Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

Albion · Jul 7, 2014

catholichomeschooler said:
There is nothing novel about it.

Jesus promised that the Church would be led into ALL truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Clear enough?

Yes. Absolutely. And the Christian church is still going strong, isn't it?

BBAS 64 · Jul 7, 2014

catholichomeschooler said:
There is nothing novel about it.

Jesus promised that the Church would be led into ALL truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Clear enough?

That does not equate to the roman catholic denomination unless you buy into their own self proclamations...

WisdomTree · Jul 7, 2014

I am going under the assumption that the OP is being genuine and not going out of his/her way to attack Catholicism (don't know why one would assume it in the first place without actually asking). Flame wars has its charms, but I think everyone can agree that we do take religion very personally and seriously, as such rather not see it desecrated.

Now, I would love to provide nice scriptural evidence, but under the current circumstances, I do not have my nice Orthodox Study Bible handy, as such we will have to go with conjecture.

SwordoftheLord said:
Nuns

I'm really unfamiliar with monastic orders, but from what I have read or heard, these women are more or less following the footsteps of their heroes, the Saints, that are described during the times of the Apostles and their Disciples. Also, something about Saint Mary Magdalene comes to mind, but I have no idea exactly what.

SwordoftheLord said:
Purgatory

First off, we need to clarify that Purgatory is not nor ever was a third place for the after-life. There is no midway between God and the World, nor are there any second chance once you kick the bucket. Once we can agree to that, we're all good. Although it is depicted as a place, a lot of theologians would agree that Purgatory is not a place per se, but rather a state and process of a person going through purification. What it is exactly is anyone's guess. Although a doctrine, it is not exactly well defined and as such, most of it is up to speculation. In my opinion, the verse describing the purity of Heaven and the necessity of purification to gain entrance in Saint Paul's Letter to the Corinthians (I think it was his first) describes what we call Purgatory. It can be argued that he is speaking of our earthly struggle, but I must ask, why can't he be describing both?

SwordoftheLord said:
Assumption of Mary

This is an interesting dogma which I believe was defined ex cathedra by one of the Bishops of Rome. I had trouble with this myself, until I gained better understanding of what exactly it was. It is not too dissimilar to the Eastern Churches' Dormition of Theotokos which commemorates Saint Mary the Mother of God's "sleep" (uhm... death), though there are differences. In simple terms, the Western Church says that Saint Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven in one peace or something along those lines. Why would God do this? I don't know, because he can? In terms of scripture, the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI used the Revelation of Saint John about the Woman and the Dragon as a reference. Up to you to decide whether you accept it or not.

SwordoftheLord said:
Priests living in Celibacy

This also needs clarification. Clerical Celibacy is not a doctrine nor a dogma of the Catholic Church in that it is not something to do with morals or theology (though there are theological aspects). It is a discipline of the Latin Church. In the Catholic Church, there are five levels of authority: Deposit, Dogma, Doctrine, Discipline, and Devotion. The first three must be followed though on the first two are considered infallible. The fourth is dependent on the person (clergy vs laity) and the sui juris Church while the fifth is entirely optional. Although many Catholics will (and they should) bring up scriptural support for this practice, I myself prefer to use cultural context. In the Eastern Church, there are two groups of ordained clergies; monastic and secular. The former are what we would call theologians who lead the Church as whole while the latter are the guides for the community. As such, clerical celibacy only applies to the former, while the latter are expected to be married prior to ordination. In the Western Church, the cultural evolution resulted in an early merging of these two groups and as such there are no distinctions. In the Latin Church, clergies are expected to guide their community and lead the Church as the whole, as such due to this overlap, they simply do not have time to start up a family. There are some level of pragmaticism, but we should do what is practical so long as it does not compromise our faith.

Also, someone mentioned the Dark Age. First of, there was no such thing as a Dark Age. It was a shock to me too when I learnt of this. It was a term made up by a Renaissance Romaphile who despised all things post-Antiquity. Second, clerical celibacy really only came to force during the Renaissance, Priests and Bishops married left and right during the Middle Ages even after ordination and it was completely out of control, hence why Trent and subsequent council enforced all previous councils and canonised the discipline as official.

SwordoftheLord said:
Latin Mass in a English RC church (when looking at 1 Cor. 14:19)

I don't know what to say to this, but I'm just going to go with; I have yet to go to a Latin Mass, and I really want to.

SwordoftheLord said:
*Christmas (since I believe Dec. 25th is a Catholic invention, and it was originally outlawed in the USA)

It was a date that was convinient to celebrate a feast day and as such we associate the birth of our Lord on that day. We don't actually know the exact date of our Lord and it is probably on the other side of the Calendar, but that doesn't really matter since it is not about the exact time, but rather the message and the sentiment.

SwordoftheLord said:
Sprinking

I too prefer full dunking, but the power of the Sacraments are from God himself and as such little details ought not to matter too much (unless they are blatantly wrongly performed).

SwordoftheLord said:
Infant Baptism

Infant Baptism really only became a issue with the Radical Reformation (who rejected it), while the whole movement against it was condemned by the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli). But that is irrelevant since they're not Catholics (well, they considered themselves to be). We consider baptism to be necessary for salvation, because it is a physical sign of our salvation. Though a clueless child may be exempt from the Wrath of God during Judgement, we perform this Sacrament anyway as physical sign that this child will be brought upright and in the path of God. In terms of scripture, the Saints commanding the newly saved to be baptised including their entire households alludes to the fact that households includes minors. Other than that, you can read the book "Comparative Theology" by the late Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria (Oriental Orthodox, not Catholic).

SwordoftheLord said:
Venial and Mortal Sins

Pass!

Well, I hope I contributed positively to this thread and next time I'll try to be better. It's good to be back once in a while!

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

catholichomeschooler said:
Your comments made it clear that you didn't even know what the teaching regarding purgatory is.

You are like many lapsed Catholics who never learned the faith. It is a shame because it is probably not your fault.

It is your fault, however, when you misrepresent Church teaching today.

Do you realize your tude is not getting you anywhere? It is just exposing your weaknesses, just because you say I do not understand does not mean I do not understand. I'll be reading along, when you actually ready to be nice and really discuss these things, you let me know.

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

BBAS 64 said:
Good Day,

That is a very novel way of interpreting John 16:12, is that yours or your denominations??

If it is the later, would you have the source?

If it not the later (but your own private interpretation) you would have to agree you could be in error as you infallible interpreter of scripture has yet to weigh in on the passage.

In Him,
Bill

Quite frankly, all I have been noticing is emotional vomit. I think their is a fear of scripture truths.

I hope this gets serious soon.

Albion · Jul 7, 2014

SwordoftheLord said:
Here is my list:

Nuns

If a person wants to devote himself totally to spiritual matters, I don't see how that can be considered controversial.

Purgatory

Correct. Purgatory was devised in the Middle Ages and has only the sketchiest of Biblical backing, if that. And that refers to only the most basic concept of there being some transitional zone of existence in the afterlife. As for the definition of Purgatory, who goes there, what it's like, etc. there is zero in Scripture.

Assumption of Mary

Correct. There is nothing in Scripture that even remotely refers to this. The idea arose because one of the many alleged burial spots of the Virgin was found to be empty, so the imaginations of people ran wild. In time, it was made a doctrine of the RCC because it had been believed for so long.

Priests living in Celibacy

Again, that is a personal choice, so it's not forbidden by Scripture. If anything, celibacy is recommended by St. Paul, but it's a personal choice, so it should not be considered controversial IMO.

Latin Mass in a English RC church (when looking at 1 Cor. 14:19)

What's the issue?

*Christmas (since I believe Dec. 25th is a Catholic invention, and it was originally outlawed in the USA)

It's the celebration that was opposed, not the commemoration. The choice of dates is arbitrary, but there was an ancient legend that Christ was executed on the anniversary of his conception, so that idea recommended late December.

Sprinking

Neither forbidden nor commanded in Scripture.

Infant Baptism

Most likely was done from an early time. The Bible itself suggests that baptizing small children is to be considered normal.

Venial and Mortal Sins

While the Bible speaks of greater and lesser sins, this classification system is an invention of the church.

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

yogosans14 said:
People still dont understand the Biblical definition of Church I see..what a shame.

You got that right!

ebia · Jul 7, 2014

Foghorn said:
I know what purgatory is.

Then why imply something about it that you knew wasn't catholic teaching?

And why do so again:

...a place ...

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

Albion said:
While the Bible speaks of greater and lesser sins, this classification system is an invention of the church.

Amen to that!

There are two kinds of sins in the bible. Those that can be forgiven and one which cannot be forgiven. IMO rejecting Christ, there is no forgiveness.

I don't see any other teaching for any other type of sin, so it is an invention of the RCC, and just an old fable.

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

ebia said:
Then why imply something about it that you knew wasn't catholic teaching?

And why do so again:

It's a RC, not a catholic teaching. Origen was the one who introduced it, look up his timeline. Before him it was just a pagan Greek practice. If you cannot accept historical facts, that's not my fault. It is what it is.

ebia · Jul 7, 2014

Foghorn said:
It's a RC, not a catholic teaching.

I used "catholic" to mean roman catholic.

Origen was the one who introduced it, look up his timeline. Before him it was just a pagan Greek practice. If you cannot accept historical facts, that's not my fault. It is what it is.

Evading the point again. Twice you've made mistakes about what the doctine says, and then evaded admitting to it.

WisdomTree · Jul 7, 2014

Foghorn said:
Amen to that!

There are two kinds of sins in the bible. Those that can be forgiven and one which cannot be forgiven. IMO rejecting Christ, there is no forgiveness.

I don't see any other teaching for any other type of sin, so it is an invention of the RCC, and just an old fable.

I thought it was rejection of the Holy Ghost being unforgivable?

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

ebia said:
I used "catholic" to mean roman catholic.

Evading the point again. Twice you've made mistakes about what the doctine says, and then evaded admitting to it.

I'm avoiding nothing, IMO your in denial.

WisdomTree · Jul 7, 2014

I have no idea what's going on this thread anymore...

ebia · Jul 7, 2014

Foghorn said:
I'm avoiding nothing, IMO your in denial.

You've made two mistakes, haven't you?

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

WisdomTree said:
I thought it was rejection of the Holy Ghost being unforgivable?

Yes, why would you think different?

What did Jesus say the Holy Ghost would do? Lead us into all truth, convicting the world of sin, leading us to Christ. Do you get the picture?

If your hearing the gospel of Jesus Christ and the convictions by the Spirit, who are you rejecting? If you reject it.

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

WisdomTree said:
I have no idea what's going on this thread anymore...

Well we have some claiming certain doctrines with no proof, I'm giving some historical proof against certain doctrines and am being told I don't understand a doctrine. Makes sense huh? I haven't even got to scripture yet.Once one sees the history and how it unfolds, there is a lot of truth there. Of couse scripture destroys false doctrines. If they cant get through historical facts, they never make it through scripture.

It's obvious there is no defense of these doctrines or it would be discussed. But what we have is just emotional vomit and denial.

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

ebia said:
You've made two mistakes, haven't you?

the mistake I made thus far is, thinking we would have a good thorough discussion. I don't see any others yet.

SwordoftheLord · Jul 7, 2014

catholichomeschooler said:
What we have here is a difference of intepretation.

Your interpretation is modernist, created after the enlightenment.

Your view is not part of historical Christianity.-This here is not truth, but your belief, which is unproven. Your basing that on your church being right, which I dont believe it is. If your church teaches that way, then they dont understand context, and have awful exegesis. You always mention historical Christianity, but never prove it to be that way.

Do you even know what Purgatory is? It appears you don't.

From the Cathechism:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.

See above

Foghorn · Jul 7, 2014

SwordoftheLord said:
See above

I was expecting better.

Good grief!

Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

Facilitator

Contributor

Philosopher

Saved by grace

Saved by grace

Facilitator

Saved by grace

Senior Contributor

Saved by grace

Saved by grace

Senior Contributor

Philosopher

Saved by grace

Philosopher

Senior Contributor

Saved by grace

Saved by grace

Saved by grace

Defender of the Faith

Saved by grace

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency