Ask a Catholic Anything

[Albion]

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

But only the Catholic churhes make doctrine out of their traditions. That's a significant difference we should remember whenever the word "tradition" starts getting used to prove just about anything.

Your bible does not say that you are justified by "faith alone".

No, but it says we are justified by faith. It doesn't say we are justified by faith and works. It doesn't say that we are justified by faith and chanting. It doesn't say that we are saved by faith and Mass and holy water, but not if our fingers are crossed behind our backs. It says what it says, that we are justified by faith. That means faith. All additions or speculation about something else that COULD have been added, but was not, is the doing of men.

 

[tankerG]

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

That's why I don't follow traditions - I follow the Bible.

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.

So, no direct answer, eh? Are we saved by faith alone, or aren't we? Rather than say yes (and disagree with the heirarchy) or no (and be denying plain Scripture), you choose to dance around the meaning of the Bible verse. And not even touch the quote from the Council of Trent! Very insightful. Thank you!

 

[Yarddog]

But only the Catholic churhes make doctrine out of their traditions. That's a significant difference we should remember whenever the word "tradition" starts getting used to prove just about anything.

No, the whole ancient Church made doctrine out of tradition, and much of Anglican Doctrine are from the Catholic Church. Other parts came from the traditions started amongst the Protestant reformers, such as Luther or Calvin or Knox.

No, but it says we are justified by faith.

Yes.

It doesn't say we are justified by faith and works.

Yes it does.

James 2:24
Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

As I wrote, faith is never alone.

It doesn't say that we are justified by faith and chanting.

My Church doesn't say that, does yours?

It doesn't say that we are saved by faith and Mass and holy water, but not if our fingers are crossed behind our backs.

Read the prior answer.

It says what it says, that we are justified by faith. That means faith. All additions or speculation about something else that COULD have been added, but was not, is the doing of men.

Then you haven't read scripture. James tells us that faith is not alone and we must show our faith by our works. The man who says that he has faith but has no works, does not have faith.

James 2:
17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.
18 Yea, a man will say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith apart from [thy] works, and I by my works will show thee [my] faith. 19 Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well: the demons also believe, and shudder.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

Anyone who claims that we are saved by "faith alone" rejects scripture.

 

[renewed21]

Hello

(Full disclosure) I was raised Catholic and now I'm Reformed Protestant.

Even as a child the pageantry and ritualism of the Catholic Church didn't "feel right". Could you tell me your person feelings on that matter in regards to worship?

 

[Yarddog]

That's why I don't follow traditions - I follow the Bible.

And the traditions which you have interpreted scripture to mean. Many man made traditions.

So, no direct answer, eh? Are we saved by faith alone, or aren't we?

Didn't you even read my post? I wrote: "No and scripture does not say that it is by faith "alone". We are saved through faith and faith is never alone."

The Bible does not teach that we are saved by "faith alone". This is a gross misinterpretation of scripture. James is quite clear on how we are justified.

2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith.

Rather than say yes (and disagree with the heirarchy) or no (and be denying plain Scripture), you choose to dance around the meaning of the Bible verse. And not even touch the quote from the Council of Trent! Very insightful. Thank you!

I didn't dance around anything, you failed to read my post.

 

[Yarddog]

Hello

(Full disclosure) I was raised Catholic and now I'm Reformed Protestant.

Hi there, I was raised a Baptist but left in my early teens because of hateful preaching of our minister. I remained a Protestant though and learned many of the falsehoods taught about the Catholic Church through TV evangelist which I watched throughout the 70's and early 80's, such as Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Garner Ted Armstrong, etc. I continued to follow Rev. Charles Stanley and Ben Kinchlow, when I could, after becoming Catholic in 1982. They are both very spiritual men.

Even as a child the pageantry and ritualism of the Catholic Church didn't "feel right".

I can understand that. I had some problems when I joined the Catholic Church with some of the doctrines and I still am uneasy about some but there is no doubt that God called me into the Catholic Church and then began to help me understand what and why they teach what they do.

Could you tell me your person feelings on that matter in regards to worship?

I love the ritualism because it is not for show. It is out of the love for God. Nothing that the Catholic Church does is for show to outsiders, it is for the worship of our God and Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

It cannot count the many times in which the Holy Spirit has come upon me during Mass and my spirit cried out praise for God. This is not done aloud because we are not to disrupt the service, as Paul teaches.

 

[renewed21]

Hi there, I was raised a Baptist but left in my early teens because of hateful preaching of our minister. I remained a Protestant though and learned many of the falsehoods taught about the Catholic Church through TV evangelist which I watched throughout the 70's and early 80's, such as Pat Robertson, Jimmy Swaggart, Garner Ted Armstrong, etc. I continued to follow Rev. Charles Stanley and Ben Kinchlow, when I could, after becoming Catholic in 1982. They are both very spiritual men.

I can understand that. I had some problems when I joined the Catholic Church with some of the doctrines and I still am uneasy about some but there is no doubt that God called me into the Catholic Church and then began to help me understand what and why they teach what they do.


I love the ritualism because it is not for show. It is out of the love for God. Nothing that the Catholic Church does is for show to outsiders, it is for the worship of our God and Father, his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

It cannot count the many times in which the Holy Spirit has come upon me during Mass and my spirit cried out praise for God. This is not done aloud because we are not to disrupt the service, as Paul teaches.

It's kind of funny. I am having the antithesis of your experience. I hear God and the Spirit work in me through my Independent Baptist congregation and through John Bunyan, Spurgeon, John Piper, john MacArthur, etc.

I am happy that God is working in you through your Catholic Experiences. God Bless.

 

[Yarddog]

It's kind of funny. I am having the antithesis of your experience. I hear God and the Spirit work in me through my Independent Baptist congregation and through John Bunyan, Spurgeon, John Piper, john MacArthur, etc.

God works in mysterious ways.

I am happy that God is working in you through your Catholic Experiences. God Bless.

And I must say the same for you.

I have nothing against anyone who finds their personal relationship with God in what ever Church the feel the calling. What bothers me is when people start attacking a Church based on ignorance of the Church, regardless of this person's faith. A Catholic who attacks a non-Catholic is not doing the work of the Catholic Church.

God has given his children his Holy Spirit and we need to put that Spirit to work in our lives.

The Holy Spirit came upon me once during Mass and showed me that one man cannot be One with God and another also be One with God, without both of these men also being One with other. They may not recognize it but it is truth.

May God bless you in your life,
Your brother in Christ,
Yarddog

 

[AHJE]

Hello

(Full disclosure) I was raised Catholic and now I'm Reformed Protestant.

Even as a child the pageantry and ritualism of the Catholic Church didn't "feel right". Could you tell me your person feelings on that matter in regards to worship?

Hi renewed21,

Peace be with you.

The Mass is a Holy Sacrifice first and foremost. It is an entering into the Divine Prayer of Jesus Christ our Great High Priest and it is an entering into His Death and Resurrection. The outward gestures that you see in Holy Mass are indicative of something sacred and we are led by the Ministerial Priest into contact with the Holy of Holies where Jesus is now at the right hand of the Father, making intercession for us.

In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Heaven and Earth are united. All of the Angels are present before the Altar. The Church Triumphant in heaven we join in Divine Worship. It is an inestimable gift from God. For through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass the fruits of Redemption (the effects of Redemption) are applied to us then and there.

God bless you.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So you are not of the Roman church, who sits on the seven mountains, but you are of the body of one of her daughter denominations that were first conceived of her Spirit/teachings before the body that you belong to, broke away from your mother body, who refuses to acknowledge that Jesus was a human being, born of the seed of Adam, as is every human being who has, or who will ever walk this earth. You belong to a body that refuses to admit that God is able to raise a human being from death into eternal life.

This paragraph very quickly went from the standard "I don't like Lutheranism because it looks like Catholicism" trope to some place quite bizarre. I don't know if you are aware of this but we Lutherans (and Catholics for that matter) confess the Ecumenical Creeds, which I'd recommend you go ahead and read, as they very clearly teach that Jesus Christ is a human being, that Jesus rose from the dead, and that God will raise the dead--bodily--on the Last Day.

If you were not sired by an alien life form that existed before the creation of the cosmos, and you are not an eternal and immortal being yourself, who came down to earth and entered the womb of some supposed virgin, where a human like body was formed for you to enable to walk the earth disguised as a human being, then there is no evidence that your god can raise you from death.

Could you possibly translate this into English?

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.”

Allow me to repeat. The Creeds are abundantly clear that the Lord Jesus is a human being. Jesus is the God-Man, fully God and fully man in perfect Hypostatic Union. I have no idea why you are laboring under the notion that we don't confess this very basic tenet of the ancient catholic Christian faith.

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.”

See above.

If you would care to open your eyes, I'm sure that you will have little difficulty in finding the teaching of the anti-christ, which does not deny that Jesus had come, but which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus was a true human being, which has been spread throughout the entire WORLD.

By all means, show me these denominations that deny the humanity of Christ.

No one “Pope” as such existed, before King Constantine united the rag tag abuse hurling different bodies of belief, the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch each being recognised as having supreme authority within their geographical regions, but no supremacy over all (The so-called) Christendom existed before King Constantine united them and established his universal church in the 4th century, some 300 years after the apostolic church of Jesus Christ had been established in Jerusalem.

Again. Constantine did no such thing. If you would bother to read a history book (any history book would suffice) you'd know better.

Also, when Constantine was crowned emperor, Rome had been without a king for something like six hundred years (give or take).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

No, the whole ancient Church made doctrine out of tradition,

No, it actually used scripture. We know you have to defend your church from all negative information, but I am constrained only by what's true. We each have our own objectives.

and much of Anglican Doctrine are from the Catholic Church.

The Anglican Church, being of Apostolic origin, was founded much too early for there to even have been any so-called tradition, so we can put that theory to rest.

 

[Yarddog]

No, it actually used scripture.

Not in all cases. Scripture plus tradition has been used since the beginning of the Church.

We know you have to defend your church from all negative information, but I am constrained only by what's true.

No, I only intend to defend my Church or others from false information. We have negative information which we can only ask forgiveness for, as does most all Churches, especially the older they are.

We each have our own objectives.

True, but you don't know mine and seem to assume just because I am Catholic that I am like the ones which you show prejudice against. There are jerks in all Christian Churches.

The Anglican Church, being of Apostolic origin, was founded much too early for there to even have been any so-called tradition, so we can put that theory to rest.

And you can claim that you don't have tradition but any time a Church is of Apostolic origin they have Apostolic tradition or they are not Apostolic. Since the Anglican Church also has doctrine which was never taught by the Apostles, then all of this is the tradition of your Church which began when they were first taught. Naturally you will deny that because you believe that everything that your Church teaches is the truth, just as all other Churches believe.

I don't claim that the Catholic Church teaches all truth, but I don't deny it either. As a former Protestant who was called into the Catholic Church by God, I hold out the acceptance of doctrine until I understand the truth of that doctrine.

I am one who has debated against some of the Churches doctrine, in the past, until God himself stopped me and showed me the dangers of doing so. By faith, I must obey God when he reveals his will. Now, I defend the Church when false accusations are leveled against her.

God Bless,
Yarddog

 

[Albion]

Not in all cases. Scripture plus tradition has been used since the beginning of the Church.

That's easy to say, but perhaps you remember that not a single poster was able to give an example of it when asked a few weeks back.

True, but you don't know mine and seem to assume just because I am Catholic that I am like the ones which you show prejudice against. There are jerks in all Christian Churches.

In the first place, I do not accept that charge of prejudice. I have arrived at my feelings concerning all these things from years of direct experience and more formal education than almost anyone else around here. Whatever it is, it's far from being knee-jerk or inbred bias. At the same time, I do owe you this--you are not one of the "jerks" we sometimes encounter and I don't think of you when I contemplate some of the stuff they write.

And you can claim that you don't have tradition but any time a Church is of Apostolic origin they have Apostolic tradition or they are not Apostolic.

But to be Apostolic, other than for the matter of Apostolic Succession, all that it means is holding to what they held to. There's no implication in that of there being any so-called "Tradition." These men believed, from all that we know, what the Lord taught them, which is what we also know from the Scriptures.

Since the Anglican Church also has doctrine which was never taught by the Apostles,

I don't think there is any such. Are you now giving in to your own prejudice perchance? If there is any church that holds to that which always was while cleaning out the innovations that came along the way in church history, it's the Anglican church.

then all of this is the tradition of your Church which began when they were first taught. Naturally you will deny that because you believe that everything that your Church teaches is the truth, just as all other Churches believe.

It' s not so much that I believe it to be the truth, but that it's all grounded in Scripture and none of it is dependent only upon Tradition.

Now, I defend the Church when false accusations are leveled against her.

Until I see otherwise, I take that to mean you'll defend the church against anything leveled at her, true or not.

 

[Chi Rho]

I didn't think it would take this long for a debate to start. A good thread though, GlobalWolf2010. You've got great knowledge of the teachings of the Church. Have you ever considered a possible vocation ?

 

[Yarddog]

That's easy to say, but perhaps you remember that not a single poster was able to give an example of it when asked a few weeks back.

Sure, Sunday worship. It is not spelled out in scripture, that is why many newer Churches have gone to 7th day observance. There is evidence of the Trinity, but it is not spelled out but that is why some Churches, past and present, do not accept the doctrine. The Eucharist, scripture does not spell out the real presence. Tradition bridges the gap between scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, handed down through the Apostles.

New tradition, never taught by the ancient Church:[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.[/FONT]

In the first place, I do not accept that charge of prejudice.

When you assume something about me based on me being a Catholic, then you are being prejudicial.

I have arrived at my feelings concerning all these things from years of direct experience and more formal education than almost anyone else around here.

Thanks for proving my point. You assume I am like all those that you have dealt with in the past.

But to be Apostolic, other than for the matter of Apostolic Succession, all that it means is holding to what they held to.

Yes, which is where Tradition comes in. Using scripture only is not Apostolic.

I don't think there is any such.

Of course you wouldn't, you believe the traditions which your Church has begun.

New tradition, never taught by the ancient Church:[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.[/FONT]

I could give you sites, which go into others, where the Anglican Church is not in agreement with either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. Here is one from the OC.Orthodoxy and Western Christianity: For Anglicans

Are you now giving in to your own prejudice perchance?

No, just basing it on the fact that your Church disagrees with both East and West of the ancient Church.

If there is any church that holds to that which always was while cleaning out the innovations that came along the way in church history, it's the Anglican church.

Then why did they embrace some of Calvin's and Luther's new teachings.

It' s not so much that I believe it to be the truth, but that it's all grounded in Scripture and none of it is dependent only upon Tradition.

It is at times grounded in the interpretations of scripture of men separated from scripture by over 1500 years. New traditions.

Until I see otherwise, I take that to mean you'll defend the church against anything leveled at her, true or not.

God has forbidden me from debating Catholics about some items, as I used to. When one of these comes up on this forum, I have been forbidden to respond, thus, you will not see me doing so. In the mean time, I will defend her against false accusations.

God Bless

 

[Albion]

Sure, Sunday worship. It is not spelled out in scripture, that is why many newer Churches have gone to 7th day observance.

What? First, it is spelled out in scripture. Second, it's not a doctrine necessary to salvcation; it's a practice. Third, there are NOT "many" churches that have "gone to" 7th day worship and the few that have are considered to be beyond the pale by most of the rest of the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant.

There is evidence of the Trinity, but it is not spelled out but that is why some Churches, past and present, do not accept the doctrine.

The Trinity is not believed in because of Tradition, however, but because that is the conclusion reached by a study of Scripture.

The Eucharist, scripture does not spell out the real presence. Tradition bridges the gap between scripture and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, handed down through the Apostles.

As far as I know, every Catholic defends the Real Presence by pointing to the words of institution and saying, "There. Jesus said..."

When you assume something about me based on me being a Catholic, then you are being prejudicial.

Then that, if true, would be prejudice against YOU, not against the Catholic Church, wouldn't it?

Thanks for proving my point. You assume I am like all those that you have dealt with in the past.

No, I don't.

Of course you wouldn't, you believe the traditions which your Church has begun.

It hasn't begun any, and that's shown by the fact that you haven't identified any, just made airy accusations.

New tradition, never taught by the ancient Church:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.[/FONT]

The Church Fathers believed--and said--that Scripture was their guide, not traditions, so I disagree with your try there.

You've really come up emptyhanded.

 

[tankerG]

And the traditions which you have interpreted scripture to mean. Many man made traditions.


Didn't you even read my post? I wrote: "No and scripture does not say that it is by faith "alone". We are saved through faith and faith is never alone."

The Bible does not teach that we are saved by "faith alone". This is a gross misinterpretation of scripture. James is quite clear on how we are justified.

2:24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not only by faith......

Going to James is a typical ploy, and I won't be sidetracked by it.

I cannot state it any clearer than God's own words:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2:8,9)

Anybody who reads this can see we are saved through faith. Period. Salvation is not of ourselves (i.e. there's nothing we can do). There's no works involved. If there were, then people could - and would - boast about it. "I saved myself"! No sir - salvation is not of works. It is not a misrepresentation of Scripture - it's right there in black and white. It's not tradition or an interpretation that I was taught. It's written in plain English (from the Greek) for any one to understand. God offered us His grace, and we accept it. We are saved. Done.

 

[Yarddog]

What? First, it is spelled out in scripture.

Nope, show me one place where scriptures tells Christians that they must gather for worship on the 1st day. Or where it says in scripture that the 1st day is the Lord's Day. There is evidence of the Apostles coming together on the 1st day but it doesn't stipulate Sunday worship.

IOW, a person with no knowledge of God can pick up the Bible and say that Christians should come together to worship on Sunday.

Second, it's not a doctrine necessary to salvcation; it's a practice.

You didn't ask that.

Third, there are NOT "many" churches that have "gone to" 7th day worship and the few that have are considered to be beyond the pale by most of the rest of the Christian world, both Catholic and Protestant.

Gone to?? The Protestants accepted Sunday worship but some have rejected this using sola scriptura and worship on the Jewish Sabbath, in the past 200 years.

The Trinity is not believed in because of Tradition, however, but because that is the conclusion reached by a study of Scripture.

Sure it is. Do you know what tradition is to the Catholic Church? It is the teaching of the Apostles which includes what was written and spoken.

As far as I know, every Catholic defends the Real Presence by pointing to the words of institution and saying, "There. Jesus said..."

That is part of what they do but they also point to the written words of Ignatius and other ECF's who show further what was past down orally from the Apostles. This tradition plus scripture shows the doctrine.

Then that, if true, would be prejudice against YOU, not against the Catholic Church, wouldn't it?

Well duh, that is what I said. You show prejudice against me because I am Catholic, assuming that I do what I do based on your past experience with Catholics.

No, I don't.

Then stop assuming that I must defend my Church for reasons other than the real reasons. I am first and foremost, a man of God.

It hasn't begun any, and that's shown by the fact that you haven't identified any, just made airy accusations.

That is your belief but since they do not agree with either the Catholic or Orthodox Churches, they began somewhere other than the Apostles. Some you got from Calvin, some from Luther, or Knox, or Tyndale, etc...

You've really come up emptyhanded.

Nope.

 

[Yarddog]

Going to James is a typical ploy, and I won't be sidetracked by it.

You mean that you reject scripture? Huh, imagine that.

Is scripture wrong? Is James wrong? Or do you ignore what James says in order to hold onto your man made tradition?

 

[AHJE]

St Clement the bishop of Alexandria, who wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.”

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," you can say that again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

And ... what is your point?

A Saint, however holy he is, is not the Magisterium of the Church (the Teaching Authority of the Church) ... you are finding fault in one of the Saints in order to knock the value of reading the Early Church Fathers? Was this view which you present a unanimous belief among the Early Church Fathers?

God love you.