Ask a Catholic Anything

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

I'm looking to go through it myself and have been asking the local bishop about it. What's it like?

At the Church where I attended RCIA, we had a few different people leading the class. We met one night a week, and we had sort of a discussion on papers that were given out the week before. I don't know if all RCIA courses are like this, since I only went to one.

If you would like to enter the Catholic Church through a route other than RCIA (due to time constraints, for instance, since RCIA does take roughly half a year), you can also ask a priest about receiving personal instruction, since I assume that you're a candidate (meaning an already baptized Christian). This is actually the preferred route for candidates, although it may not always be possible. If it's not, then RCIA can be still be a good experience, and it can help you to get connected with members of the Church who you might not otherwise meet

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

<snip>

The Ten Commandments are a part of the Old Testament accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. The only difference between the (Latin) Catholic and Protestant "Ten Commandments" is found in the shorthand that we use to describe them. In short, we collapse the command not to worship other gods and not to make graven images (idols) into one commandment, since they're describing the same practice, while splitting the command not to covet into two (which makes it more descriptive and closer to the text in Exodus). This is, again, only in shorthand (ie., when we make a list of the Ten Commandments). In the Bible, we both have the same list of Ten Commandments.

I also say that Latin Catholics use a different shorthand for the Ten Commandments than Protestants because Eastern Catholics do not. The Eastern Rite uses the same list as Protestants, and there's nothing wrong with the Protestant Ten Commandments. They're all true, and if you break any of them, then you're doing something morally wrong.[/quote]

Just a note... Lutherans and Anglicans use the same numbering as the Catholic Church does.

We must be mindful that neither the Commandments, nor the Chapters and Verses are numbered in the ancient Scriptural manuscripts; such numbering is a "human" innovation introduced for quick reference; glad someone thought of it!

 

[bbbbbbb]

If we assume that this person knows and rejects the teaching of the Church through invincible ignorance of the fact that it is true, then it would not be a mortal sin. In practical terms, we can never know if a given person is invincibly ignorant or not, except in very obvious circumstances (ie., a person on an island in the South Pacific in 33 A.D. would have definitely been invincibly ignorant of Jesus' death and resurrection). The Church does not condemn anyone partially for this very reason. Even in this circumstance, where someone knows and consciously rejects Catholic teaching, it is possible, through no fault of one's own, to know something without knowing that it is true. Rejection of known truth, however, is a different matter entirely and can keep a person from reaching salvation through the fact that, even if it itself is not formally mortal (because a person lacks the full use of free will, for instance), in a situation like this it could make it impossible to follow the normal means of receiving forgiveness for sin.



If he is ignorant of the teaching of the Church, then it boils down to whether or not his ignorance is culpable (ie., whether or not he can be blamed for his own ignorance). In this case, if he doesn't care whether the Catholic Church or his own religious group are right because he really doesn't want to be bothered with it right now, then that's culpable ignorance, and, while it's impossible to judge a person on a case by case basis, it's possible to say that culpable ignorance is objectively sinful in and of itself. If he doesn't care because he holds a mistaken belief system, though (in which case, he would probably believe that the method doesn't matter, rather than just not caring), then it goes back to the question of whether he believes incorrectly through some fault of his own or not. If not, then it would not be sinful in and of itself, and if he were to die otherwise in a condition where he would go to Heaven, then he wouldn't go to Hell because of that incorrect belief. If this person isn't going to confession, though, then it makes dieing in that sort of condition much more difficult.

I'm sorry that there are a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in this. It's really just not possible to say, without knowing a person's heart entirely, why they commit a given sin. It's possible for a sin, like denying Catholicism, to be objectively mortal, but for it not to be formally mortal (ie., a sin that sends a person to Hell) because of circumstances that are extremely complicated. The greatest moral theologian in the world can't tell you whether an individual is in Hell or not. We can tell you whether an entirely hypothetical person whose state we know for certain is in Hell or not, but not any real person or any fictional person for whom we don't know all circumstances. We know for certain only that the devil and the demons are condemned.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. It seems that there are a lot of nuances which affect the outcome.

 

[Yarddog]

Why do you believe in Deuetro-Canonical Books??

Just to add something to this. The term Deuterocanonical is a term which came into use by the Protestants. Before these books became questioned by the newer Churches, they were part of the canonical books used by the whole Church. No one questioned them because they were in the Septuagint, which was the OT of the Apostles time.

You can find the Septuagint as it was when the Apostles and others of the early Church used it in Greek speaking areas, at this site: Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1 It was also used by the Jews in Egypt and other Greek speaking areas.

These books were part of the King James Version of the Bible but were later removed by Protestants, though the KJV can still be found with the books in them.

 

[WisdomTree]

Just to add something to this. The term Deuterocanonical is a term which came into use by the Protestants. Before these books became questioned by the newer Churches, they were part of the canonical books used by the whole Church. No one questioned them because they were in the Septuagint, which was the OT of the Apostles time.

You can find the Septuagint as it was when the Apostles and others of the early Church used it in Greek speaking areas, at this site: Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1 It was also used by the Jews in Egypt and other Greek speaking areas.

These books were part of the King James Version of the Bible but were later removed by Protestants, though the KJV can still be found with the books in them.

Just to note, the Greeks call them "Anagignoskomena" which means "worthy to be read". Just my input

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Just to add something to this. The term Deuterocanonical is a term which came into use by the Protestants. Before these books became questioned by the newer Churches, they were part of the canonical books used by the whole Church. No one questioned them because they were in the Septuagint, which was the OT of the Apostles time.

You can find the Septuagint as it was when the Apostles and others of the early Church used it in Greek speaking areas, at this site: Septuagint Old Testament Bilingual (Greek / English) - 1 It was also used by the Jews in Egypt and other Greek speaking areas.

These books were part of the King James Version of the Bible but were later removed by Protestants, though the KJV can still be found with the books in them.

Luther stated; "These Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read". In Luther's Bible, these books were placed between the Old and New Testaments. When North American Lutherans transitioned to English, the only readily available English Bible was the protestant version of the KJV. However, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod has, and continues to publish these Books as a Bible Supplement in a separate volume. Since our Synods have adopted the ESV, we again have a translation available with these books. Most recently the LCMS has again published a separate volume as a Study Version, complete with notes, references, and commentaries: The Apocrypha: The Lutheran Edition with Notes (it is my intent to get a copy in the near future).

In the Liturgy of the Lutheran Mass, we have retained the use of "Seasonal Antiphons"; a number of which are drawn directly from these books; I understand such is the case in much of the Anglican tradition as well.

 

[tankerG]

Before responding to these questions, it's important that you understand that we, as Catholics, do not hold to sola scriptura. None of the older branches of Christianity (the Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, or the Assyrian Church of the East) have ever held to that particular principle, either. Sola scriptura began in the second millennium, over one thousand years after the life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

This goes back to what I mentioned in the previous answer, that the Church is the "pillar of the truth" and that Scripture isn't intended for "private interpretation". Within Protestant communities, understanding of Scripture can vary extremely widely. Some interpretations are closer to legitimate than others, but there is always a certain element of confusion. God desires for all men to be saved, so it can logically be assumed that He would make it as easy as possible to find the truth. Having an infallible guide to the understanding of Scripture, as most of Christianity has accepted to be true for thousands of years, is the best way to do this.

The Bible itself instructs the Church to obey what the Apostles told them either by written instruction (such as the letters of Paul) or personally (2 Thessalonians 2:15). We, as Catholics, understand this in the same way that all of the older branches of Christianity do. We believe that some traditions were passed on by word of mouth, rather than by written letter.

The fact that the Catholic Hierarchy doesn't hold the Bible supreme is one of it's biggest errors. When ANYTHING - regardless of logic, reasoning, or "proof" - is elevated to a status equal to the Bible, you have the makings of a cult. There is then no final authority to appeal to on questions of morality or spiritual life. The traditions of the Catholic church, and the declarations from the pope when in his official capacity, are deemed as equal to the Bible. Very dangerous.
And I find it interesting that the Catholic church taught the scriptures in Latin - a dead language that nobody spoke except the church leaders - for centuries. And they hunted down those trying to translate the scritpures into the languages of the common people. Seems to me, if God wanted to make the truth as easy as possible to find, then, the "official" church would have embraced the idea instead of trying to squash it.
Yes, the Bible itself says that the Apostles personal writings and the Apostles personal verbal instructions are to be followed. And the last Apostle John died around 100AD. That ends the personal verbal transmission. Any verbal "traditions" since then are not Apostolic. Hence, they are not equal to the Bible. They are merely the traditions of men.

 

[Yarddog]

The fact that the Catholic Hierarchy doesn't hold the Bible supreme is one of it's biggest errors.

So, it was tradition which gave us the Bible, as it is, and you want a man made theology which began in the last 200 years to take precedence over what the Christian Church has practiced since its beginning?

When ANYTHING - regardless of logic, reasoning, or "proof" - is elevated to a status equal to the Bible, you have the makings of a cult.

The Catholic Church regards scripture as sacred but Christianity did not begin with a book called the Bible. It began with the Tradition of the Apostles. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Spoken, not written.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

There is then no final authority to appeal to on questions of morality or spiritual life. The traditions of the Catholic church, and the declarations from the pope when in his official capacity, are deemed as equal to the Bible. Very dangerous.

And? You deem your interpretation of scripture as being your final authority. You may not be able to understand that but that is what is occurring.

And I find it interesting that the Catholic church taught the scriptures in Latin - a dead language that nobody spoke except the church leaders - for centuries.

Latin wasn't a dead language when the Western Church began to use it as the language of the Church. It was the common tongue of much of the West.

And they hunted down those trying to translate the scritpures into the languages of the common people.

That is not true. Scripture was translated into many languages of the people across Europe. What the Church wanted to ensure is that it was translated properly. Martin Luther wasn't even the first to translate the Bible into German.

Seems to me, if God wanted to make the truth as easy as possible to find, then, the "official" church would have embraced the idea instead of trying to squash it.

It's good that they didn't then.

Yes, the Bible itself says that the Apostles personal writings and the Apostles personal verbal instructions are to be followed.

Then you should understand why the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, use oral tradition and scripture, and not just scripture.

And the last Apostle John died around 100AD. That ends the personal verbal transmission. Any verbal "traditions" since then are not Apostolic. Hence, they are not equal to the Bible. They are merely the traditions of men.

Then you understand that your what your Church or yourself interpreted the scripture to mean can be your man made traditions, depending on if they really match the tradition of the Apostles.

 

[tankerG]

So, it was tradition which gave us the Bible, as it is, and you want a man made theology which began in the last 200 years to take precedence over what the Christian Church has practiced since its beginning?

 

[tankerG]

So, it was tradition which gave us the Bible, as it is, and you want a man made theology which began in the last 200 years to take precedence over what the Christian Church has practiced since its beginning?

What theology that began 200 years ago are you referring to? And I don't see the Bible as being given to us as oral tradition. The Biblical writers WROTE the letters that we now have, and those letters were spoken to various churches. When the canon was finalized, the men doing the work had actual documents to look at and handle.

The Catholic Church regards scripture as sacred but Christianity did not begin with a book called the Bible. It began with the Tradition of the Apostles. The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Spoken, not written.

Yes, the original messages was spoken. But, because memories fade over time and people add/subtract from facts, it became obvious to the early Christians that the information was going to have to be written and saved so as to have a standard to refute the heresy's that were already creeping into the church. For poeple who didn't know Jesus or the other apostles physically, this code would allow them to know what they said.

And? You deem your interpretation of scripture as being your final authority. You may not be able to understand that but that is what is occurring.

No, my "interpretation" is not the final authority. What the Bible clearly says is. That's why we have it, that's why God gave it to us. So if someone said something that sounds off or wrong, we'd have an absolutely trustworthy source to appeal to to settle our hearts on the matter. Like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily to find out if what they had heard was true. (Acts 17:11)
And I understand your implication quite well. I appeal to the Scriptures, period. You don't.

Latin wasn't a dead language when the Western Church began to use it as the language of the Church. It was the common tongue of much of the West.

At the beginning, yes. But it became a dead language with the common folk over time. By the time of the reformation it was not the common tongue. Why did the Catholic church keep it as it's "official" language, then? Because, literacy was rare among people, and they could only know what God wanted for them by what the church told them. Nobody could verify anything on their own, because the church had all the relatively rare writings in their possession, and only they could read it and "explain" it to the people. The Bible says we have access by grace to the very throne of God (Rom. 5;2, Heb. 10:19), and we have no need for any intermediary because we have Christ(1 Tim. 2:5). If people by and large learned that, the catholic heirarchy would have been ignored.

That is not true. Scripture was translated into many languages of the people across Europe. What the Church wanted to ensure is that it was translated properly. Martin Luther wasn't even the first to translate the Bible into German.

I'm sure that what's the church said publically. But their actions speak louder than their words. Tyndale was executed for his translation work, and Luther would have been had the church been able to catch him.

It's good that they didn't then.

Arrogance kills many a prideful man, and it recognizes no boundaries of language or privilege. The Catholic church realized that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, after the Reformation, and the best they could do was the Council of Trent to solidify their position.

Then you should understand why the Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, use oral tradition and scripture, and not just scripture.

Since the last of the apostles died, the only true source we have for genuine truth is the Bible. Their personal writings and verbal teachings that are preserved in it are our guide. No new written or verbal teachings are the same. I can learn alot from men like Francis Schaeffer, Dave Hunt, and T.A. McMahon, true - they have wisdom that one only gets from years of walking closely to Christ. But I don't put their writings on par with the Bible. And neither do they.

Then you understand that your what your Church or yourself interpreted the scripture to mean can be your man made traditions, depending on if they really match the tradition of the Apostles.

My "church" is just a gathering of believers that prays, worships, and learns from each other. It is a wonderful group of people, but, they are after all just people. It does not interpret the Bible for me. I pray to understand the teachings there, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth (John 16:13). But, since my heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer. 17:9), and, the spirit of the antichrist is lose on the world (1 John 4:3), I have to have a reliable, trustworthy source to compare those other two with. Every matter must be established by two or three witnesses (Deut. 17:6, Matt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1). If what I think or hear doesn't agree with the Scriptures, it gets tossed. That's why the Bible is so important. When you "rig" your witnesses so they'll all "agree", any heresy or lie can infect the church.

 

[Albion]

So, it was tradition which gave us the Bible, as it is, and you want a man made theology which began in the last 200 years to take precedence over what the Christian Church has practiced since its beginning?

Not only does no one know what you are thinking of by "200 years," but assembling or authorizing the Bible is a far cry from creating it. I think you actually do know this or else you wouldn't have been so careful to use imprecise wording like "which gave us."

 

[Yarddog]

Not only does no one know what you are thinking of by "200 years," but assembling or authorizing the Bible is a far cry from creating it. I think you actually do know this or else you wouldn't have been so careful to use imprecise wording like "which gave us."

I'm not sure what he intended to write but he was trying to respond to my post.

 

[AHJE]

Knowing the origin of the Universal church which was founded in the 4th century by the non-christian King Constantine,

I disagree with you. Jesus is the Master Builder of the Holy Catholic Church.

But, ... if you truly believe this 4th Century theory ... then I invite you to learn more of what the Early Church Fathers have written. Find their primary sources and see what the Church was like BEFORE Constantine. What did they believe and how did they do Divine Worship?

What was the Church doing before Constantine came along?

Have you studied the pre-Constantine History of the Church founded by Jesus Christ?

I thought that this would be greatly beneficial to someone who is seeking after our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.


God bless you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

...Knowing the origin of the Universal church which was founded in the 4th century by the non-christian King Constantine...

No.

&#8005;&#960;&#959;&#965; &#7938;&#957; &#966;&#945;&#957;&#8135; &#8001; &#7952;&#960;&#8055;&#963;&#954;&#959;&#960;&#959;&#962;, &#7952;&#954;&#949;&#8150; &#964;&#8056; &#960;&#955;&#8134;&#952;&#959;&#962; &#7972;&#964;&#969;, &#8037;&#963;&#960;&#949;&#961; &#8005;&#960;&#959;&#965; &#7938;&#957; &#8135; &#7992;&#951;&#963;&#959;&#8166;&#962; &#935;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#8057;&#962;, &#7952;&#954;&#949;&#8150; &#7969; &#954;&#945;&#952;&#959;&#955;&#953;&#954;&#8052; &#7952;&#954;&#954;&#955;&#951;&#963;&#8055;&#945;.

Wherever the bishop is, let the people assemble; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the whole Church (katholike ekklesia). - St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.2; circa 105 AD

Calling the Church "catholic" goes much farther back than Constantine. Further, Constantine didn't found anything.

I'm not addressing anything else you wrote, since whenever I read something as seriously flawed as this, it's a good sign everything else will be equally as flimsy.

Note: I'm not Roman Catholic, I'm Lutheran.


-CryptoLutheran

 

[AHJE]

Dear The Tongue,

St. Clement of Alexandria is not the Magisterium of the Church. All of the teachings of the Saints or even Doctors of the Church must be subject to the Teaching Authority of the Church.

Still, ... the Early Church Fathers are an excellent and indispensable source of Christian Data.

God bless you.

 

[Catherineanne]

Inspired by the "Ask a Physicist Anything" thread in the physical and life sciences board, here is "Ask a Catholic Anything"


For starters, my name is Chris, and I'm a recent Catholic convert. I'm also a history and business student, and a certifiable nerd. I'm fairly knowledgeable about topics regarding Christian history, Catholic theology, and other philosophical and religious systems (both Christian and non-Christian) which have existed throughout history. I'm also in step with the magisterium, meaning that I can answer questions based on an orthodox understanding of Catholicism.

Hiya Chris, I'm Cathy, and I have been an Anglican for - erm - a long time.

Here is a question for you. My daughter says I am a religious nut, but my priest says I am not; he says he wouldn't allow any of his parishioners to turn into religious nuts. D says, too late; it happened before I met him and joined his church.

Are you a religious nut, and whether the answer is yes or no, how would you define religious nut? Then I will see if I qualify by your definition or not.

(PS, my d may well be right, but I can't say actually that because it would contradict my priest, and that would be most impolite of me. )

 

[WisdomTree]

I have a random question: are you Roman, Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochene, Chaldean, or Armenian?

 

[Yarddog]

What theology that began 200 years ago are you referring to?

Whatever theology which has begun in your Church or in your mind, since you are non-Denominational. This is your or your Churches tradition, some of which can be man made, depending on if it is the actual intention of the Gospel.

And I don't see the Bible as being given to us as oral tradition.

Whether you see it as that or not, oral tradition played the key role on deciding what books went into the codex we call the Bible.

The Biblical writers WROTE the letters that we now have, and those letters were spoken to various churches.

The letters which the Apostles wrote were read in the Churches that they were sent to, not in all the Churches. As an example, Paul's letter to the Romans was not read in Galatia, or Ephesus, or Antioch, but the same oral teaching existed in these Churches because Paul taught the same Gospel where ever he went. Another example would be Paul's letter to the Hebrews. This was not read in Rome and the West did not accept this as being his until the Bishops came together and being led by the Holy Spirit, proclaimed it to be so. Oral tradition and the HS brought this book into the Bible.

When the canon was finalized, the men doing the work had actual documents to look at and handle.

Those men had hundreds of documents with some Gospel accounts being a but different, such as Mark having additional verses in some manuscripts. There were several Gospel accounts which decided not to be worthy, such as the Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Judas, James, etc.

What you have today is the work oral tradition, except the books which some Protestants later removed from the OT.

Yes, the original messages was spoken. But, because memories fade over time and people add/subtract from facts, it became obvious to the early Christians that the information was going to have to be written and saved so as to have a standard to refute the heresy's that were already creeping into the church. For poeple who didn't know Jesus or the other apostles physically, this code would allow them to know what they said.

I'd say that that was part of the reason for eventually bringing the books together.

No, my "interpretation" is not the final authority.

It has to be, in many cases, unless you have a Church interpreting scripture for you.

What the Bible clearly says is.

Clearly to whom? Do you worship on Saturday or Sunday? The Bible doesn't clearly say that Sunday is the Lord's Day but Christians have been worshiping on Sunday, and not Saturday, since the Church began.

That's why we have it, that's why God gave it to us.

You mean that is why God revealed to the Catholic Church which books were scripture? Even today, some parts of the ancient Church have additional books in their Bible.

So if someone said something that sounds off or wrong, we'd have an absolutely trustworthy source to appeal to to settle our hearts on the matter. Like the Bereans, who searched the Scriptures daily to find out if what they had heard was true. (Acts 17:11)

So, as your example, you use a group of Jews who only searched the ancient scriptures of the Hebrews which was most likely the Septuagint, which contained the books which Protestants removed?

And I understand your implication quite well. I appeal to the Scriptures, period. You don't.

No, I do as the Apostles did and appeal to the tradition of the Apostles and to God through his Holy Spirit.

At the beginning, yes. But it became a dead language with the common folk over time. By the time of the reformation it was not the common tongue. Why did the Catholic church keep it as it's "official" language, then?

That was really a good thing because unlike the common language, Latin remained the same. Words change meanings slightly as time passes so what an Apostle wrote in the 1st century didn't mean the same 500 years later. The Greek of the 1st century was not the Greek of the 6th.

When ceased to be used, it remained constant.

Because, literacy was rare among people, and they could only know what God wanted for them by what the church told them.

Yep. That was every where and continued within the Protestant Churches.

Nobody could verify anything on their own, because the church had all the relatively rare writings in their possession, and only they could read it and "explain" it to the people. The Bible says we have access by grace to the very throne of God (Rom. 5;2, Heb. 10:19), and we have no need for any intermediary because we have Christ(1 Tim. 2:5). If people by and large learned that, the catholic heirarchy would have been ignored.[/quote]
Why? The Bible also calls us all to intercede for each other. The Church taught that we are all temples, reading it does not change the message. The Bible also doesn't teach for us to ignore those who God has called to be teachers. It teaches that we are not all teachers, or Apostles, etc. If you are not called to teach, don't teach because teaches will be judged more strictly.

I'm sure that what's the church said publically. But their actions speak louder than their words. Tyndale was executed for his translation work, and Luther would have been had the church been able to catch him.

Tyndale's bible was said to have 1000-2000 errors in translation which misrepresented what scripture actually intended say. Sadly he was convicted of heresy.

Arrogance kills many a prideful man, and it recognizes no boundaries of language or privilege. The Catholic church realized that the cat was out of the bag, so to speak, after the Reformation, and the best they could do was the Council of Trent to solidify their position.

Well, there were problems in the Church which led to some of the problems of the 15th and 16th centuries. Trent did solidify the Church doctrine on many teachings which were lax in many areas of the Church. Priests and monks were taught in a much more strict manner, so that teaching was consistent throughout the Church.

Since the last of the apostles died, the only true source we have for genuine truth is the Bible.

This is a man made tradition which began during the 16th century. Genuine truth of the Gospel is genuine truth regardless of were it comes. Newer Churches, not trusting in Tradition, rejected it. Some still embrace tradition or parts of it while some totally reject it.

Their personal writings and verbal teachings that are preserved in it are our guide.

Catholics feel the same way but do not discount all of the verbal teachings not written down in scripture, some of which can be found in the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

No new written or verbal teachings are the same.

Anything which comes from God is the same. The difference is, not each Church trusts in what God may or may not reveal to the other Church.

I can learn alot from men like Francis Schaeffer, Dave Hunt, and T.A. McMahon, true - they have wisdom that one only gets from years of walking closely to Christ. But I don't put their writings on par with the Bible. And neither do they.

That is true. They are writing their tradition or their interpretation of the Gospel. They may give great insight but they may give untruths as well.

My "church" is just a gathering of believers that prays, worships, and learns from each other.

Each other's traditions.

It is a wonderful group of people,

I do not doubt this. Just like Catholic Churches.

but, they are after all just people.

Just like Catholics.

It does not interpret the Bible for me. I pray to understand the teachings there, and trust in the Holy Spirit to guide me into all truth (John 16:13).

But does that Holy Spirit you to all truth, and also lead your buddy in the same Church to a different truth. This has happened in many of the Protestant Churches and why we thousands of Church teaching a different Gospel.

But, since my heart is deceitfully wicked (Jer. 17:9), and, the spirit of the antichrist is lose on the world (1 John 4:3), I have to have a reliable, trustworthy source to compare those other two with.

But, you admit that your heart is deceitful so how reliable is your spirit in fully understanding scripture? We all have this and that is why the Catholic Church stresses that tradition is so important in understanding scripture. What the early Church taught, as a whole, is important in knowing the truth.

God Bless,
Your brother in Christ,
Yarddog

 

[tankerG]

Whatever theology which has begun in your Church or in your mind, since you are non-Denominational. This is your or your Churches tradition, some of which can be man made, depending on if it is the actual intention of the Gospel.

Sorry, friend. It's not "in my mind", and it didn't begin in my church. It began with the Reformation, with those brave patriots of the faith who were willing to face death at the hands of Rome rather than deny what the Scriptures were saying to them. And you're making very BIG assumptions because I'm "non-denominational". You have no clue as to anything about my church.
And, because my grammar isn't perfect, we're going to dismiss my words? I'm happy to be associated with ordinary and un-schooled men who by faith in Christ will stand against the status quo of "tradition".

Perhaps you can explain to me the following problem.

The Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canon 9 states that anyone who says that a sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, is anathema.

Yet my Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, and this not of ourselves. It is a gift from God. (Eph.2:8)

Here you have two "equal" authorities - according to the "infallible" Catholic church - and they are diametrically opposed. Is salvation by faith alone, or isn't it? Who decides the impasse? The Pope? Another council?
And, in case anyone is unfamiliar with the word "anathema", it is a word of contempt meaning "forever cursed". The Catholic Heirarchy felt that using such a "powerful" word would instill fear into their adherents. And though the Council of Trent was in 1536 or so, don't think that the mother church has softened any in their disgust of Protestants. Vatican II was in the early 1960's, and reaffirmed the Council of Trent.

So, there you have it. If you believe in salvation by faith alone, the Catholic church considers you eternally cursed. For all to see.

 

[Yarddog]

Sorry, friend. It's not "in my mind", and it didn't begin in my church. It began with the Reformation, with those brave patriots of the faith who were willing to face death at the hands of Rome rather than deny what the Scriptures were saying to them.

It began with the reformation and thousands of different Churches have sprang up with different twists on the Gospel. Each with their own traditions.

And you're making very BIG assumptions because I'm "non-denominational". You have no clue as to anything about my church.

You list yourself, on this forum, as non-Denominational so I can only trust that you know what you are.

And, because my grammar isn't perfect, we're going to dismiss my words?

What does that have to do with our discussion? My grammar isn't perfect either. I'm a country boy from the south, so I have no problem with imperfect English, I was raised on it.

I'm happy to be associated with ordinary and un-schooled men who by faith in Christ will stand against the status quo of "tradition".

I'm glad that you are and I'm happy to be associated with ordinary people or people of all degrees of education who simply love Jesus Christ and come to Mass to worship every week. Education has nothing to do with faith in Jesus.

Perhaps you can explain to me the following problem.

The Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canon 9 states that anyone who says that a sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, is anathema.

Yet my Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, and this not of ourselves. It is a gift from God. (Eph.2:8)

Your bible does not say that you are justified by "faith alone". Being justified by faith means believing in the saving works of our Lord Jesus Christ and then walking in the Spirit of God.

One can say, "I believe" but saying it doesn't mean that you really believe in Jesus. Faith is following Christ.

Here you have two "equal" authorities - according to the "infallible" Catholic church - and they are diametrically opposed.

There is no opposition in the Catholic Church to justification, but there is lack of understanding in many non-Catholics as to what the Church actually teaches and the full range of teaching within scripture.

Is salvation by faith alone, or isn't it?

No and scripture does not say that it is by faith "alone". We are saved through faith and faith is never alone.

Who decides the impasse? The Pope? Another council?

We will be judged by God.

And, in case anyone is unfamiliar with the word "anathema", it is a word of contempt meaning "forever cursed".

Incorrect. It means: Greek anathema — literally, placed on high, suspended, set aside

So, there you have it. If you believe in salvation by faith alone, the Catholic church considers you eternally cursed. For all to see.

Do you believe that a person can say that they believe, yet kill a hundred people without a care? Scripture says no. James tells us that our actions should show our faith. If we need the actions in order for our faith to be real, then faith is not alone.

Many people who believe in the doctrine of faith alone, actually have great actions to go with the faith and Martin Luther also wrote of them in the Augsberg Confession, so even though they may say "faith alone", their faith is not alone in the theology of the Catholic Church.