The Catholic Church

[Paulie079]

Infallible does not mean sinless, it means free from error, and our view of the Papacy does not mean that every utterance is free from error, but only very specific cases, in the history of the Catholic Church, there have only been a handful of things counted as infallible, the Ecumenical Councils and a few authoritative statements by Popes.

you said that no one but Christ is infallible, lets use define it really quickly "protected by God from error"
so if no man has ever been infallible, then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (and all the other people who wrote the Bible) may have written things that are wrong?
I do not think this, but I am not the one saying that infallibility is impossible.

the basic idea is the same, God protects His Church. the idea is that God would not let the Gospel writer say something untrue, and as a Catholic, I do not believe God would allow the Church to teach error.

I don't believe that the Gospel writers were infallible, but that Scripture, as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, is infallible.

The idea that God would not allow the Church to teach error is so dangerous. It seems to like the door wide open to naively accepting whatever the priest says. Does this mean that you have never heard anything erroneous taught within your Catholic church? Because I have heard things said in sermons that I disagreed with in just about every church I've regularly attended even though I very much respected and admired the pastors preaching.

James 5:15-16
14Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. 16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.

it is not "oh your sins are forgiven no matter what"
it is, do this, and if you have sinned you will be forgiven.

You see right in verse 14 that it is talking about sick people. The forgiveness of their sin is not contingent upon them being prayed over.

This is seen in verses like 1 John 1:9:
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

John 20:23
If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven

that last part in John 20:23 seems odd, if confession to a priest was not part of the Christian religion, then why would Jesus add the part about not forgiving?

Because priests do not have the authority that the Apostles had. That may be a fundamental difference in belief, but it is what I believe. I have not seen any reason within Scripture to believe that Apostolic authority is possessed by today's priests.

oh so much to deal with here like there are a million things I have to say and I am not sure where to start

why do you view these books as "extra" books?
you have to have a standard to judge from before you say if something has extra or not enough.
that is a serious problem I see with Sola Scripture, the books of the Bible do not contain within themselves a list of what books are to be counted as Cannon.

if Sola Scripture says that all doctrines are to be found directly in the Bible, then either the cannon of scripture is not important or you are using an authority other then the Bible for doctrine
not even all the books of the Old Testament are quoted in the New Testament.
and what right do we have to say that a letter that Paul wrote to the Corinthians is on the same level as the book of Genesis?
most people have heard of the Gnostic Gospels like the Gospel of Thomas, how can we say that is NOT scripture?

I have no problem with this, I believe in a Church that God has given authority to. That is protected from teaching error, so when they say "these books are all scripture" I just say ok.

as for the "extra" books that Catholics use, I believe that they are part of the Bible just like all the other books of Scripture. Why do you say they are not?

I view them as extra books because they are not included in the original Hebrew Bible.

There is a standard by which books were widely agreed upon to be included in Scripture. There are a laundry list of qualifications that each book met in order to be included. They were not arbitrarily decided upon. The apocryphal books and Gnostic Gospels that you mentioned are not included from Scripture because they did not meet one very important standard (not to speak to other standards they may not have met), namely that they were all written in the second century or later.

and I am not insulted that you do not recommend people attend Catholic services, we do not agree on things, why would you recommend people go to a place that you think has wrong teachings? Just seems logical.

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhg

lots of Catholics really suck

we do NOT earn our salvation, we can not earn our way into heaven
the Catholic Church does not teach that but so many Catholics were poorly taught that they do not really make this distinction.

ok... uhg sorry.... I know you are being honest but it just really makes me sad that so many Catholics really mess this up.

ok, lets me pepper you with some more Bible verses
John 14:15
If you love me, keep my commands.

the parable of the Sheep and the Goats in Matthew 25:31-46 has Jesus focusing on the actions done by people.

St. Paul several times gives a list of people (idolaters, fornicators, ect) who will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

not everyone who runs wins the crown 1 Corinthians 9:25

you do not earn your way into heaven, it is all about His grace
but we have to accept His grace, and choosing sin is a rejection of God

kind of like Adam and Eve, they did not earn the garden of Eden, they did not work for it. but in choosing sin, they rejected that free gift that was given by God.

another thing, we can not resist sin on our own, so if we do resist temptation, it is all because of the grace of God
so there is no room for pride in the economy of Salvation

I very much agree with you on all of this in a general sense. I think I just don't make quite the distinction between different types of sins that you do, but I wouldn't make much of an issue about that.

I was actually surprised at how staunchly this guy (I called him Catholic Joe ) defended his belief that good works are what got you into heaven. It is comforting to know that this is not a widely taught belief.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

I view them as extra books because they are not included in the original Hebrew Bible.

There is a standard by which books were widely agreed upon to be included in Scripture. There are a laundry list of qualifications that each book met in order to be included. They were not arbitrarily decided upon. The apocryphal books and Gnostic Gospels that you mentioned are not included from Scripture because they did not meet one very important standard (not to speak to other standards they may not have met), namely that they were all written in the second century or later.

The deuterocanonicals appear in the Septuagint which was completed in the second century B.C., and this is the scripture that Christ and the apostles used and quoted from.

 

[Paulie079]

The deuterocanonicals appear in the Septuagint which was completed in the second century B.C., and this is the scripture that Christ and the apostles used and quoted from.

I am aware of that.

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

Okay, your comment about the second century was a little ambiguous.

Why is the second century B.C. a deal killer?

 

[Rhamiel]

Paulie

I don't believe that the Gospel writers were infallible, but that Scripture, as it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, is infallible.

I am not sure I understand this

Scripture, though inspired, was written by human beings
do you think that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit protected those men who wrote the Bible from writting things that were wrong?
that would be a type of infallibility, not an inffalibility in ALL things, like after writting the Gospel, Luke would not have that level of protection in everything he said, but atleast while writting the Bible, we can be sure that God protected error from entering Lukes account of the Gospel?

I was actually surprised at how staunchly this guy (I called him Catholic Joe ) defended his belief that good works are what got you into heaven. It is comforting to know that this is not a widely taught belief.

the Catholic Church is getting over about 40 years of REALLY bad instruction, there was a focus on "be a good person, say your prayers, go to Church, and leave the complex theological stuff to Priests and Nuns"
you can see similar mindsets in some of the mainline Protestant Denominations with equally disasterous effects.
But we are trying to get better

 

[Paulie079]

Okay, your comment about the second century was a little ambiguous.

Why is the second century B.C. a deal killer?

Oh, I'm not. I think you may have mixed up my comments a bit. I was saying that apocryphal books like the Gospel of Thomas were written in the second century A.D. or later, which is why they were disqualified.

As far as the books in the Catholic canon not included in the Protestant canon, those were not included in the Hebrew Bible, which is why they were rejected by Protestants in the first place.

 

[Rhamiel]

Thank you for starting this thread, Rhamiel.

I do have one question pertaining to 'mortal sin' as it relates to the
receiving of the Eucharist.

From what I have read, one of the benefits of receiving the Eucharist is
that it cleanses one of venial sins (source).

However, as the Church teaches, if one has committed any mortal sins that
they're aware of, they need to confess those first before receiving
Communion.

What I would like to find out is how, or why, it was determined that mortal
sin falls outside of the Eucharist's power to heal/cleanse?

As it currently stands, the Eucharist appears to be medicine for those who
are already healthy, and the more in need of this medicine one is, the less
qualified they are to receive it. It just seems backwards, imo.

Thanks in advance for shedding light on this.


-

the idea is that mortal sin is a rejection of the Grace of God

you used the analogy about medicine... well medicine does not help if you are "dead"
mortal sin is seen as a total break in the relationship and venial sin as just hurting that relationship
ofcourse, even sinners recieve graces from God, if they did not they would not even be alive for His mercy is a type of grace....

 

[Lord Of The Forest]

Oh, I'm not. I think you may have mixed up my comments a bit. I was saying that apocryphal books like the Gospel of Thomas were written in the second century A.D. or later, which is why they were disqualified.

As far as the books in the Catholic canon not included in the Protestant canon, those were not included in the Hebrew Bible, which is why they were rejected by Protestants in the first place.

Ah, right... I had misunderstood your comment. Thanks for the clarification!

 

[Paulie079]

Paulie
I am not sure I understand this

Scripture, though inspired, was written by human beings
do you think that the inspiration of the Holy Spirit protected those men who wrote the Bible from writting things that were wrong?
that would be a type of infallibility, not an inffalibility in ALL things, like after writting the Gospel, Luke would not have that level of protection in everything he said, but atleast while writting the Bible, we can be sure that God protected error from entering Lukes account of the Gospel?

Yeah, that's a good way to describe what I'm saying. Luke was an imperfect, fallible human being who received divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit by which he authored the Book of Luke.

the Catholic Church is getting over about 40 years of REALLY bad instruction, there was a focus on "be a good person, say your prayers, go to Church, and leave the complex theological stuff to Priests and Nuns"
you can see similar mindsets in some of the mainline Protestant Denominations with equally disasterous effects.
But we are trying to get better

Yeah, I think problems like that could be found all over the place within Christianity, and it's great to be looking to move away from that however possible.

 

[Rhamiel]

Oh, I'm not. I think you may have mixed up my comments a bit. I was saying that apocryphal books like the Gospel of Thomas were written in the second century A.D. or later, which is why they were disqualified.

As far as the books in the Catholic canon not included in the Protestant canon, those were not included in the Hebrew Bible, which is why they were rejected by Protestants in the first place.

if we are going by Sola Scripture, would it not be needed for the Bible to say "and after 200 years, stop adding books"

also the books in the Catholic Bible were in some versions of "the Hebrew Bible" since there were differant groups of Jews with differant books it seems kind of weird to use the word "the" that makes it look like there was only one authoritative collection of books that the Jews used at the time of Christ.

Really, since the New Testament was written in Greek, every time Jesus quotes the Old Testament, the original greek in the Gospel quotes the translation that has the Catholic OT books.
I am not saying that it PROVES that Tobit and Wisdom of Solomon should be in the Bible, but it does seem to support such an idea.

the Jews did not have an authoritative Cannon until after Jesus died on the cross and many Jews were starting to follow Him
the Jews thought the idea of a God-Man sounded too Greek, so they got rid of the books that were written in Greek

 

[Saucy]

We are all dead in sin. ALL sin qualifies us for death. Whether it's a 'little white lie' or hating someone (Christ calls this murder), it's all sin and it disqualifies us to death. So are you saying that there are other worse sins that when done removes grace from us?

Again, then that removes the whole idea of grace. Grace is grace and is UNCONDITIONAL! Once again, the verses your produced to back up your ideas has nothing to do with it someone losing their salvation due to sin.

 

[Rhamiel]

Yeah, that's a good way to describe what I'm saying. Luke was an imperfect, fallible human being who received divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit by which he authored the Book of Luke.

ok, I agree with that 100% and I like the wording you used

Catholics kinda say something similar about the Bishops of the Church, they are fallible imperfect human beings, but when in a Council and speaking for the whole Church, they are protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error

I know that this sounds supper arrogant....
but look at it this way, to non-Christians, all of us seem arrogant for saying that Jesus is the only way and that this book is the word of God

 

[Rhamiel]

We are all dead in sin. ALL sin qualifies us for death. Whether it's a 'little white lie' or hating someone (Christ calls this murder), it's all sin and it disqualifies us to death. So are you saying that there are other worse sins that when done removes grace from us?

Again, then that removes the whole idea of grace. Grace is grace and is UNCONDITIONAL! Once again, the verses your produced to back up your ideas has nothing to do with it someone losing their salvation due to sin.

well it removes YOUR whole idea of grace
my idea of grace does quit fine with all of this.

yes, we are all dead in sin, and then we are born agian and we have life within us
this is an act of God

I believe that 1 John shows that there are sins that lead to death and sins that do not lead to death, I believe that they are talking about spiritual death, you may not agree with me but atleast admit that the verse is not clear if it is talking about spiritual death or physical death?
I feel like you view all of our disagreements as me (and my Church) trying to be manipulative and decietful insted of just being differances in interpretation
1 John 5:16-17
16 If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this. 17 All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death.

 

[Saucy]

'If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." 1st Corinthians 13:5. The verse you tried to use to explain purgatory really declares that people can lose rewards...they will be burned up...but the person is still saved!

"And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Ephesians 4:30. This verse speaks to what I have been taught. We are sealed with the Holy Spirit the moment we accept Christ and are sealed with Him until the day of redemption. He associates with us to the Father and knows we are saved.

John 10:28-29, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand."

Fairly clear above that once He grants us eternal life, we will never perish. Nor can any man (even ourselves) be plucked from the Father's hand.

John 5:24, "“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life."

Here's a big one:

1st John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God."

When we accept Christ and believe on Him, we are born again. The Holy Spirit is sealed in us until redemption. We are new creatures in Him. We are born of God and a part of His family. We are no longer sinners in the eyes of God.

1st John 5:13, "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God."

How can we know if it is taken from us every time we sin? Our salvation would be taken from us all on a daily basis! Are our names written, erased and re-written in the Lambs Book of Life?! No! If we don't gain salvation by works, then we do not lose it by works. It's a gift from God. He doesn't take away His gift because I messed up.

 

[Rajni]

I have to say, I also struggle with a similar thing... I have a hard time understanding the line between mortal and venial sin, because all of it feels terrible to me.

I hear ya.

What gets me is that there are things that fall into the 'mortal sin'
category that, from a practical standpoint, are not serious. I mean,
I can understand things like rape, murder, theft, etc., being considered
mortal/serious. But things like missing church on Sunday for non-urgent
reasons? Eh... that's a little harder to sell.

the idea is that mortal sin is a rejection of the Grace of God

you used the analogy about medicine... well medicine does not help if you are "dead" mortal sin is seen as a total break in the relationship and venial sin as just hurting that relationship ofcourse, even sinners recieve graces from God, if they did not they would not even be alive for His mercy is a type of grace....

Regarding the statement that mortal sin is a rejection of God's grace:
This seems just a tad broad-brush. After all, there are things that
are considered mortal sins which aren't being committed as an
official declaration of one's rejection of God's grace. Much of it
is just a declaration of being fallible humans.

Besides, if it's tantamount to being "dead", then, logically, this would
mean that not even confession could help a dead person—they're
dead, after all, and therefore incapable of confessing anything.
So that angle kind of cuts both ways: If, indeed, one is too dead to receive
the Eucharist, then one is too dead to go to confession. If
the full Presence of the Lord—Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity—
can't fix 'em, a priest likely isn't going to be able to, imo.

Ironically, it's this limited-efficacy line of thinking/teaching that could
potentially (albeit unintentionally) reinforce the belief that Holy
Communion is just a symbol, because the Church is implying that it's
effectiveness, like that of a symbol, only goes so far. However, if the Lord
Himself is really, truly present in the Eucharist—Body, Blood, Soul, and
Divinity—and it's really, truly more than just a symbol, then I would think
it would be able to *fully* heal the individual.

Just my two cents, and hopefully the above also gives Catholics
another perspective as to why some of their (seemingly) less-pious peers
are receiving communion in what they would consider an 'unworthy'
manner. In some cases, the 'undeserving' very well may be 'approaching
the Throne' with an active, confident faith rather than an apathetic,
careless flippancy.



-

 

[GoingByzantine]

I have to say, I also struggle with a similar thing... I have a hard time understanding the line between mortal and venial sin, because all of it feels terrible to me.

I actually agree with you Graciesings, sometime it is difficult for me to comprehend the difference before a venial and a moral sin. However from a Biblical standpoint only we can kind of get an idea of what some mortal sins might be.

For instance 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

All the things I bolded are mortal sins in the Church, through a combination of Holy Tradition via Church teaching and also biblical examinations like the one above we can begin to tell what is mortal and what is venial. If you pull up a list of mortal sins according to the Church, you can find biblical backing for almost every single one, often this does not exist for small and mundane venial sins. Venial sins can still eat at the conscious, so it is best to confess these and repent them as well.

If you do commit a mortal sin, it is not like you are shunned a la Amish, because forgiveness is easily offered through confession.

 

[GoingByzantine]

With that being said, it's clear that God gave the bible as His word. What frustrates me is that the Catholic church adds to and changes what has been written. What gives them the authority, but the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and the like can't do the same? They believe they had the right and God gave them the truth.

The Catholic Church does not add to or change what has been written in the Bible. That is completely untrue, in fact the Protestant Reformation led to many books being taken out of the Bible for many non-Catholics. Where was the authority to do that? We have no equivalent to the Book of Mormon, we use the Bible...we just interpret differently and also place value in more than just written word. We have been doing this for Centuries, what makes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura "better" than our way? I can respect Sola Scripturists, so can you accept my view as well? One that is in essence also biblically inspired (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2).

 

[Saucy]

I actually agree with you Graciesings, sometime it is difficult for me to comprehend the difference before a venial and a moral sin. However from a Biblical standpoint only we can kind of get an idea of what some mortal sins might be.

For instance 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

All the things I bolded are mortal sins in the Church, through a combination of Holy Tradition via Church teaching and also biblical examinations like the one above we can begin to tell what is mortal and what is venial. If you pull up a list of mortal sins according to the Church, you can find biblical backing for almost every single one, often this does not exist for small and mundane venial sins. Venial sins can still eat at the conscious, so it is best to confess these and repent them as well.

If you do commit a mortal sin, it is not like you are shunned a la Amish, because forgiveness is easily offered through confession.

The bolded you posted here refers to people who are not saved. Because that describes each of us every single day. Every time we hate, it's murder. When we look at someone with lust, it's committing fornication and adultery. We all lie even if we consider them not that big of a deal. We sin every way, just about every day. So if I had a random lustful thought as I walked through the house and suddenly the roof caved in and killed me, I wouldn't go to Heaven? Even if I was saved?

 

[Saucy]

The Catholic Church does not add to or change what has been written in the Bible. That is completely untrue, in fact the Protestant Reformation led to many books being taken out of the Bible for many non-Catholics. Where was the authority to do that? We have no equivalent to the Book of Mormon, we use the Bible...we just interpret differently and also place value in more than just written word. We have been doing this for Centuries, what makes the doctrine of Sola Scriptura "better" than our way? I can respect Sola Scripturists, so can you accept my view as well? One that is in essence also biblically inspired (2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2).

Anytime I ask a biblical question to any Catholic they take out their Catechism book, not the bible. When I debate my roommate, he has Catholic apologetic books and Catechism open, not his bible. I then have taken to say that the Catechism is the Catholic's Book of Mormon. It takes important over what that bible has to say about a matter.

 

[GoingByzantine]

Anytime I ask a biblical question to any Catholic they take out their Catechism book, not the bible. When I debate my roommate, he has Catholic apologetic books and Catechism open, not his bible. I then have taken to say that the Catechism is the Catholic's Book of Mormon. It takes important over what that bible has to say about a matter.

I seldom if ever break out the Catechism when it comes to discussing theology, honestly I can barely navigate it. It is definitely not anywhere near the level of Sacred Scripture in terms of importance to me though, it is simply the rules of our Church...a guide to how to be a good Catholic. Not much different than Martin Luther's 5 solas, or any Protestant document on doctrine. Much of what is found in the Catechism is scriptural as well, or relates to Holy "big t" Tradition such as the Sacraments.