YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT CATHOLICISM

[BobRyan]

. But if we are are writing technically about ecclesiology and what constitutes the visible Church, I think its fair to say that apostolic succession is a requirement. You guys actually make the same claim to apostolic succession, do you not?
.

So you would agree that apostolic succession in the context of multiple papal lines , each with their own successors - all started by the same group of Cardinals - and all with papal armies at war with each other -- only to have all popes defrocked by the Emperor and a new one appointed by his own group of Cardinals - gives us a rather "loose" definition of "apostolic succession", even if we were only talking about a denomination like the Roman Catholic Church.

All Christian churches claim to be included in the current manifestation of the NT church with a line of true believers / saints extending all the way from the 13 Apostles (because we include Paul as an Apostle after they had already replaced Judas in Acts 1) - to this very day.

And there is no record of anyone in the NT calling themselves "Baptist" (as a denomination) or "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" etc.

 

[Albion]

Hence the schism. But yes I would certainly agree with you that they were (and are) part of the ancient church. I don't think the Catholic Church takes a different position, but if you have any document indicating otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

Excuse me, but you wrote that your church was THE one, not that it was part of larger whole.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit working through the Catholic Church was necessary for all Christians to comprehend the Trinity.

That is, your understanding of the Trinity as well as mine and every other Christian who holds the doctrine, had it handed down to him by the Catholic Church.

Now, of course, many non-Catholics will never admit that.

Well, not really. I'd call you guys "churches" generally and if I were talking in an informal manner. I think most Catholics are pretty much the same.

and yet the Pope himself does it, as do many Catholic clergy. So it's a reality.

I think its fair to say that apostolic succession is a requirement.

Now you're offering an excuse for why other churches are not called "churches."

 

[BobRyan]

Thanks for clarifying. To go back to your initial question then, if we take the doctrine of the Trinity which you include in your definition, for example, that is not a doctrine that is found explicitly in Sacred Scripture. It is a doctrine that developed within the Catholic Church for centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and which was then handed down to the faithful. That is, your understanding of the Trinity as well as mine and every other Christian who holds the doctrine, had it handed down to him by the Catholic Church.

Now, of course, many non-Catholics will never admit that.

Let's talk about what happens in real life.

In real life - someone evangelizes an unchurched, unsaved, lost person and one of the doctrines we introduce them to is "the trinity" - the triune Godhead consisting of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

So you might say "fine - I suppose you are using Deut 6:4 for - ONE GOD -, and you are using Matt 28:19 for --In THREE PERSONS --". And in that case you would be right.

So at what point do you suppose we would then say "but the Bible is not sufficient to establish this doctrine so let's go see if the Roman Catholic Church also agrees with these texts"??

Or at what point would the NT saints be saying that what they had in Duet 6:4 and in the words of Christ during His life on Earth - (as noted above) are not enough to establish the "one God in Three Persons" teaching and they would ask a Roman Catholic council to weigh in before they would know if it was ok?

 

[Swag365]

So you would agree that apostolic succession in the context of multiple papal lines , each with their own successors - all started by the same group of Cardinals - and all with papal armies at war with each other -- only to have all popes defrocked by the Emperor and a new one appointed by his own group of Cardinals - gives us a rather "loose" definition of "apostolic succession", even if we were only talking about a denomination like the Roman Catholic Church.

All Christian churches claim to be included in the current manifestation of the NT church with a line of true believers / saints extending all the way from the 13 Apostles (because in include Paul as an Apostle after they had already replaced Judas in Acts 1) - to this very day.

And there is no record of anyone in the NT calling themselves "Baptist" (as a denomination) or "Roman Catholic" or "Eastern Orthodox" etc.

Its an interesting topic, probably worthy of it's own thread. I think I would need to educate myself on it a bit more to discuss those topics.

 

[Swag365]

Let's talk about what happens in real life.

In real life - someone evangelizes an unchurched, unsaved, lost person and one of the doctrines we introduce them to is "the trinity" - the triune Godhead consisting of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

So you might say "fine - I suppose you are using Deut 6:4 for - ONE GOD -, and you are using Matt 28:19 for --In THREE PERSONS --". And in that case you would be right.

So at what point do you suppose we would then say "but the Bible is not sufficient to establish this doctrine so let's go see if the Roman Catholic Church also agrees with these texts"??

Or at what point would the NT saints be saying that what they had in Duet 6:4 and in the words of Christ during His life on Earth - (as noted above) are not enough to establish the "one God in Three Persons" teaching and they would ask a Roman Catholic council to weigh in before they would know if it was ok?

It's an interesting question, probably worthy of its own thread. I mean, a thousand years after the Church formally defined the Trinity, everybody comes along and says "Oh it is so obviously supported by Sacred Scripture, here are the verses. It's so easy to prove and is clearly there." But you can easily go online and watch Christian-Muslim debates, or Christian-JW/Oneness Pentecostal debates on the Trinity, and the Trinitarian debater always gets trounced and is unable to clearly prove the doctrine of the Trinity using the text of the Bible itself. Many say "Oh it is clear from the Bible," but its only clear after the Church taught it you what it was. Before the Church taught it nobody could do that (perhaps except for the Apostles and those in the church to whom they passed their intrinsic understanding by word of mouth (a.k.a "tradition"), and even now very few people, if any, can prove the Trinity directly from the Biblical text itself.

Naturally, one need not go "to the Roman Church" to understand or verify the Trinity nowadays, because the doctrine that she handed down is now widespread throughout the Christian world. You already have the teaching. It's Monday-morning quarterbacking to now say that the body that gave you the teaching was in-fact unnecessary in the first place, in my view.

Now to clarify, I'm not saying that the doctrine is not supported by Sacred Scripture. I'd say that the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit in Scripture, but not explicit. The seed is there, if you will, and the seed grew into the full tree under the guidance of the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit and from the traditions handed down by word of mouth. The Church was necessary for the seed to grow into what we understand today.

As for what the Apostles knew concerning the Trinity - that's an open question I think. I don't know if they knew the doctrine of the Trinity in exactly the same manner that we understand it today, although that may certainly have been the case. Its a bit different with them because God clearly revealed things to them directly in a manner that does not always apply to other Christians. I suspect that God revealed it to them in either an implicit or explicit sense, such that they knew it even before the first book of the New Testament was written. It's not as if the the Apostles would have learned of the Trinity from reading the Bible. Whatever they knew, they knew it before the NT Bible was written. God revealed the truth to them directly like we we see evidenced with Peter in Matthew 16, and I don't think anyone would make the claim that anyone could have discerned the Trinity purely from the OT texts that existed at the time that our Lord walked the Earth. So I don't think the case with the apostles is really dispositive.

 

[BobRyan]

It's an interesting question, probably worthy of its own thread. I mean, a thousand years after the Church formally defined the Trinity, everybody comes along and says "Oh it is so obviously supported by Sacred Scripture, here are the verses. It's so easy to prove and is clearly there."

The point is those were Bible studies with non-Christians and in many cases people with almost zero history of being informed by anything at all in the Bible. I have studied with people that did not even know there was such a thing as a "new Testament" or what the Old Testament said or who Paul is. (A Hindu, another person from Communist China, and someone here in the US with zero Bible background).

But you can easily go online and watch Christian-Muslim debates,

That is for sure - have you seen David Wood's debates with Muslims? That guy is very good!

or Christian-JW/Oneness Pentecostal debates on the Trinity, and the Trinitarian debater always gets trounced and is unable to clearly prove the doctrine of the Trinity

Not in my case - I have had JW's come over for weekly Bible studies and in some cases coming back for a solid year. What happens is they get stuck and then say "well we don't know - you will have to write to the Watch Tower and see if they have an answer" when it comes to things like the Trinity.

But this raises another question - just what "help" do you suppose it would have been in my discussions with JWs -- IF I had said "well did you know that the Catholic Church endorses the doctrine of the Trinity?" -- How in your POV would that have solved anything?

Many say "Oh it is clear from the Bible," but its only clear after the Church taught it you what it was. Before the Church taught it nobody could do that (perhaps except for the Apostles...

1. No non-Christian , unchurched person has ever made such a statement to me.
2. People that reject the Trinity do like to blame it on the RCC but I simply point out that I am not basing anything on the Catholic church - only the Bible.
3. It would be nonsensical for a non-Christian or wanna-be-Bible-student to say "well yes you are right there it is right there in the Bible - but you couldn't have noticed those texts in the Bible if the RCC had not told you about them". No one would be rejecting the Trinity with that logic since they would have just admitted "it is right there in the Bible" and no could possibly claim to know "the NT saints did not know about those texts even though they had them".

I'd say that the doctrine of the Trinity is implicit in Scripture, but not explicit.

At best your argument boils down to "ok there we all see that in the Bible there is ONE GOD Deut 6:4 in THREE persons Matt 28:19 in the Bible - but who told you to NAME it - TRINITY?". (BTW some of us call it "Triune Godhead")

I don't think anyone would make the claim that anyone could have discerned the Trinity purely from the OT texts that existed at the time that our Lord walked the Earth. So I don't think the case with the apostles is really dispositive.

If they had both Deut 6:4 and Matt 28:19 - which everyone had as of Christ's ascension into heaven - because Matt 28 says "tell them everything I told you" -- so everyone they were talking to - got that Matt 28:19 statement from day 1.

===========================

This brings up another question - the fact that these texts already exist at the start of the teaching of the Apostles of the Christian church and Christ said to make sure they told people about it - the "Still nobody knew for centuries" argument is pretty weak. you already admit we have it in the Bible and don't use anything at all from the RCC to make our case.

So my question for you is this - why camp out on this hill? It looks very weak -- how is it helping? Do you have a stronger argument to establish whatever underlying key point you want to make here?

 

[Hmm]

When the RC says that she is the "one true church" or what have you, I don't think that would necessarily exclude the Eastern Orthodox.

This is an interesting discussion. One thing I don't understand is why the Catholic church regards the Eastern Orthodox church as a true church following the schism of 1054 but doesn't see the Protestant denominations, or at least the main ones, some 500 years later in the same way. If apostolic succession is the key, weren't the first Protestant bishops previously Catholic bishops just as much as the first EO bishops were? My knowledge of church history is very limited, as I'm sure you can tell, but I would be interested in what the logic is.

 

[Swag365]

The point is those were Bible studies with non-Christians and in many cases people with almost zero history of being informed by anything at all in the Bible. I have studied with people that did not even know there was such a thing as a "new Testament" or what the Old Testament said or who Paul is. (A Hindu, another person from Communist China, and someone here in the US with zero Bible background).



That is for sure - have you seen David Wood's debates with Muslims? That guy is very good!



Not in my case - I have had JW's come over for weekly Bible studies and in some cases coming back for a solid year. What happens is they get stuck and then say "well we don't know - you will have to write to the Watch Tower and see if they have an answer" when it comes to things like the Trinity.

But this raises another question - just what "help" do you suppose it would have been in my discussions with JWs -- IF I had said "well did you know that the Catholic Church endorses the doctrine of the Trinity?" -- How in your POV would that have solved anything?



1. No non-Christian , unchurched person has ever made such a statement to me.
2. People that reject the Trinity do like to blame it on the RCC but I simply point out that I am not basing anything on the Catholic church - only the Bible.
3. It would be nonsensical for a non-Christian or wanna-be-Bible-student to say "well yes you are right there it is right there in the Bible - but you couldn't have noticed those texts in the Bible if the RCC had not told you about them". No one would be rejecting the Trinity with that logic since they would have just admitted "it is right there in the Bible" and no could possibly claim to know "the NT saints did not know about those texts even though they had them".



At best your argument boils down to "ok there we all see that in the Bible there is ONE GOD Deut 6:4 in THREE persons Matt 28:19 in the Bible - but who told you to NAME it - TRINITY?". (BTW some of us call it "Triune Godhead")



If they had both Deut 6:4 and Matt 28:19 - which everyone had as of Christ's ascension into heaven - because Matt 28 says "tell them everything I told you" -- so everyone they were talking to - got that Matt 28:19 statement from day 1.

===========================

This brings up another question - the fact that these texts already exist at the start of the teaching of the Apostles of the Christian church and Christ said to make sure they told people about it - the "Still nobody knew for centuries" argument is pretty weak. you already admit we have it in the Bible and don't use anything at all from the RCC to make our case.

So my question for you is this - why camp out on this hill? It looks very weak -- how is it helping? Do you have a stronger argument to establish whatever underlying key point you want to make here?

Well I think part of the issue here is that you are responding to an initial discussion that you were not part of. I think you are assuming that I am attempting to prove some things that I never (and do not) seek to prove. I'll try to get back this post when I have a little more time.

 

[Albion]

This is an interesting discussion. One thing I don't understand is why the Catholic church regards the Eastern Orthodox church as a true church following the schism of 1054 but doesn't see the Protestant denominations, or at least the main ones, some 500 years later in the same way.

If apostolic succession is the key, weren't the first Protestant bishops previously Catholic bishops just as much as the first EO bishops were?

You're right, and it's worth the inquiry.

 

[Ancient of Days]

I am curious as to why the catholic has paid out over 4 billion dollars in child rape and sexual assault cases over the years and people still continue to follow this religion?????

"
According to Jack and Diane Ruhl of the National Catholic Reporter, since 1950, the Vatican has spent $3,994,797,060.10 to silence the Church’s numerous child abuse victims.

Collective-evolution.com reports: That number may even be a bit conservative considering the amount of “under the table” dealings have taken place which were uncovered in Spotlight investigations. Most cases were never reported nor were they taken to court, leaving their reality in the dark.

The figure is based on a three-month investigation of data, which includes a review of over 7,800 articles from LexisNexis Academic and NCR databases and information from BishopAccountability.org. Reports from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops were also used.

If the amount of money dished out was divided evenly amongst the U.S.’s 197 dioceses, each one would get almost $20 million. An incredible amount of cash from hard working people who chose to support the good faith and intentions of the Church — people who are parents to little boys being sexually abused — is being used to cover up unfathomable crimes executed by priests."

Catholic Church Spends $4 Billion To Settle Child Rape Lawsuits

 

[Swag365]

I am curious as to why the catholic has paid out over 4 billion dollars in child rape and sexual assault cases over the years and people still continue to follow this religion?????

Where should I go?

 

[Albion]

It's an academic or hypothetical question, I realize, but this would be the same question faced by the members of any church body that is found to have seriously gone off the rails.

But there are other Catholic bodies such as the SSPX, SSPV, and the Polish National Catholic Church, not to mention the Eastern Orthodox churches that you think highly of, some of which even use a Western liturgy.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Where should I go?

On your knees daily before the living God, walk and talk with him all day long. He is everywhere, you dont have to go anywhere. If you want to spend time with other Christians either find or start a bible study. The "church" is a body of believers, not a building built by the hands of men. Get a King James bible, ask God for wisdom and understanding, and read his word daily.

 

[Swag365]

On your knees daily before the living God, walk and talk with him all day long. He is everywhere, you dont have to go anywhere. If you want to spend time with other Christians either find or start a bible study. The "church" is a body of believers, not a building built by the hands of men. Get a King James bible, ask God for wisdom and understanding, and read his word daily.

I already do all of that, although I must confess that I prefer other translations over the KJV. I think I'll just stay right within the Catholic Church then. Have a blessed day.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Hence the schism. But yes I would certainly agree with you that they were (and are) part of the ancient church. I don't think the Catholic Church takes a different position, but if you have any document indicating otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

Well, not really. I'd call you guys "churches" generally and if I were talking in an informal manner. I think most Catholics are pretty much the same. We'll say Anglican Church, Baptist Church, etc. But if we are are writing technically about ecclesiology and what constitutes the visible Church, I think its fair to say that apostolic succession is a requirement. You guys actually make the same claim to apostolic succession, do you not?

Certainly, you don't consider any group of people just sitting on a sofa and reading the Bible to be a "church" correct? You have some technical requirements yourself that would classify one thing as a church and another thing as not a church. Are you being meanspirited because you don't consider 3 guys on a sofa with a Bible to be a church? No, of course not. So if you can have your own criteria, we can have our own criteria too.

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 18:20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's an interesting question. I don't know the answer. When the RC says that she is the "one true church" or what have you, I don't think that would necessarily exclude the Eastern Orthodox. I would need to take a look at some documents to make sure I am writing correctly, but I think our view there is more like we view those bishops as temporarily out of communion with us over doctrinal disputes, but the hope is that eventually one day all of our bishops will be back in full communion. With respect to Anglican bishops, protestant pastors, or what have you, I would imagine that the Church does not even view them as valid bishops at all. They are just completely out.

But I can certainly understand that you reject the RC claims concerning apostolic succession and being different from protestants in the sense of being just another "community". If you believed otherwise, you would be Catholic, obviously.

The RCC in recent decades has somewhat watered down its exclusive claims. For example, it accepts the baptism performed in virtually all other denominations as valid. And, moreover it says that salvation is possible for people outside of the RCC (with loads of strings attached) but highly improbable. The RCC maintains that it and it alone has "THE FULLNESS OF SALVATION", whatever that might mean. In any event, Catholic people are still said to go to Purgatory after death, but Protestants don't.

 

[Placemat]

What do you mean I am not allowed to test my Church's teachings against scripture? That is just silly. You have been reading too many Jack Chick tracts again. I compare the teachings of the Catholic Church with Sacred Scripture all the time.

Placemat: You can read it, and ‘interpret’ it, but with the caveat that it has to match up with what the Catholic church has already interpreted it to mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obviously, any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as Catholic truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things; to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the judgment of the magisterium.

Does the Catechism Encourage Private Interpretation of the Bible?

How about this - if you can demonstrate that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is contradicted by Sacred Scripture, I will become a Protestant again. I'll gladly take you up on that challenge.

Hold that thought.............

You had plenty of sinners doing sin among members of the church that you find described in the Bible itself. I suppose the Holy Spirit was not active within the church described in the Bible? How about you? Do you not sin? Does the fact that you sin mean that the Holy Spirit does not guide you? Heck, if not sinning was a prerequisite, then there is not a single person, denomination, or church on the planet Earth who can make a claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. Let's not even talk about the terrible anti-semitism of Martin Luther and the other folks developed Protestant doctrine. I find this whole line of argumentation to be silly, to be frank.

I find it much sillier, that you attempt to slough off my questions about the claims of sole authority by the Catholic church, when it never used its supposed 'Apostolic authority' in regards to the pedophile priests (do you think with this 'sin' would be lied about and hidden by the Apostles)...and sole scripture interpretation by the Catholic church, being led by the Holy Spirit, allowed and taught for centuries something that supposedly dealt with the salvation of souls, only to be admit later that it was never a revealed truth, that scripture was silent on the matter - great interpreting.

You already answered that question yourself, when I asked you how you know that the Book of James is the divinely inspired word of God. God taught you that. Likewise, God taught me that what the Catholic Church claims about Herself is true. Perhaps one day God will teach you the same.

The Holy Spirit only confirms His Truth - not men's (Catholic church’s) self-proclaimed edicts about itself. Perhaps one day He will confirm the same to you.

Look, I cannot "prove" or "determine" that what the Catholic Church teaches about herself is true.

But earlier, in this same post you stated:
How about this - if you can demonstrate that one dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church is contradicted by Sacred Scripture, I will become a Protestant again. I'll gladly take you up on that challenge.

 

[Placemat]

I thought I had already made that clear, but yes they are included. Look, I view all Christians and my brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope and expect to see many of you in Heaven, should I end up there myself.

Good to hear, and I'm sure all those, how did you put it...."me and my Bible" folks'....the ones having "church service" on their sofas' would be glad to hear that also.

I think it's a pretty straightforward verse. If you have any specific questions about what I believe I'd be happy to answer them, however.

Okay...I thought my question was pretty specific...asking what your definition of His gospel is...similar to the question you asked me.

 

[Swag365]

Good to hear, and I'm sure all those, how did you put it...."me and my Bible" folks'....the ones having "church service" on their sofas' would be glad to hear that also.


Okay...I thought my question was pretty specific...asking what your definition of His gospel is...similar to the question you asked me.

OK well I'll give you my definition:

"His gospel message": God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whomever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

 

[Swag365]

Placemat: You can read it, and ‘interpret’ it, but with the caveat that it has to match up with what the Catholic church has already interpreted it to mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Obviously, any interpretation we arrive at must not contradict what has already been defined as Catholic truth. That is why God gave the Church the power of defining things; to keep us from going wrong. We must be willing to submit our interpretations to the judgment of the magisterium.

Does the Catechism Encourage Private Interpretation of the Bible?

Hold that thought.............

Literally every Christian church on the planet is the same. If I go to your church, read and interpret the Bible for myself, conclude that the "prophet" Mohammad is God, and then start telling people about my new interpretation that the "prophet" Mohammad is God, can I stay in your church?

I find it much sillier, that you attempt to slough off my questions about the claims of sole authority by the Catholic church, when it never used its supposed 'Apostolic authority' in regards to the pedophile priests (do you think with this 'sin' would be lied about and hidden by the Apostles)...and sole scripture interpretation by the Catholic church, being led by the Holy Spirit, allowed and taught for centuries something that supposedly dealt with the salvation of souls, only to be admit later that it was never a revealed truth, that scripture was silent on the matter - great interpreting.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sole authority". I never said that. Our Lord Jesus is an authority. Sacred Scripture is an authority. The Holy Spirit is an authority and you are to follow what he prompts you to do in your everyday life. Eastern Orthodox bishops are authorities. So are bishops of many other apostolic churches. Your mother and father are authorities until you reach the age of reason. Your well-informed internal conscience is an authority.

Now as for as "sloughing off your questions," I will gladly answer them. Committing a sin (even a grave sin) does not disqualify a person from being an authority. Sorry to clue you in, but all of the Apostles were sinners. Moses committed murder. Judas turned our Lord over to the Romans for trial. Peter denied Christ 3 times, and was corrected by Paul when he refused to eat with the gentiles. David committed adultery and had a man killed. I'm sure you can find some other examples as well.

Secondly, our Lord Jesus instructed the crowds and his disciples as follows:

2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others . . .

You see it right there, the Pharisees, one of the most notorious groups described in the New Testament, are described by our Lord himself as sitting on the seat of Moses, and our Lord instructs the crowds to follow their teachings, even though they do not follow those teachings themselves.

Do your sins disqualify you from interpreting the Bible for yourself? I guess only other people's sins count, but your sins do not count. Oh let me guess, "your sins are small"? I can't take that argument seriously.

As for the rest of your comment, I simply have no more desire to respond to it. The church is filled with sinners. Big surprise there.

But earlier, in this same post you stated:

I already know what I wrote, thank you.