Catholics are so sure they are right and I'm questioning now

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I'm not negative against doctrine. I was just pointing out that doctrine is the application of reason to scripture. Doctrine and revelation are different things, which is why they are different words.

What translation is that? I don't know of any translations that go that way.

Same word, but odd translation.

NKJV

G1322 διδαχή didache (did-akh-ay') n.

1. instruction (the act or the matter)
[from G1321]
KJV: doctrine, hath been taught
Root(s): G1321

G1321 διδάσκω didasko (did-as'-ko) v.
1. to teach
{in the same broad application as dao "to learn"}
[a prolonged, causative form of a primary verb dao "to learn"]
KJV: teach
Compare: G3100, G3129

Where in this definition of doctrine defined as "the application of reason to scripture"? The definition you provided could be part of the definition for interpretation.

Other translations such as the ASV translate the same word as "teaching", which is what doctrine is.

 

[AMR]

If the Catholic Church teaches that Scripture and Holy Tradition are equal in authority, then how can you say scripture isn't the highest authority?

These are other comments are outside the bounds for this forum.

The rules of the Confessional, Covenantal, Creedal - Presbyterian forum are described here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7423440/

See also moderator reminder here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7743708/#post63090623

This forum is not for advocating or debating views contrary to the confessional standards of Presbyterianism. If you want to debate specific matters of doctrine there are several theological CF forums for this. But this paticular forum is not one. Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[stray bullet]

NKJV

G1322 διδαχή didache (did-akh-ay') n.

1. instruction (the act or the matter)
[from G1321]
KJV: doctrine, hath been taught
Root(s): G1321

G1321 διδάσκω didasko (did-as'-ko) v.
1. to teach
{in the same broad application as dao "to learn"}
[a prolonged, causative form of a primary verb dao "to learn"]
KJV: teach
Compare: G3100, G3129

Where in this definition of doctrine defined as "the application of reason to scripture"? The definition you provided could be part of the definition for interpretation.

Other translations such as the ASV translate the same word as "teaching", which is what doctrine is.

Thanks! I didn't check with the NKJV

As you point out- the problem is that didache can be translated into several different things in the English language. The book, "the didache' is certainly not a book of doctrine necessarily. Those different words can really change the meaning. I was curious who translated it that way.

Wiki notes that doctrine, when defines religiously, refers to concepts like the Trinity:
Examples of religious doctrines include:

• Christian Trinity and Virgin birth
• Christian Original Sin and its cure, the Redemption of Jesus Christ
• Roman Catholic Transubstantiation and Immaculate Conception
• Calvinist predestination
• Methodist Prevenient Grace

How do you define doctrine?

 

[stray bullet]

Here it is from a copy on EWTN:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

Here's AMR's quote: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…let him be anathema"

I think it's a legitimate ellipsis.

Hrm - As far as I am aware, you need to use "[...]" to indicate that you are changing the quote- and that what you leave out can't change the meaning. When the cut out middle part defines more specifically the first part, you shouldn't remove it, as far as I have ever heard. Do you know of any academic institutions that would allow this?

 

[hedrick]

enough. To decide whether the abbreviation is misleading requires looking at all the implications. This is not the thread or the forum to debate justification with you.

 

[stray bullet]

enough. To decide whether the abbreviation is misleading requires looking at all the implications. This is not the thread or the forum to debate justification with you.

Hmm... why do you call that an abbreviation versus a truncation?

In what way do you consider proper citation and quotation a debate on justification?

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

You would be in error unless you are confining your statement to some odd local parish that you attended. Even then, such a parish would be anathematized quite rapidly given the clear teachings of Trent. “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone…let him be anathema” (Canons of Trent, 43). Scripture, however, clearly teaches that God justifies ungodly sinners by faith alone, completely apart from works. The full gospel of Christ is not preached in Roman Catholicism dogma. If it were, then why the Reformation? If it were, then all Protestants are schismatics. Your post simply does not pass the test of history and the written testimony of Roman Catholic dogmatic documents.

Just to clarify some misunderstandings, The Catholic church teaches that justification is by Grace, And faith is resultant from that Grace.
Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

II. Grace
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.46

The Grace is efectively given by God Through the Sacraments which God instituted.

About Trent quote, they are right because they are teaching what The Bible clearly States:

James, 2, 24

{2:24} Do you see that a man is justified by means of​

works, and not by faith alone?

 

[AMR]

Just to clarify some misunderstandings,

We are not confused about the soteriological aspects of Roman Catholicism. You are posting in a protected forum where debate over our views is not permitted. Please do not attempt to debate Roman Catholicism in this Presbyterian forum.

If you want to discuss these sort of topics I recommend you post in one of the general theological forums.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

We are not confused about the soteriological aspects of Roman Catholicism. You are posting in a protected forum where debate over our views is not permitted. Please do not attempt to debate Roman Catholicism in this Presbyterian forum.

If you want to discuss these sort of topics I recommend you post in one of the general theological forums.

Not debating, just clarifying. Thank you for answering.

 

[Gnarwhal]

We are not confused about the soteriological aspects of Roman Catholicism. You are posting in a protected forum where debate over our views is not permitted. Please do not attempt to debate Roman Catholicism in this Presbyterian forum.

If you want to discuss these sort of topics I recommend you post in one of the general theological forums.

As an impartial guest, I have to say that he didn't seem to be debating your (Presbyterian) theology, but simply defending his own (Catholic) theology. It's not really a fair fight if one side isn't even allowed to represent their side of it, now is it?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As an impartial guest, I have to say that he didn't seem to be debating your (Presbyterian) theology, but simply defending his own (Catholic) theology. It's not really a fair fight if one side isn't even allowed to represent their side of it, now is it?

AMR's whole point is that this section of the forum is not intended for debate between Presbyterians and _______________ (insert belief). It is fine for non-Presbyterians to ask questions, but not fine to debate or promote contrary views which leads to debate, also called baiting. There are other areas, and more than one where debate is fine. All we are asking for is respect for the rules, plain and simple.

 

[maryofoxford]

Greetings everyone. I hope you have all had a blessed Sunday. I am posting as a former Catholic who is feeling like returning to the church but has many hesitations.

If you would be so kind as to read and share your opinion please do. Here is a bit of background:

- I am 26 years old, happily married to a husband who was born into the Anglican faith but who was not raise in any kind of Christian way -- despite this he has always supported my faith and will accompany me to church, and I do believe he is on the right track to knowing and loving God
- I have a beautiful baby girl who is almost two who was baptised this past April in the Presbyterian church we have been attending for two years now
- my husband and I were married by a non denominational Christian minister at a country club
- I was raised catholic and was baptised, had the first communion, confession and cofirmation.
- in high school I made friends with girls who were Mennonite Brethren and attended some of their services. It was my first time in an evangelical church and while I felt the lack of liturgy sorely, it was a passion for God I had not seen before
- I shopped around for a church for awhile, trying Anglican, Lutheran and united before attending the Presbyterian church and bringing my family
- the Presbyterian church has been so loving and welcoming to us and I really love it, but lately I have been remembering the Catholic Church
- I picked up the book Why Catholics are right from the library after thinking of reading it for months now

I guess I feel like I still kind of belong to the Catholic Church -- for example I have some friends that are fundamentalist christians and even though I no longer attend mass I still feel offended when someone criticizes the Catholic Church, as I would feel offended if someone talked bad about my sister even if I was in a fight with her at the time

The thing is its not just my soul here it's that of my husband and baby, I want to follow the true path of Christ. A lot of what I'm reading in the library book goes a long way to explaining and making sense of what I didn't understand about th Catholic Church, but one doubt that keeps nagging me is the many Protestants who say the pope is of the devil and the bible where it says you will know them by their works, since the church has had such bad things in t lately
I miss the church, the liturgy and tradition but how can I be sure it is true way of Christ?
Mostly I worry of my baby -- will she be ok with a Protestant baptism or will she go to a bad place if something God forbid happened to her
What other books do you reccomebd I read
Most Catholics I know like my sister do not follow the church I e live in sim take birth control no confession but they insist the church is right so why they not follow it?
I don't want to make mistake of coming back if it is wrong but I do not mean to offend anyone here please advice. Are there more books for me?

Dear Sevenwatersdaughter: I've read with interest your post, and ALL of the responses. I am curious regarding one thing. You've stated that you have lately been thinking of going back to the Catholic Faith since that is the faith of your childhood and there seems to be a part of you that misses it.

You also seem to be concerned regarding the Baptism of your daughter.

I respect the Presbyterian faith and don't wish to argue beliefs here since this site is for Presbyterians and I am only a guest here. My question then is based on my confusion. What would you expect the response to be on this particular site? You will only here one side of the two things you seem torn between? If you wish to hear from both Presbyterians and Catholics, plus other faiths, I'd suggest that you take this question to the Theological forums in order to give both faiths a chance to weigh in.

I can tell you as a Catholic woman that has graduated from a Catholic Seminary recently and am very interested in finding out the EXACT truth regarding my faith and what it professes, that the Catholic Church honors all baptisms that are done with the form from the Bible. It is simply to baptize with "living water" (meaning the water needs to move. Pouring or sprinkling on the forehead is sufficient) and to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost).

I have read the Presbyterian's statements on what the Catholic Church believes and I can tell you that they are misinformed or confused. For what they say we believe, we do not. (EWTN is not the authority for the Catholic Church). Many Catholics were poorly Catechized during the late 60's thru the 80's, and even the priests during that time were poorly trained in the U.S. This has since been reigned in significantly.

If your Presbyterian's will permit me to make a suggestion. I would suggest that you take this issue directly to God! Anytime you are confused on anything regarding your life, you should go to prayer. The Lord knows that you desire to do God's will and if you have a sincere heart in this matter, He will direct your path through the Holy Spirit. Recall to "Seek and you will find", Ask and it will be given you." "Knock and it Shall be opened unto you." (forgive me if the order is mixed up on this quote, I didn't stop to look it up because it's very very late and the sun is almost up.)

As far as books to read. If you wish to know what the Catholic faith truly believes you could read the Catechism of the Catholic Faith. There are many copies some easier to read then others. This is the book that contains the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I would also suggest that you take some time to read, The Faith of the Early Fathers by Jurgens (editor), it has quotes by the early Christians from around 80 AD through the 300's AD. This will let you know exactly how the first Christians worshiped.

I would only like to clarify one misconception that seems very commonly misunderstood regarding the Catholic Church. When we say that we believe in following the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition equally; the Tradition that we follow isn't traditions of men (with a small "t") it is the Traditions (with a capital "T") that was spoken of in the Bible. For example, when Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." The Traditions that we follow along with the Sacred Scriptures are the things that the apostles taught and did, up until the death of the last apostle John (c. 90 AD). After his death then Sacred Tradition stopped and no more could be added to it. Since everything that Jesus taught could not be included in "all the books..." and much of what the apostles were preaching had not yet been written down and gathered into the Bible, we needed to also follow what they were doing by word or deed. That's all that means. Certainly many Catholics of the 1.2 Billion disobey the teachings of the faith (including some priests & even some Bishops), but "The abuse of a good, doesn't diminish the good of a good." There will always be sinners in various faiths (even one of Jesus' 12 apostles betrayed him.) But that doesn't make the belief wrong.

My hope is that one day all of God's Children will gather under one faith, so that Christ's pray that we "all be one, as "he" and the father are one." can be realized. Let us love one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. Let us ALL search for Truth, for Jesus is the Truth. I would love to read what the Presbyterian faith believes in order to understand my brethren better. I hope that they would honor my faith by doing the same.

To GOD BE THE GLORY, NOW AND FOREVER! Amen. Pray for Peace.

 

[AMR]

AMR's whole point is that this section of the forum is not intended for debate between Presbyterians and _______________ (insert belief). It is fine for non-Presbyterians to ask questions, but not fine to debate or promote contrary views which leads to debate, also called baiting. There are other areas, and more than one where debate is fine. All we are asking for is respect for the rules, plain and simple.

Exactly so.

AMR

 

[Gnarwhal]

AMR's whole point is that this section of the forum is not intended for debate between Presbyterians and _______________ (insert belief). It is fine for non-Presbyterians to ask questions, but not fine to debate or promote contrary views which leads to debate, also called baiting. There are other areas, and more than one where debate is fine. All we are asking for is respect for the rules, plain and simple.

Here's the thing though: I'd bet good money that Alonso_Castillo wasn't sticking around to engage in a debate. I'd wager he merely saw that his faith wasn't being accurately represented, made a couple corrections regarding Catholicism and that was that.

Debating would suggests that he came in here to talk you out of Presbyterianism and into Catholicism.

Now, I'm not here to debate either, I respect the Presbyterian Church and am actually planning to go to the PCUSA church with my parents tomorrow. That said, I do think it's a bit unfair and cowardly to use the Congregational Rules as protection to say whatever you want about something outside the bounds of your specific tradition. It's one thing for an outsider to instigate a debate and belittle your tradition, but it's another thing to fly off the handle at immediately play the forum rules card when someone tries to stick up for their tradition when they feel like it's not being represented correctly.

That's a bit like a child hiding behind their parents while they shout insults at one of their peers.

 

[AMR]

Here's the thing though: I'd bet good money that Alonso_Castillo wasn't sticking around to engage in a debate. I'd wager he merely saw that his faith wasn't being accurately represented, made a couple corrections regarding Catholicism and that was that.

Debating would suggests that he came in here to talk you out of Presbyterianism and into Catholicism.

Now, I'm not here to debate either, I respect the Presbyterian Church and am actually planning to go to the PCUSA church with my parents tomorrow. That said, I do think it's a bit unfair and cowardly to use the Congregational Rules as protection to say whatever you want about something outside the bounds of your specific tradition. It's one thing for an outsider to instigate a debate and belittle your tradition, but it's another thing to fly off the handle at immediately play the forum rules card when someone tries to stick up for their tradition when they feel like it's not being represented correctly.

That's a bit like a child hiding behind their parents while they shout insults at one of their peers.

It took quite a bit of time to get this forum established as a safe haven for like minded persons. How we comport ourselves is not for debate or scrutiny by others as long as we are within the rules established for this forum.

No one is flying off the handle. Please do not impute motives to me or anyone else that you cannot possibly know. It is insulting and a rule violation to imply members of this forum, including myself, are cowards and ill-tempered. You have had your say, now I kindly ask that you respect the rules of this forum.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

Presbyterians believe Roman Catholics are wrong on most things.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Presbyterians believe Roman Catholics are wrong on most things.

Even on the odd occasion that they are right?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Just to clarify some misunderstandings, The Catholic church teaches that justification is by Grace, And faith is resultant from that Grace.

The Grace is efectively given by God Through the Sacraments which God instituted.

In response, I recommend the following to readers:

Monergism search results: Catholic

Articles by William Webster on Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic Salvation and Justification

"There are similar statements made by the Bishops of Rome in their decrees on Mary, as well as numerous anathemas which have accompanied the doctrinal promulgations of Trent and Vatican I on the sacraments and the papacy on papal rule and infallibility. According to Rome, all these dogmas must be believed and embraced for salvation. But where are these teachings found in scripture? Where are we told that it is necessary to believe in the assumption of Mary or papal infallibility in order to experience salvation? Such teachings not only are absent from scripture, but from the teaching of the Church historically. Not one of these doctrines was taught in the early Church.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, the concept of saving faith is far removed from the biblical teaching of commitment to and simple trust in Christ alone for salvation. The Roman Catholic Church has distorted the gospel of grace. It has fallen into the same Galatian error of legalism (a sacerdotal/sacramental/works salvation) addressed by Paul in his letter to the Galatian Churches. In that letter Paul dealt with the heresy of the Judaizers, who attempted to add the Jewish ceremonial law to faith in Christ as a basis for salvation. Temple worship and the ceremonial law included circumcision, an altar, daily sacrifices, a laver of water, priests, a high priest, special priestly and high priestly vestments and robes, candles, incense and shewbread. In the routine religious life of the average Jew there were feast days, prayers, fasts, adherence to the tradition of the elders and certain dietary restrictions. All of these things were included in the Judaizers’ teaching on salvation. So it was Jesus plus the Jewish system. How does this relate to Roman Catholicism? The doctrines of salvation embraced by Rome are, in principle, identical to the Judaizers. The Roman Church teaches that salvation is achieved by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for sin, by being baptized, by being a part of the Roman Catholic Church, by striving to keep the Ten Commandments and partaking of the sacramental system (which involves ongoing sacrifices, altars, priests, a high priest, along with the exercises of prayers, fasts, almsgiving, penances and until recently adherence to certain dietary regulations).

The Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is essentially the same as that preached by the Judaizers. Paul warned the Galatian believers that if they embraced this false gospel they would actually desert Christ (Gal. 1:6). Those evangelicals who would promote spiritual cohabitation with the Church of Rome need to heed to the warning of Paul. He saw no basis for unity with the Judaizers even though they professed faith in Christ. Likewise, there is no basis for unity with the Church of Rome today. If evangelicals jettison the Reformation gospel distinctives for so called unity with Rome they will deny Christ." - William Webster a former Catholic

 

[maryofoxford]

In response, I recommend the following to readers:

Monergism search results: Catholic

Articles by William Webster on Roman Catholicism

Roman Catholic Salvation and Justification

"There are similar statements made by the Bishops of Rome in their decrees on Mary, as well as numerous anathemas which have accompanied the doctrinal promulgations of Trent and Vatican I on the sacraments and the papacy on papal rule and infallibility. According to Rome, all these dogmas must be believed and embraced for salvation. But where are these teachings found in scripture? Where are we told that it is necessary to believe in the assumption of Mary or papal infallibility in order to experience salvation? Such teachings not only are absent from scripture, but from the teaching of the Church historically. Not one of these doctrines was taught in the early Church.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, the concept of saving faith is far removed from the biblical teaching of commitment to and simple trust in Christ alone for salvation. The Roman Catholic Church has distorted the gospel of grace. It has fallen into the same Galatian error of legalism (a sacerdotal/sacramental/works salvation) addressed by Paul in his letter to the Galatian Churches. In that letter Paul dealt with the heresy of the Judaizers, who attempted to add the Jewish ceremonial law to faith in Christ as a basis for salvation. Temple worship and the ceremonial law included circumcision, an altar, daily sacrifices, a laver of water, priests, a high priest, special priestly and high priestly vestments and robes, candles, incense and shewbread. In the routine religious life of the average Jew there were feast days, prayers, fasts, adherence to the tradition of the elders and certain dietary restrictions. All of these things were included in the Judaizers’ teaching on salvation. So it was Jesus plus the Jewish system. How does this relate to Roman Catholicism? The doctrines of salvation embraced by Rome are, in principle, identical to the Judaizers. The Roman Church teaches that salvation is achieved by believing that Jesus is the Son of God who died for sin, by being baptized, by being a part of the Roman Catholic Church, by striving to keep the Ten Commandments and partaking of the sacramental system (which involves ongoing sacrifices, altars, priests, a high priest, along with the exercises of prayers, fasts, almsgiving, penances and until recently adherence to certain dietary regulations).

The Roman Catholic teaching on salvation is essentially the same as that preached by the Judaizers. Paul warned the Galatian believers that if they embraced this false gospel they would actually desert Christ (Gal. 1:6). Those evangelicals who would promote spiritual cohabitation with the Church of Rome need to heed to the warning of Paul. He saw no basis for unity with the Judaizers even though they professed faith in Christ. Likewise, there is no basis for unity with the Church of Rome today. If evangelicals jettison the Reformation gospel distinctives for so called unity with Rome they will deny Christ." - William Webster a former Catholic

Now this is very interesting...the forum rules state that on the individual denomination sites we are not allowed to debate (and I don't intend to); however there is also a forum rule (to my understanding) that no one is to claim that any other faith, that believes in the Creed as posted on this web site, is non-Christian. This is exactly what you've insinuated here. Now, I'd love to defend my faith, I'd LOVE to point out that everything that you've just written here is either a complete misunderstanding of what the Catholic faith believes, or is out and out false and breaks the commandment of Falsely accusing thy neighbor, but according to the good Christian pastor on this thread, I'm not allowed to.

I ask you all as Christians, who are suppose to follow LOVE for thy neighbor, and seek to "All become one, as (Christ) and the Father are one." What do you think is the loving and truly Christian thing to do in this case?

"Master, what is the greatest commandment?" Jesus answered...

Have we forgotten?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Now this is very interesting...the forum rules state that on the individual denomination sites we are not allowed to debate (and I don't intend to); however there is also a forum rule (to my understanding) that no one is to claim that any other faith, that believes in the Creed as posted on this web site, is non-Christian. This is exactly what you've insinuated here.

No, it's not what I've insinuated personally. I posted a quote which comes from an honest, trustworthy, well-informed source. In fact if you had read the quote, you would have read:

"Such teachings not only are absent from scripture, but from the teaching of the Church historically. Not one of these doctrines was taught in the early Church."

Obviously the writer is not calling "the early Church" non-Christian. What you suggest is a distorted view of the writer.

Now, I'd love to defend my faith, I'd LOVE to point out that everything that you've just written here is either a complete misunderstanding of what the Catholic faith believes, or is out and out false and breaks the commandment of Falsely accusing thy neighbor, but according to the good Christian pastor on this thread, I'm not allowed to.

I did not write it, it is a quote, and of course you claim it is a misunderstanding, that is a technique used to try to discredit. But anyone seeking the truth of the matters, should easily be able to research these things. The articles by William Webster are extensive and well researched. He is a former Catholic, and to claim he misunderstands, one only needs to read for themselves to see Webster knows what he is writing about.

I ask you all as Christians, who are suppose to follow LOVE for thy neighbor, and seek to "All become one, as (Christ) and the Father are one." What do you think is the loving and truly Christian thing to do in this case?

"Master, what is the greatest commandment?" Jesus answered...

Have we forgotten?

You have no authority in this section of the forum, do not act as though you do under a false guise of love.