Catholic Theology vs. Non-Catholic Theology

[Rhamiel]

Hey Rhamiel, I'm doing good and you?

kinda feeling down...

 

[boswd]

just keep saying your prayers and try to be positive my man

 

[2 King]

What is going on in this thread?

I believe that we are asking Catholics to explain their controversial topics such as: Transubstantiation, Mary, saints, the rosery, Apostolic Churches, Dogma etc.

I don't really know what's going on in that thread either.

They're trying to determine why Catholicism and the Vatican are superior to other faiths/denominations/religions/whateverYouWanaCallIt

Is there a question asked of Catholics in this thread? I'm here to help, but I can't determine if there is clarification requested.

I believe that we are asking Catholics to explain their controversial topics such as: Transubstantiation, Mary, saints, the rosery, Apostolic Churches, Dogma etc.

 

[Fixation On God]

I believe that we are asking Catholics to explain their controversial topics such as: Transubstantiation, Mary, saints, the rosery, Apostolic Churches, Dogma etc.

That's exactly what I want to know, especially about the Papacy. and the Catholic Doctrine on Grace. But I take it that is very tiresome to explain yourselves over and over again as you've been doing in the past. So I don't expect an answer from you.

 

[E.C.]

That's exactly what I want to know, especially about the Papacy. and the Catholic Doctrine on Grace. But I take it that is very tiresome to explain yourselves over and over again as you've been doing in the past. So I don't expect an answer from you.

You know, if you really wanted just the Roman Catholic opinion/stance on Roman Catholic stuff from the Roman Catholic 'point of view', I would suggest asking in the Roman Catholic sub-forum.

It would at least, hopefully, allow your questions to be answered without the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric from Evangelicals and the like.

 

[PT Calvinist]

You know, if you really wanted just the Roman Catholic opinion/stance on Roman Catholic stuff from the Roman Catholic 'point of view', I would suggest asking in the Roman Catholic sub-forum.

It would at least, hopefully, allow your questions to be answered without the fire-and-brimstone rhetoric from Evangelicals and the like.

Yeah, but who likes to do that when we can always have a fun-loving open argument

 

[MrPolo]

That's exactly what I want to know, especially about the Papacy. and the Catholic Doctrine on Grace. But I take it that is very tiresome to explain yourselves over and over again as you've been doing in the past. So I don't expect an answer from you.

What do you want to know about the Papacy?

For the simplest possible answer on Grace, here is the language from the Catechism (the simplest guide for the Catholic (or other) lay person):

CCC#1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.​

See the following paragraphs (#1996 and beyond) in the Catechism for various special graces that God gives.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Transubstantiation, Mary, saints, the rosery, Apostolic Churches, Dogma

Mr. Polo, could you explain the above quote?

about the Papacy

The cardinals assembled in conclave after his death found it difficult to agree upon any candidate, but finally after a conclave lasting more than four months they elected Cardinal Braschi, who took the title of Pius VI. (1775-99). The new Pope was a zealous ecclesiastic, anxious to promote a policy of conciliation (EXPLAIN THAT!)
, but immovable as a rock when there was a question of the essential rights of the Church. He withstood manfully the Febronian policy of Joseph II. and of the prince-bishops of Germany, and condemned the decrees of the Synod of Pistoia (1794). He endeavoured to maintain friendly relations with Portugal, Spain, Naples, and Sardinia, though the old policy of state supremacy was still the guiding principle of the rulers and politicians. The storm that had been gathering for years broke over Europe during the latter years of his reign; the Bourbon throne in France was overturned, and no man could foretell when a similar fate awaited the other royal families of Europe. Pius VI., though not unwilling to recognise the new order, was stern in his refusal to permit the constitution of the Church to be changed. For this reason his capital was occupied; his cardinals were dispersed, and he himself was brought as a prisoner to Valence, where he died in exile (1799). The enemies of religion could not conceal their delight. They declared triumphantly that with him the long line of Peter had ceased to exist

 

[2 King]

Explain to me why Jansenism gave rise.

With such liberal theories about the authority and inspiration of the Scriptures in the air it was/is impossible that the Catholic exegetists could escape the contagion.


In face of such evident proofs of the limitations of the human mind, and with the object of preserving in one way or another the Christian Revelation, a reaction against the supposed infallibility of reason set in both amongst Protestant and Catholic scholars.

The truth is:
Catholic philosophers are inclined to distrust reason entirely, and to rely solely on divine authority as a guarantee of truth. In other words Catholics accepted Traditionalism, while Protestants, equally suspicious of reason, proclaimed that in judging the value of revelation the human will and sentiment must be heeded as well as the intellect, that is to say they accepted Sentimentalism.

 

[MrPolo]

Transubstantiation, Mary, saints, the rosery, Apostolic Churches, Dogma

Mr. Polo, could you explain the above quote?

Sure

Transubstantiation - the term used to describe the change of ordinary bread and wine into Christ's body and blood at the words of consecration.

Mary - Obedient slave who cooperated in God's plan to deliver the Son to the world

Saints - People in heaven, formally. Informally, anyone who is a believer in Christ

Rosary - a meditational prayer on the Gospels

Apostolic Churches - Churches whose lineage is traceable to the Apostles

Dogma - a truth in matters of faith or morals

 

[PT Calvinist]

I should've been more clear with you Mr. Polo.

Do Catholics Practice Transubstantiation? If so Why?

Why do Catholics pray to Mary?
Why do Catholics believe that you have to pray to Saints and to Mary to get a direct line to God?
Why do Catholics pray to Saints?
Are Catholics Legalists?

What is a Charismatic Renewalist Catholic?

 

[Norbert L]

There is a common desire expressed by many (meaning each and every individual does not need to express it) for ecunemism.

Real time economic events, wether poorest of the poor or richest of the rich, is imposing a "theological" (let's look the other way) demands on the "religiously correct" point of view. What's that?

YOU CAN COMPROMISE WITHOUT COMPROMISING
​

Here's a historical tidbit on how it was accomplished in the past:

But the Jewish proselyte seemed particularly dangerous to the security of the empire because he was an "atheist". This did not so much mean a believer in no God, as a disbeliever in the Gods of the state. It had nothing to do with the absence of images in Jewish worship. It was not an irreligious attitude, but one which escaped being seditious only by the granting of special privileges. All that was required for conformity to the state religion was to scatter a few grains of incense upon an altar, and to obtain a certificate, easily granted, that this had been done.

To refuse so simple an act of fellowship with society, one might almost say of common courtesy to one's neighbours, seemed to show a strangely malignant character. One was not asked to believe anything. One was only asked to conform to a political convention. And the Jews, and later the Christians, were the only people who refused. (The Conflict of Church and Synagogue, James Parkes, pg 47)

Now all can be good and dandy being inconsequential to many people who really don't need to pay attention seeing present circumstances (for as in the days of Noah). But one day will come along when choices need to be made more profoundly than now (us, children, great grandchildren???), and whose theology should be believed? Whose theology should be chosen? Indeed whose theology should be chosen now?

"There was an unbeliever there who had spent the morning mocking the ‘simpletons’ who had gone off to Fatima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. He began to tremble from head to foot, and lifting up his arms, fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to God." (Father Lourenço) Chapter 1

or

"If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, 'Let us go after other gods'--which you have not known--'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice, and you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him." ( De 13:1-4)

Sadly Christianity can't theologically figure out exactly what keeping His commandments involves.

 

[PT Calvinist]

Don't know why it double posted

 

[PT Calvinist]

Matthew 16:18
Why Catholics are wrong about Matthew 16:18

Here's the proof you've all been waiting for

And upon this rock,

etc. This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word ROCK refers to Peter's confession; and that he meant to say, upon this rock-- this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah--and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety; and in such confessions shall my church stand amidst the flames of persecution--the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that he referred to himself.

Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8.

And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said: "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah--upon myself as the Messiah--I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word rock refers to Peter himself. This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm in and fit for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honoured; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10:1 and following, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbours, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honour of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles. And this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one on whom he would rear his church.

See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed--a thing which could not have happened if Christ, as the Roman Catholics say, meant that Peter should be absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter should have infallible successors who should be the vicegerents of Christ, and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this:

"I will make you the honoured instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."
​

 

[MrPolo]

I should've been more clear with you Mr. Polo.

Do Catholics Practice Transubstantiation? If so Why?

Why do Catholics pray to Mary?
Why do Catholics believe that you have to pray to Saints and to Mary to get a direct line to God?
Why do Catholics pray to Saints?
Are Catholics Legalists?

What is a Charismatic Renewalist Catholic?

Transubstantiation - it is not "practiced", it is an ontological reality. We do it at the command of Christ at the Last Supper and John 6, for example

To pray to Mary or a saint means to ask them for intercession. We do this because Scripture and Tradition of Christ and the Apostles encourages us to ask other members of the body of Christ to pray for us. Particularly the righteous have powerful prayers, as Scripture says. Since, as I mentioned before, the Saints are those in heaven, their prayers are particularly powerful. They intercede for us in heaven just as we intercede for each other on earth. Catholic theology does not teach that the body of Christ can be severed once a person goes to heaven. They do not suddenly become off-limits for intercession when they become most closely united to God in heaven.

Catholics do not believe it is necessary to ask for intercession as a "direct line to God" anymore than Paul did when he asked the Romans and Thessalonians for intercession. God desires that we bear one another's burdens.

No we are not legalists.

Charismatics, I'm less familiar with, but I believe they exercise a much more energetic liturgy and sometimes have special gifts of the Spirit at work, such as tongues.

 

[E.C.]

Yeah, but who likes to do that when we can always have a fun-loving open argument

Well, for one thing arguments are just that: arguments. No learning. No listening. No answered questions. No peace.

With a discussion it is almost the exact opposite. In a discussion there is typically, learning, listening, answered questions, and peace.

If you had questions that relate specifically to Roman Catholicism, why not take them to the Roman Catholic subforum? Even though it and General Theology may have their good days and bad days, I would almost personally assure you that you would get your questions answered there a lot better, and clearer, than here.

 

[boswd]

Well, for one thing arguments are just that: arguments. No learning. No listening. No answered questions. No peace.

With a discussion it is almost the exact opposite. In a discussion there is typically, learning, listening, answered questions, and peace.

If you had questions that relate specifically to Roman Catholicism, why not take them to the Roman Catholic subforum? Even though it and General Theology may have their good days and bad days, I would almost personally assure you that you would get your questions answered there a lot better, and clearer, than here.

You are correct but that's only if the people in question REALY want the question answered or if their intentions is to want an argument.

My money's on the latter.

 

[PT Calvinist]

My money's on the latter.

congratulations "boswd". You win the Prize!

I have personally disporved the Catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 found in Post #34

And as far as I can see. No Catholic or Protestant or anyone has come to it's defense. Which leads me to ask: Where have Catholics gone? have to went back to the Catholic subforums?

 

[MrPolo]

I have personally disporved the Catholic theology on Matthew 16:18 found in Post #34

There are ad nauseum posts on this forum and others, as well as a ton of Protestant interpretations, that debunk your "personal disproof."

 

[PT Calvinist]

There are ad nauseum posts on this forum and others, as well as a ton of Protestant interpretations, that debunk your "personal disproof."

That's why I'm not Protestant. And if Majority rule is in process here and if you go by it, then we can all just go on a thread and say, "Oh it's 500 against 300, we win you lose."