are extremely limited and narrowly circumscribed circumstances. If you intend to continue beating the Church with that stick, I would suggest that you read up on it, so that you can craft your arguments more skillfully. www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
“Do you beleive the Catholic Church is the only way to heaven?”
The second sentence of the root article is, “But if he does not realize this obligation, is true to his conscience, even though it be erroneous, and dies repenting of any violations of his conscience, he will get to Heaven. In such a case, it would not have been his fault that he was a non-Catholic and God makes every allowance for good faith.” Further down we find, “As long as you believe the Catholic Church to be wrong, you are obliged not to join it.”
Moving on, we see, “545. You said that a Protestant in good faith could be saved. Does not that admit that his religion is sufficiently true?” Did you miss this?
Since the root article specifically and repeatedly avers that men can attain heaven without being members of the Catholic Church, why are you even asking these questions?
“If your answers are yes”
Why would they be? We Catholics don’t believe those things. Where did you get the idea that we do, and why are you so resistant to learning the truth of the matter?
“…then you have more explaining to do than I ever will.”
I will probably have more explaining to do, but not because I believe the things that you mistakenly think Catholics believe.
Now, see, we have started on our journey:
Non-Catholic: “You Catholics believe X.”
Catholic: “No, we believe y.”
Non-Catholic: “Nonsense. You Catholics believe X.”
Catholic: “No, we believe y.”
Non-Catholic: “Nonsense. You Catholics believe X.”
Catholic: “No, we believe y.”
“If you are in a car, and it is headed down the wrong road, and the driver won’t turn around, the only option is to get out and head towards the point the car left the real road.”
A more apt analogy would be people in a ship far from shore who, upon discovering that the helmsman had them a few points off course, decided to jump ship and drown rather than working to bring the ship back on course.
Dmitry, thank you for your long posts explaining your position.
Mary was born without original sin. She was the new ark of the covenant carrying God’s Word made flesh. God cannot be part of sin in any form, so Mary was born without that stain. Christ is both God and human. He had to become truly human, live a completely perfect human life, and die on the cross to save us. I already cited the passages where it is obvious that the apostles, and Christ, held Mary in high regard. Christ did His first miracle at her request. She interceded for her friends. One of Christ’s last acts was to take care of His mother. And you are correct that Christ was a good Jew and would have honored His mother because of the Ten Commandments alone, much less because she had found favor with God, was blessed among women, and was called full of grace by God’s archangel. That’s all biblical too. I’m not sure what to tell you if you don’t think Jesus was the result of a virgin birth. God can do anything and it says in the scriptures that the Spirit overshadowed her and she became pregnant with the Messiah.
Peter was the first head of Christ’s church. Only the Catholic church traces its leadership in a successive line directly from Peter to Benedict XVI. You can call them Popes or leaders of Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic church; no matter. Only the Catholic line of leadership is unbroken, as Christ promised it would be.
You state your beliefs very well, but you seem to be basing them on a sanitized version of the Gospels. If you go back to the oldest known versions of the Gospels, you will find writers and chapters and scriptures not in your Bible. Men have deleted parts of the Bible that have been there from the beginning: like most of what the apostle James wrote, for example. Paul was given a unique ministry but he always bowed to Peter’s authority as head of the Church.
The leaders of the early Catholic Church produced the Bible through divine inspiration and cherished it for a thousand years before men started deleting things to fit their interpretation of the scriptures. Go back to the most original version and you will see the word choices support Catholic teaching. The writings of Kreeft might help you understand this if you are willing to explore.
I have often said that people dislike Catholics because of what they think we believe, not what we really believe. I invite you to find out what it is we really believe and why we believe it. No matter what, I wish you well.
Only dead fish go with the flow. And only fighters quit.
Wow, that's a NEW one! So, you do not consider her to be "the most pure" who chose not to sin all her life?
dsc, your interpretation smacks of Jansenism.
493 "By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long" [Catechism of the Catholic Church]
You may wish to speak with your priest about some additinal catechisis.
I have to give markomalley the credit for writing it. It was my idea to post it with Radio Replies.
Here we go again with your numerous errors about what I said:
You wrote:
“Firstly, you are claiming that your membership in what you refer to as “Orthodox Christianity” is the only way to Heaven.”
Two errors in one sentence!!!
1) I am not Orthodox. I am orthodox. If you don’t know the difference, then you had better go back to school.
2) I never EVER claimed membership in any Church was the only way to heaven. Go ahead now and mistakenly post something else now and claim that must be what I meant.
“Your Original post implies that quite strongly, and you have not deviated from that in your follow-up posts - though now, for whatever reason, you are trying to claim you never said this.”
Error #3: I never did say it, because I don’t believe it. I am not claiming I never said. I know for a fact I NEVER EVER said it. If you can’t make the proper distinctions, hen you can’t discuss important issues. Words actually matter.
“If you mistakenly claimed this, fine. But please do not go back now and claim you did not say it.”
Error #4: I never said. I make no claim I never said it. I just never said it PERIOD.
“Your original post basically states that there is no way to Heaven but through the Catholic Church. This is based on nothing Scriptural. NOTHING. PERIOD.”
Error #5: First of all, how do you know what it’s based on? Did I even claim what you are suggesting?
“Early Christians were not Catholic.”
Error #6: Yeah, actually they all were.
“(Really, where do you get this??) It is nowhere to be found in Scripture and Scripture does not bear you out.”
Error #7: Actually it’s everywhere in scripture. And it was universally accepted by early Christians too.
“Your commitment to your particular denomination (Catholicism) and your denigration of all others speaks for you.”
Error #8: I am not in a denomination. Never have been.
“It implies that somehow you believe (deny it all you will) that Catholicism is somehow the only WAY to Christ.”
Error #9: Actually what it would imply is that the Catholic faith is not a denomination (and it isn’t). It also implies that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ.
“In your previous post you even claimed that Christ chooses to save through the Catholic Church. You may go back and read it, but I am not imputing that to you which you have not already stated.”
Error #10. Yeah, actually you are. The idea that Christ saves through His Church (i.e. He preaches through it and gives sanctifying grace through it) is dramatically different than the false things you keep ascribing to me that I never actually said and do not actually believe in.
“You began this entire thread, claiming that Catholicism is THE CHURCH - founded by Christ and that nothing in it is contrary to Scripture.”
And that is a fact.
“Actually, there is MUCH in Catholicism which is contrary to Scripture: veneration of Saints, veneration of Mary/worship of Mary....”
Error #10: Actually none of those things contradict scripture. They just aren’t explicitly in scripture. To use an analogy that many Protestants could identify with: altar calls. Altar calls are not in scripture, but that doesn’t mean the actual practice is contrary to scripture.
“and the belief that baptism saves (It does not - Scripture does not teach it.)”
Error #11: 1) The grace of baptism is salvific. Christ saves through the grace He gives us. 2) Read 1 Peter 3:21, “…who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism which now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,...”
You wrote:
“My deep concern is that there seems to be an entire body of extra-Biblical teachings which Catholicism as a religion holds to more tightly than Scripture - and too often it contradicts the very Scriptures.”
Error #12: As I posted above, your concern should be that you don’t know what’s in the scriptures, falsely accuse others of believing doctrines they don’t believe in, and do not understand what you attack. Your plate is full, buddy. Until you can clean that plate off, you might want to refrain from presumptiously assuming you know anything about us.
“I have not embarrassed myself as I see no evidence that I have misunderstood your stance.”
Error #13: See the last two posts. There is no way you could make mistake after mistake like this and then say “I see no evidence I have misunderstood your stance” without having no idea of what has been said and what it means.
“In summation: you believe that Catholicism is the one true Church - despite the fact that Scriptures do not teach this;”
Error #14: Actually it does teach it. Christ founded only ONE Church.
“that all others are suspect and heretical (again, no Scriptural basis for stating this),”
Error #15: Again, scripture does teach it. There’s only one Church Christ founded. Thus, others are schismatic and heretical or both. They have no authority.
“and that there is nothing in Catholic teaching which contradicts Scripture (as I have pointed out above, clearly not the case.)”
Error #16: And as I pointed out with “Altar calls” your case is lacking to say the least.
“As for the SBC - as I have tried in vain to show you - there is nothing binding to local churches which the SBC does.”
Error #17: I never claimed it was binding. Show me where I did. I said the SBC said it was going to push for legislation that was pro-abortion - and it did!
“I suppose, being Catholic, this idea might be foreign to you. However, kindly refrain from making slanderous statements about pastors who think “murder is just fine” - unless you can give names.”
Error #18: Murdering babies is murdering babies. It is not slander to say so. Unless you can prove that murdering an unborn child is some how not murder, then you’re stuck with it. The SBC supported - in its official resolutions - to support the murder of the unborn in therapeutic abortions. They admitted it time and time again. Period.
“I know of none - and being a Southern Baptist, I consider that I am likely more in a position to know what is being said from the pulpit of a Southern Baptist Church than you - unless you are attending a Southern Baptist Church?”
Error #19: Incredibly, you keep ascribing to me things I never said, and deny what the SBC acually did say. Do you think those SBC meetings had no pastors involved? Are you serious?
“And your use of the word “Parish” is incorrect.”
Error #20: It was the best word available because saying “churches” can be saying too much in a sense. And we were talking about the SBC’s formal policy as you were trying to distinguish it from the parish/local level. Parih was a good word to use in that case even if Landmarkism (a recent Protestant novelty) doesn’t use it.
“One more question: you refer to a “Protestant Gospel”....What Gospel would that be??”
The one invented by Protestants in the 16th century.
“There is only one Gospel - as I have quoted from Scripture in my last response to you.”
There is one gospel, but it isn’t taught by Protestants.
“Here you seem to be claiming that there are two Gospels: that taught by Catholicism, and that taught in Protestant churches. Kindly clarify.”
There is one true gospel. The Catholic Church teaches it. Protestants deny it and teach another. This is irrefutable. After all Protestants invented their gospel in the 16th century.
“There is only one Gospel - that taught in Scriptures. PERIOD. All extra-Biblical creeds, dogmas, doctrines - are heretical if they preach a a way to Christ other than repentance and belief upon Him alone for salvation.”
That is part of the gospel, but it denies the fullness of the reality of Christ’s action. It denies what Christ gave us.
“You claim to know Christ. Wonderful! When were you saved? I was saved when I was 7 years old.”
I was saved many years ago.
You made 20 errors (at least!) in this one thread. You really need to study:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea1.asp
You wrote:
“If you are in a car, and it is headed down the wrong road, and the driver won’t turn around, the only option is to get out and head towards the point the car left the real road.”
There are several problems with your analogy:
1) It assumes the “car” went astray. 2) It assumes the backseat driver would do better. 3) It assumes the backseat driver is now on the right road. All of that is based on assumptions.
“God established the church. The Bishops of Rome went astray, uniting with the state and seeking ever greater power for themselves.”
Wrong. The Church never united with the state and we have the martyred popes and saints to prove it. If you mean that the secular power supprted the orthodoxy of the Church - often for their own ends - yes, and that still in no way negates the truth of the Catholic Church. You are assuming - again - that since bad men existed that they sullied the truth of the Church. They didn’t.
“Notice not all joined them, but far too many found it easier to unite with state power than follow God in opposition to the state.”
Nonsense. What state power are you even talking about? What did the average, fervent Christian in the 5th, 6h, 10th, 13th, 16th century have to do with the state power? Nothing. You are being anachronistic.
“When people got hold of copies of scripture (printing press, thank you), they realized how far the Catholic Church had gone astray.”
Complete nonsense. Did you get your pseudo history here out of Jack Chick comic book? 1) There were always copies of scripture and people had access to them, 2) the printing press is a very modern invention. You mean moveable type printing - which was invented by a Catholic man named Gutenberg. 3) When Martin Luther published his bible it followed at least 14 known AND PRINTED editions of the Bible in German!!!
“In response, at the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church claimed sole power to interpret scripture correctly.”
The Church always had the authority to interpret scripture. Did not St. Peter warn people about the dangers of personal interpretations?
“When you cut the rope to the anchor, your boat drifts. It is your church that won’t listen to scripture, and makes up doctrines like Indulgences and Purgatory. You are the ones denying what Jesus taught. Time to repent.”
I repented years ago - hence I am not a Protestant. Also, there is nothing unscriptural about indulgences or purgatory and I am willing to bet you don’t understand those two things any better than anything else you’ve talked about so far:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/indulgen.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/answers/how2purg.htm
“...upon discovering that the helmsman had them a few points off course”
I consider doctrines like Indulgences & Purgatory to be more than a few degrees off. It is also worth remembering that Luther was one of those calling for what came to be the Council of Trent, but that the Catholic Church set up the general council in such a way that those concerned had no effective voice. Only those supporting the primacy of the pope had any significant vote, and that was the cause of many of the errors.
“Wow, that’s a NEW one!”
Indeed it is, at least as a matter of doctrine. There’s a reason why we call her “Panagia”! It should be remembered, however, that a Father here and there believed she had sinned. +John Chrysostomos is an example, but this notion is outside the consensus patrum.
“I consider doctrines like Indulgences & Purgatory to be more than a few degrees off.”
Are you familiar with their Biblical underpinnings?
“the Catholic Church set up the general council in such a way that those concerned had no effective voice.”
1. Who would “those concerned” be, and with what were they concerned?
2. Is there any period of history that boasts fewer than two competing accounts?
3. If we were going to convene a conference of distinguished judges and justices to consider sentencing guidelines for molesters of young boys, would it be appropriate to give NAMBLA “a voice?”
“the errors.”
Or rather, the places where the council refused the influence of heretics.
I can’t believe you’re still upset about the Council of Trent. That was the 16th century, and protestants don’t consider themselves bound by it anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.