Protestant Doctrine

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Here's the trouble with Catholic doctrine:

Roman Catholic scholars such as Professor Fitzmyer have been given the freedom to explore what Scripture teaches. They discover themselves looking over their shoulders at the Roman Catholic traditionalists who do not hide their anxiety that such open distancing between Scripture and Tradition will be the downfall of the Church. Consequently their characteristic refrain is that the difference between the content of Scripture and the content of the Tradition does not involve contradiction but only development. What becomes clearer than ever, however, is that the pririciple of sola Scriptura remains a watershed. As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines which are simply not found in the Scriptures. In this sense Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the Church.
But we must go further. There are important teachings in the Tradition which are not only additional to, but different from and contradictory to, the teaching of Sacred Scripture. These include the very doctrines which were the centerpiece of the Reformation struggle: the nature of justification; the importance of the principle of sola fide; the number of the sacraments; the sufficiency of the work of Christ, the effect of baptism, the presence of Christ at the Supper, the priesthood of all believers, the celibacy of the priesthood, the character and role of Mary, and much else. The more that Scripture is exegeted on its own terms the more it will become clear that in these areas Sacred Tradition does not merely add to Sacred Scripture, it contradicts it. And if it does, can it any longer be "sacred"?
A major development has taken place, then, in Roman Catholic interpretation of Scripture. For this we may be grateful. We should not grudgingly minimize the rediscovery of the Bible. Indeed it might help us greatly if we recalled more often than we do that responsibility for the confusion in Rome's understanding of justification rests partly on the shoulders of the great Augustine himself whom we often claim with Calvin as "wholly ours." Having said this, however, it is now clearer than ever (pace Geiselmann) that the Roman Catholic Church cannot and will not subscribe to sola Scriptura. It must deny the sole sufficiency of the Bible. And, as the Reformers recognized, so long as Rome appeals to two sources, or even tributaries, of revelation, the contents of Scripture and the substance of its own Tradition, it is inevitable that it will also withstand the message of Scripture and of the Reformation: sola gratia, solo Christo, sola fide.http://mbrem.com/bible/traditn.htm

You have no understanding of Catholic doctrine, but this is only because you have not studied it. It is not too late; you can still learn.

 

[cathmomof3]

Why don't you share some!
Did you read the whole article? It mentions someone by the name of Ratzinger. That name sounds familiar to me.

I'm not seeing your point...This writer said that scripture would be the downfall of the Catholic Church...HE mentioned Ratzinger....

Try reading anything by Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid (those are the two I can think of off the top of my head)

 

[Redwolf]

Are you suggesting that Catholics do not STUDY the Bible on their own?? That is completely and utterly incorrect.

I would never do that. But, you do study with an aid, don't you? Is it called catechism?

 

[Redwolf]

I'm not seeing your point...This writer said that scripture would be the downfall of the Catholic Church...HE mentioned Ratzinger....

Try reading anything by Scott Hahn or Patrick Madrid (those are the two I can think of off the top of my head)

So, one Catholic scholar, or two, that you approve, is better than any other Catholic scholar?
It's a little out of my understanding. You are either all there, or not there at all.

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

So? I'm not agreeing to your premise but should we hold it against the Catholic church if their doctrine stems from a divergence with Jewish Rabbinical doctrine (according to them)? That the Catholic church can be traced historically to some Jewish doctrine they decided they disagreed with -- which becomes the moment of their establishment?

The difference is, no mere mortal broke from Jewish Rabbinical doctrine; it was Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God Himself who established his Church on Earth. He did not abolish the law, but fulfilled it.

 

[cathmomof3]

I would never do that. But, you do study with an aid, don't you? Is it called catechism?

Actually, when I study the Bible, I do not study with the Catechism....I don't need to

 

[ksen]

The only way any of you will have a good understanding of Catholic beliefs is by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The writings of scholars are second-hand accounts which, when read out of context and with a specific purpose in mind, will yeild varying conclusions.

Tell me why I should read the Catechism when I've been told a number of times:

1.) It isn't, when it comes down to it, authoritative, and

2.) That I can't understand it?

What profit is it to read a document that when quoted by people who were taught it for 20. 30, or 40 years and have left the Catholic church are told they don't know what it means?

If someone doesn't understand it after almost 40 years of being instructed in it then something is either wrong with the document, the teacher, or the hearer and I've seen this charge slung at too many former Catholics to believe it was the hearer.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I would never do that. But, you do study with an aid, don't you? Is it called catechism?

Some of MY thoughts here...


1. My Catholic priest never taught that Scriture is infallible, he often insisted that the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church is infallible.


2. My Catholic priest said, "The (Catholic) Church is essential because it's the Church that tells us what the bible says." Brigham Young put this principle this way, "The (LDS) Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


Pax.


- Josiah



.

 

[cathmomof3]

So, one Catholic scholar, or two, that you approve, is better than any other Catholic scholar?
It's a little out of my understanding. You are either all there, or not there at all.

I am just telling you that the majority of Catholic scholars have found scripture to support Catholic beliefs. You showed one that did not and I am sure that he has his own agenda. There are thousands out there that do. Maybe you should try reading the ones I mentioned with an open mind and see what conclusion you come up with. Until then, I really don't see the point in discussing this any farther. You already have your preconceived notion about what YOU THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[cathmomof3]

Tell me why I should read the Catechism when I've been told a number of times:

1.) It isn't, when it comes down to it, authoritative, and

2.) That I can't understand it?

What profit is it to read a document that when quoted by people who were taught it for 20. 30, or 40 years and have left the Catholic church are told they don't know what it means?

If someone doesn't understand it after almost 40 years of being instructed in it then something is either wrong with the document, the teacher, or the hearer and I've seen this charge slung at too many former Catholics to believe it was the hearer.

Well, you sort of answered your own question...They left because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IE, THEY DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES. I have read the entire thing and it is not hard to read. And yes, it is authoritive - It is a statement of what the Catholic Church believes.

 

[cathmomof3]

Some of MY thoughts here...


1. My Catholic priest never taught that Scriture is infallible, he often insisted that the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church is infallible.


2. My Catholic priest said, "The (Catholic) Church is essential because it's the Church that tells us what the bible says." Brigham Young put this principle this way, "The (LDS) Church doesn't need the bible, the bible needs the Church."


Pax.


- Josiah



.

Well, your priest was wrong, or MORE LIKELY MISUNDERSTOOD. Of course the Catholic Church believes the Bible to be infallible!

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

Tell me why I should read the Catechism when I've been told a number of times:

1.) It isn't, when it comes down to it, authoritative, and

2.) That I can't understand it?

What profit is it to read a document that when quoted by people who were taught it for 20. 30, or 40 years and have left the Catholic church are told they don't know what it means?

If someone doesn't understand it after almost 40 years of being instructed in it then something is either wrong with the document, the teacher, or the hearer and I've seen this charge slung at too many former Catholics to believe it was the hearer.

I would ask you in return: why listen to what you have been told without investigating for yourself? Do you, as a Protestant, only listen to what others say about the Bible, or do you read it?

The Catechism is easy to understand. It is authoritative. It is not difficult to flip through, using the index of topics to satisfy your curiosity about whatever is on your mind at a given moment. It is also not a magical tome of doom that will convert Protestants to Catholicism against their will. The only reason I ever recommend non-Catholics to read from the Catechism is to better equip them in their own rational arguments. What profit is there to one who argues without knowing what it is he is arguing with?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I am just telling you that the majority of Catholic scholars have found scripture to support Catholic beliefs.

1. According to the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church, it is IMPOSSIBLE for Scriptures to teach at varience with the teachings of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination. According to that faith community, the Bible says what it says it says, only that denomination has the Authority to say what it says and whatever it says it says, it says - even if such is found nowhere, it's "there" because the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination has said so, and the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination is infallible. No support is needed to support this because the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church is accountable only to God as the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church alone determines.


2. Friend, a Catholic scholar, especially if ordained, who teaches that an official doctrine of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination is "unscriptural" will be dealt with severly by the Church. While such are no longer burned at the stake, the Church does not take kindly to such and if not repentant, he will likely be looking for a job. As you well know, priests take a vow to uphold whatever the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church teaches - period, unconditionally. It's therefore not shocking to this Protestant that Catholic priests uphold the teachings of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church - period, unconditionally. He may come to one conclusion based on his study of Scripture but while it's unclear is the written Word of God is infallible, the words of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church are infallible.



Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[ksen]

Are you suggesting that Catholics do not STUDY the Bible on their own?? That is completely and utterly incorrect.

Why study something you don't have the authority to say what it means? Wouldn't it be more profitable for you as a Catholic to spend more time in writings that contain definitive interpretations of the Scripture?

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

It is IMPOSSIBLE for Scriptures to teach at varience with the teachings of the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination. According to that faith community, the Bible says what it says it says, only that denomination has the Authority to say what it says and whatever it says it says, it says - even if such is found nowhere, it's "there" because the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination has said so, and the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic denomination is infallible. No support is needed to support this because the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church is accountable only to God as the (Latin) Roman (Rite) Catholic Church alone determines.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Jesus never meant for there to be denominations. He established His Church on Earth. Paul said we were to be of one accord. There were no denominations until someone decided to disagree with the established Church.

 

[ksen]

You have no understanding of Catholic doctrine, but this is only because you have not studied it. It is not too late; you can still learn.

You mean Professor Fitzmeyer has no understanding of Catholic doctrine? Are you sure about that?

 

[Look Homeward Anglican]

You mean Professor Fitzmeyer has no understanding of Catholic doctrine? Are you sure about that?

I was speaking to the poster of Fitzmeyer's article excerpt, not to Fitzmeyer.

 

[ksen]

I am just telling you that the majority of Catholic scholars have found scripture to support Catholic beliefs. You showed one that did not and I am sure that he has his own agenda. There are thousands out there that do. Maybe you should try reading the ones I mentioned with an open mind and see what conclusion you come up with. Until then, I really don't see the point in discussing this any farther. You already have your preconceived notion about what YOU THINK the Catholic Church teaches.

Sort of like your preconceived notions of the Protestants that you refuse to give up?

 

[Redwolf]

You mean Professor Fitzmeyer has no understanding of Catholic doctrine? Are you sure about that?

Yes he is. The fact that Fitzmyer is a NOTED Catholic scholar, has nothing to do with anything.

 

[HisKid1973]

Jesus never meant for there to be denominations. He established His Church on Earth. Paul said we were to be of one accord. There were no denominations until someone decided to disagree with the established Church.

The "church" establised in the book of Acts was "catholic" but not "Roman Catholic" there is a big difference there..pax..Kim
The met in houses, they didn't wear special garments and hats or have a book of rules telling the believers how what Paul or Luke said should be interpreted..They were things all added later by men..