Christian Forums

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.

It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. 

You're the one who brought up Romans 15.  I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."

I agree that there were other priests around because there were Christians around, but all were priests.

I don't know, but it seems that your shins must be a little bruised for you to go and write of me as an antagonist.

I have been away from the board for a couple of days and I was disappointed to see a certain topic (which will remained nameless) concerning the tyranny of the Catholic Church.  I am not interested in re-visiting the topic, but I have to say how impressed I was to read many of the comments from Catholics and Protestants in response to the conspiracy-minded and flaming nature of that thread. Thank you to the majority of you who responded with level- heads and loving hearts.

A comment that really stuck out to me - and I am paraphrasing here - was that Christ should always be the focus of our conversations.  We may be coming from different backgrounds and traditions, but He alone should be exalted, rather than our egos or conspiracies. 

Thank you also to the administrators who shutdown the thread.

blessings

Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton?  Is that not why God gave us free will?  We are to follow after no man, but Christ himself.  I don't claim to understand the Catholic faith, so please don't intepret this as a slam.  What little experience I have had with Catholic services ( I have attended) seems to put Christ back behind the vail God tore down at the crucifixtion by anyone being refused to take communion. 
I also do not understand the worship of false idols ( in any faith), since this is a discussion on catholicism, I will stick to the beliefs of that church.
I have attended bible studies at the home of friends who are catholic.  As we were all reading the bible (KJV), their bibles(catholic) were missing several verses.  Even the hosts were mystified by this.  How do you explain the discrepancy?  Is God's word not the same yesterday, tomorrow, and forever? For every one?

Luke 22:19-20 says AND HE TOOK BREAD, AND GAVE THANKS AND BRAKE IT, AND GAVE UNTO THEM, SAYING, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: THIS DO IN REMEBRANCE OF ME. LIKE WISE ALSO THE CUP IS THE NEW TESTEMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.
Christ died to give us all authority over darkness, that we may all reign with us in heaven.  In his instruction He says "do this in remembrance of me."  That is an instuction to EVERYONE, not just an elect few.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone or their faith.  If we all can not come to discussion of the Word of God, we are lost indeed.

Quote from: susan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 20:08:38
Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton? 

Ummm no, 2 Peter 1:20.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 08:08:32

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.

It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. 

You're the one who brought up Romans 15.  I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."

Aah, but I never assumed otherwise, or implied otherwise.

*Points up to the title of this thread* See that? "Ask-A-Catholic."

The purpose of this thread is to clarify and explain Catholic teaching, as there are lots of misconception and misunderstandings out there about it. The Catholics were doing this, when you felt the need to point out a certain verse. It seems your point was to imply that Catholics don't seem to be taking into account the verse you posted.  My response was an attempt to explain our view as Catholics, and to show how we do indeed take the verse into account (along with other verses that we believe support our view), since that's kind of the purpose of this thread - to "Ask-A-Catholic" about their viewpoint.

As you can see, whether or not you agree with how we take the verse you posted into account, we do, indeed, have an understanding of it that fits in with our theology. It is not forgotton or ignored by us.
Seeing as most of the Catholics here are actually converts from protestantism, we're quite aware that there are other views of that verse. It's just a common scenario for us to run into people who assume we're "ignoring scripture" or don't know it, and who point out verses as if we're not aware of them already. I was simply pointing out that assuming this isn't very charitable.

Perhaps I should ask you, when you wandered into the "Ask-A-Catholic" thread and posted that verse, did you not do so because you felt we were overlooking it? If so, I'm saying, perhaps in the future you can ask us if we have some other understanding of the verse than you do, rather than first assuming we're overlooking it, and posting it as if it alone proves your point. Then we will feel as if you actually have enough respect for us as fellow Christians to assume we respect the Written Word enough to have taken the time to consider this verse in light of our Catholic beliefs. Make sense?

I'm just looking for some understanding, not agreement. 

Quote from: susan on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 20:08:38
Shouldn't the scripture be open to private intepretaiton?  Is that not why God gave us free will?  We are to follow after no man, but Christ himself.  I don't claim to understand the Catholic faith, so please don't intepret this as a slam.  What little experience I have had with Catholic services ( I have attended) seems to put Christ back behind the vail God tore down at the crucifixtion by anyone being refused to take communion. 
I also do not understand the worship of false idols ( in any faith), since this is a discussion on catholicism, I will stick to the beliefs of that church.
I have attended bible studies at the home of friends who are catholic.  As we were all reading the bible (KJV), their bibles(catholic) were missing several verses.  Even the hosts were mystified by this.  How do you explain the discrepancy?  Is God's word not the same yesterday, tomorrow, and forever? For every one?

Luke 22:19-20 says AND HE TOOK BREAD, AND GAVE THANKS AND BRAKE IT, AND GAVE UNTO THEM, SAYING, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU: THIS DO IN REMEBRANCE OF ME. LIKE WISE ALSO THE CUP IS THE NEW TESTEMENT IN MY BLOOD, WHICH IS SHED FOR YOU.
Christ died to give us all authority over darkness, that we may all reign with us in heaven.  In his instruction He says "do this in remembrance of me."  That is an instuction to EVERYONE, not just an elect few.
Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone or their faith.  If we all can not come to discussion of the Word of God, we are lost indeed.

CSloan correctly stated that the Bible is not open to private interpretation - Christianity relies on a belief in absolute truth and private interpretation does not support this world view.  In this case, one cannot believe that the Bible is absolutely truth AND that it can mean anything that one wants to read into it.

However, there is room in the world view for private revelation.  God can speak to us through the Bible in a manner that speaks only to the individual, and is situation specific.  Here is an example involving Peter starting to slip under the waves while he is walking on water in John 6; a person might read it and realize that God is opening their eyes to a situation in their own lives where they are "drowning" because they have taken their eyes off of Him.  In this example, the meaning of the verse - the public revelation - is not affected by the private revelation. 

I am not sure what you mean by "Catholic services I have attended seems to put Christ back behind the veil God tore down at the crucifixion by anyone being refused to take communion", but I am going to guess that you disagree with the Catholic practice of refusing the Eucharist to nonCatholic Christians.  The simple answer to your question is that Catholics believe that the wine and bread turn into the actual blood and body of Christ - so taking the Eucharist in the Catholic church is an act of worship.  If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation, taking the Eucharist is act of idolatry; therefore the Catholic Church is attempting to save those who do not believe this most Holy teaching from a terrible sin.

Catholics do not worship statues.  Yes, there are statues in the Catholic Church and they are used as tools to worship God, but they are never worship by educated Catholics.  The use of statues in worship is seen throughout the Bible - from the Jews carving angels on the Ark of the Covenant to bowing down to the serpent on a pole in order to be healed from a plague, due to their disobedience; to the modern day use of crosses in churches.  The fact is we are a people who use symbols in worship.  The warning against worshiping a symbol - a statue or the Bible - is important because people are often tempted to reduce God to something we can control, like an object - this is the true sin of idolatry.

No offense, but if the leaders of the Bible study that you attended didn't understand why different translations of the Bible do not have the same numbering system, they should become more educated before they commit to leading a Bible study.  Verse and chapter numbers within the Bible are not part of the inspired text.  They were added centuries later so that the Bible would be easier to learn.  Different Bible scholars determine different ways of translating the ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew text; therefore the translations contain different verse numbers.  Joseph Smith (self-proclaimed prophet of the Mormon Church) claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon from an ancient manuscript written in 500 BC, but modern scholars know that this cannot be true because the verse numbers in Isaiah and Mathew (included in the Book of Mormon) match the KJV of the Bible which was not written until 1500 years in the future.  Once again verse numbers, chapters, and the order (canon) of the Bible are not part of the inspired text of the Bible.

blessings

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 01:29:55If you are a Christian who doesn't believe in Transubstantiation, taking the Eucharist is act of idolatry; therefore the Catholic Church is attempting to save those who do not believe this most Holy teaching from a terrible sin.

I'm not sure I understand the connection with "idolatry."  It seems that a Christian who doesn't subscribe to Transubstantiation would simply partake of the elements with the same thoughts as he normally would have if it was communion back at his own church.

However, many non-Catholics would have a conscience issue against partaking anyway, if they believe that the church they are in the presence of is in error or if the communion/"Eucharist" itself is in error because of the way it is done and/or the beliefs regarding it (such as Transubstantiation).


EDIT to add...

On reading further in your post, I think I may have a better understanding of your point:

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 01:29:55The warning against worshiping a symbol - a statue or the Bible - is important because people are often tempted to reduce God to something we can control, like an object - this is the true sin of idolatry.

So, you mean that the RCC wishes to protect non-Catholic Christians from, in their perception, reducing God to an object... like the elements of the Eucharist?

That's interesting to me that they at least make that concession, regarding the non-Catholic point of view.

It's been my understanding that it wasn't to protect Protestants, but it is sacrilege for one who does not share the belief of the real presence to participate.  That's certianly the view of the RCC in our town (it's printed in their worship materials).

Quote"Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church but who greatly desire to receive these sacraments, freely request them and manifest the faith which the Catholic Church professes with regard to these sacraments. Conversely, in specific cases and in particular circumstances, Catholics too can request these same sacraments from ministers of Churches in which these sacraments are valid."

"These conditions, from which no dispensation can be given, must be carefully respected, even though they deal with specific individual cases. That is because the denial of one or more truths of the faith regarding these sacraments and, among these, the truth regarding the need of the ministerial priesthood for their validity, renders the person asking improperly disposed to legitimately receiving them. And the opposite is also true: Catholics may not receive 'communion' in those communities which lack a valid sacrament of orders." --JPII

First, Thanks to everyone for responding. It is good I think, to share what we believe without contempt.  Again please understand I do not wish to offend anyone.  I am simply curious to understand different views.  As well as clear up any misconceptions I may have.  I do not wish to "change" anyone or attempt to make them share my beliefs.
That said, as far as private interpretation of the scripture, I see 2 Peter 1:20 as saying the bible was not written by random men seeking their own glory, but Holy men of God.  2 Peter 1:21 FOR THE PROPEHCY CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST. 
This tells me that God was in charge.  I don't take it to say that we do not have the right to intepret God's word individually.  If we are truly seeking God, He will direct our paths and show us the truth.  I have also come to learn, we can rarely take one verse of scripture and apply it, as God created a continuous living word for us to live by. 
As far as what I meant by christ being put back behind the veil, Christ died for all of us.  I don't believe we need the intervention of any mortal man to worship or take communion.
Our spiritual walk is our own, not to say we can not fellowship or seek the council of others.  We should do those things.  Yet, when we start believing one man has more of an annointing than another, we are in trouble.  God gives no man preferance over another.  He created us all equally and Christ died for the sins of EVERY man.  He does not need help in forgiving sins.  He accomplished that at His death, burial, and resurrection.
As for idols, anything that takes our focus off of God is considered an idol.  God used the snake and things like that withthe Israelites because of their hardheartedness.  He used them as tools to get their focus back on Him, they were never intended to be held in high esteem.

QuoteFirst, Thanks to everyone for responding. It is good I think, to share what we believe without contempt.  Again please understand I do not wish to offend anyone.  I am simply curious to understand different views.  As well as clear up any misconceptions I may have.  I do not wish to "change" anyone or attempt to make them share my beliefs.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss your beliefs; I to, hope that we can continue talking without contempt.

QuoteThat said, as far as private interpretation of the scripture, I see 2 Peter 1:20 as saying the bible was not written by random men seeking their own glory, but Holy men of God.  2 Peter 1:21 FOR THE PROPHECY CAME NOT IN OLD TIME BY THE WILL OF MAN: BUT HOLY MEN OF GOD SPAKE AS THEY WERE MOVED BY THE HOLY GHOST. 
This tells me that God was in charge.  I don't take it to say that we do not have the right to interpret God's word individually.  If we are truly seeking God, He will direct our paths and show us the truth.  I have also come to learn, we can rarely take one verse of scripture and apply it, as God created a continuous living word for us to live by.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point.  As I mentioned before, I do believe God speaks to us individually through the scripture; however it doesn't change the public revelation (underlying truth found in the scriptures) of the verse.  If private interpretation of the scriptures was a valid way to read the Bible than Mormons would be perfectly correct in their reading of

John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

as applying to the Nephites in the Book of Mormon (and to their church) instead of the Gentiles of the NT and today.  David Keresh would have been correct that Waco was the fulfillment of the Apocalypse in Revelation.  Do you see my point?

QuoteAs far as what I meant by christ being put back behind the veil, Christ died for all of us.  I don't believe we need the intervention of any mortal man to worship or take communion.

Through God's grace, mortal man has been used by God to accomplish a lot of great things like leading the Israelites out of Egypt, securing the Promise Land, spreading the gospel, writing the inspired Bible, etc.  God does not rely on humans, He allows us to participate in special ways according to His plan.

QuoteOur spiritual walk is our own, not to say we can not fellowship or seek the council of others.  We should do those things.  Yet, when we start believing one man has more of an anointing than another, we are in trouble.  God gives no man preference over another.  He created us all equally and Christ died for the sins of EVERY man.  He does not need help in forgiving sins.  He accomplished that at His death, burial, and resurrection.

I agree that God does not need humans - we are totally in His care; however, He has chosen to befriend individuals and groups of people in a special way throughout the Bible and today.  Also, Christ's sacrifice is the only reason we have access to His forgiveness, but He allows us to participate in that forgiveness - in the Great Commission Jesus sends out his Disciples to preach the gospel, heal the people and to forgive sins.

QuoteAs for idols, anything that takes our focus off of God is considered an idol.  God used the snake and things like that with the Israelites because of their hardheartedness.  He used them as tools to get their focus back on Him, they were never intended to be held in high esteem.

Well, I did mention that the Catholic Church does not worship statues - I not sure why you believe Jewish people were using statues correctly and Catholics are not?

blessings

If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --

Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism?  Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?

Quote from: janine on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --

Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism?  Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?

I am not an authority on Catholic doctrine - I am simply a Catholic who likes to discuss theology.  I am just as qualified to be here as anyone, I suppose.  Hopefully, I have directed people who are interested in learning more about Catholicism to read the Catholic Catechism; if I have not, please do.

blessings

You have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that.  It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.

Thinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --

If anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".

We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader.  Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.

You OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".

Our excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that --
Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --
Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling".  They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.

If one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word.  We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.

So -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something --

By what authority do you speak?

All I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved".  And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way".

How do you explain things?  You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?

Quote from: janine on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 16:13:49
You have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that.  It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.

Thinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --

If anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".

We in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader.  Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.

You OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".

Our excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that --
Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --
Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling".  They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.

If one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word.  We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.

So -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something --

By what authority do you speak?

All I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved".  And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way".

How do you explain things?  You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?

I think that Ravenlorre has done a wonderful thing by providing this thread.  Janine, I am not sure what you are aiming for here.  The purpose of this thread, Ravenlorre can correct me if I am wrong, is to provide an explanation on Catholic doctrines and teachings.  There are many misconceptions as to what Catholics do believe.  As Mllevaleur has pointed out, it is important for people to see the Catholic POV.

Catholics have three things to guide them:  Scripture, Tradition, and the Teachings of the Church, all guided by the Holy Spirit.  None of these work against each other nor do they contradict one another.  There are no secrets as to what Catholics belive in.  Anyone can pick up a Catholic catechism and it is all there for the world to see.  Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.

You have got to be kidding me.

QuoteYou have a perfect right to express whatever you will re: the teachings of the Catholic Church.  I'm not saying you've done anything wrong in that.  It's certainly useful for people who are not Catholic or who have no contact with Catholics to be able to ask you things in a context like this.

Thank you.

QuoteThinking in terms of just one area of interest, what I am wondering involves this: when millions of people functionally, apparently attach such great adulation and reverence to objects, or to non-Deity dead people -- and when it looks and smells and sounds and moves like worship, to the observer --

We (Catholics) do not believe that we are praying to dead people.  It is still a bit shocking to me how much I used to believe that death divided us - the fact is Christ conquered death on the Cross - it no longer has the power to divide us from our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I think you may need to remember that Catholicism looks strange to Americans because it is a different culture.  Protestant churches have the advantage of looking more "normal" or comfortable to Americans because it grew alongside our country.  It would seem that some of your misinterpretation of Catholic worship may be do to a cultural difference - once you understand the culture from the inside, it appears quite differently.

QuoteIf anyone questions aspects of that phenomenon, up will come a Catholic poster (not necessarily you, and not necessarily on this thread -- I'm speaking in general re: these forums), who will try to explain it all away with comments like "but those were bad Catholics you saw/met/spoke to".

Yeah, I have noticed that it is a tendency for a minority group to become defensive at times.  I apologize if I have fallen into this temptation.  On the other hand, it is important for you to see the position Catholics are in; we tend to have to explain the behavior of uneducated Catholic brothers and sisters from every nation on Earth - including the rain forests of Peru all the way to downtown Manhattan; all Protestants have to do when handling a misinformed follower is apply a formula (usually based on their denomination's / favorite theologians idea of what a Christian is) and quickly dismiss the supposed heretic as not born again or not really Christian; while distancing themselves as fast as possible.  The poor behavior of American evangelists is a perfect example - they are quickly dismissed as lose cannons or backsliders; while every born-again, evangelical has a statue-worshiping Catholic aunt they can pull up out of the closet whenever they need a spokesman for Catholicism.

QuoteWe in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader.  Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.

Great.  Your denomination must have a Creed or list of requirements for being included within the fold of the Church of Christ - or else all Christian churches would be considered Church of Christ by your denomination.  What is the document that churches must comply with to be considered Church of Christ?

QuoteYou OTOH have a hierarchy above you, as a Catholic, and people charged with and trusted with much more authority than you have, as a simple Catholic, to speak "for the church".

Priests are quite educated - they have the equivalent of a Ph.D in theology so I think they are more qualified than me to comment on Church dogma / doctrine.

QuoteOur excuse, when one of us does something that looks spiritually off-the-wall, is the fact that -- Beyond the local dynamics of living and serving in a group of Christians, where we may have put ourselves in some ways under authority of a group of elders --Our excuse for the excesses and weirdnesses of such Christians is that they have to "work out", to express, their "own salvation in fear and trembling".  They have their Bible and their ability to understand it, whatever amount of understanding they can get out of it, as their model for Christian living.

Ok.  I have seen this to be true.  I guess we all have excuses for our pew-setters and off-the-mark members. 

QuoteIf one of us tries to answer a question "for the church", to interpret the actions and teachings of the church for the church as a whole, the whole Body of Christ still walking this Earth -- well, we have no ground to stand on but God's Word.  We may or may not be able to deny or defend, in a discussion about something the whole church appears to teach, when an outsider wonders about things.

Actually, it depends on your denomination - Presbyterians rely on the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith to help them sort out the sheep and the goats.

QuoteSo -- when you answer questions or discuss principles, etc., as a Catholic, on an "ask-A-Catholic" type thread -- questions about how or why the Catholic Church as a whole does or says or states something -- By what authority do you speak?

I rely on the Bible and the Catholic Catechism - which is a paraphrase of Catholic dogma.

QuoteAll I can say when I answer a question is "This is what I understand from what's recorded in the Bible, in light of what history tells us about the time and place of the people involved".  And I can say "It may be that XYZ group does this, or says that, because they understand and apply these Scriptures this way"

I agree and I try do the same thing.

QuoteHow do you explain things?  You may or may not call on some incident or principle in Scripture; you may or may not call upon the traditional teachings that have built up and layered themselves onto the Word; what are you drawing upon for your answers?

I rely on my understanding of the Bible and the Catholic Catechism - since I am not infallible, I may get things wrong from time to time, but I do my best.  I also believe that using my experience to relate scripture / dogma to others helps them to understand difficult concepts more easily.

blessings

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.

You have got to be kidding me.

Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.

blessings

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 00:20:43

Quote from: Mere Nick on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 08:08:32

Quote from: mllevaleur on Sun Sep 02, 2007 - 03:31:19
All those elders and such we read about in the bible, Catholics see those as priests. There were other priests around besides just Paul to procure the Eucharist, and we believe he's refering to his ministerial priesthood in that verse. But I'm not out to convince you I'm right, so feel free to go right ahead and agree to disagree.

It would be nice, though, if in the future you assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it. 

You're the one who brought up Romans 15.  I was the one effectively asking you to "assume others must have some other understanding of a verse and ask about it before pointing it out as if they didn't know about it or even worse, imply that they purposely ignore it."

Aah, but I never assumed otherwise, or implied otherwise.

*Points up to the title of this thread* See that? "Ask-A-Catholic."

The purpose of this thread is to clarify and explain Catholic teaching, as there are lots of misconception and misunderstandings out there about it. The Catholics were doing this, when you felt the need to point out a certain verse. It seems your point was to imply that Catholics don't seem to be taking into account the verse you posted.  My response was an attempt to explain our view as Catholics, and to show how we do indeed take the verse into account (along with other verses that we believe support our view), since that's kind of the purpose of this thread - to "Ask-A-Catholic" about their viewpoint.

As you can see, whether or not you agree with how we take the verse you posted into account, we do, indeed, have an understanding of it that fits in with our theology. It is not forgotton or ignored by us.
Seeing as most of the Catholics here are actually converts from protestantism, we're quite aware that there are other views of that verse. It's just a common scenario for us to run into people who assume we're "ignoring scripture" or don't know it, and who point out verses as if we're not aware of them already. I was simply pointing out that assuming this isn't very charitable.

Perhaps I should ask you, when you wandered into the "Ask-A-Catholic" thread and posted that verse, did you not do so because you felt we were overlooking it? If so, I'm saying, perhaps in the future you can ask us if we have some other understanding of the verse than you do, rather than first assuming we're overlooking it, and posting it as if it alone proves your point. Then we will feel as if you actually have enough respect for us as fellow Christians to assume we respect the Written Word enough to have taken the time to consider this verse in light of our Catholic beliefs. Make sense?

I'm just looking for some understanding, not agreement. 

No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it, but what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.  It's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.

Quote from: janine on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --

Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism?  Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?

The beauty of being Catholic is that official Catholic answers are pretty easy to find.  We can look to the catechism, canon law, Church documents, etc, for answers and thorough explanations, since the Church doesn't expect us to make up our own understanding of doctrine. So all we have to do is find an official source that explains our understanding, point to that, and we're good to go!

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:47:06

QuoteWe in the Churches of Christ, for example, have no Earthly leader.  Local shepherds and overseers and servants of local congregations, and each group and each Christian trying to live and learn in light of Scripture.

Great.  Your denomination must have a Creed or list of requirements for being included within the fold of the Church of Christ - or else all Christian churches would be considered Church of Christ by your denomination.  What is the document that churches must comply with to be considered Church of Christ?

You must not be all that familiar with the Churches of Christ, lol. Denominations and creeds are big no-nos!! ;-) "No creed but the bible!!" is a common battle cry, and they don't consider themselves a denomination.

Of course, it gets sticky when there are lots of different understandings of the bible....that's one thing I loved about becoming Catholic, there was finally very clear, plain, easy to access documents that explained Church teaching, without resorting to cryptic "just read the bible and figure it out" type messages.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07

No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,

Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?

Quotebut what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.

I'm interested in what any kind of Catholic has to say about it...Byzantine Catholic, Melkite Catholic.  Ok, lol, sorry that was a little Catholic humor. ;-)

In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always,  but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.

QuoteIt's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.

Um..well, in a thread called "Ask-A-Catholic," where the idea is to explain our POV (not to try to convince people we're right), yeah, that's kind of the idea. You can certainly question the answer, if there's something you don't understand about it. But if you disagree with it, then we can just agree to disagree, no one is expecting everyone to agree with us. (At least, not that I'm aware of.) Perhaps that's where there is some confusion. My goal is to explain the Catholic POV, not convince others that it is correct. If you understand it, but disagree, then in my mind, my job is pretty much done! 

You can be sure that I won't be in an "Ask-a-Protestant" type thread trying to challenge an answer, when protestants are merely trying to explain their viewpoint (not convince me that they're right). If I wanted to challenge an answer and argue about it, with the intent of trying to change someone's mind or prove them wrong, I'd take it to another thread myself. Of course, I tend not to do that kind of thing anyway, as usually when people set out to convince someone they're wrong they don't end up getting very far most of the time!

God Bless!

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:34:53

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07

No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,

Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?

Quotebut what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.

In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always,  but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.

QuoteIt's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.

Um..well,

It would probably be best, then, for the both of us if I just talk to my RC friend Steve.  He is more interested in dialogue and lacks even the slightest taint of condescension.

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:54:48

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.

You have got to be kidding me.

Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.

blessings

That hardly proves objectivity.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:55:15

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:34:53

Quote from: Mere Nick on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:11:07

No, I don't think Catholics are overlooking it,

Oh good! So was there some other reason why you posted it?

Quotebut what I do sense is that you aren't really interested in hearing what non-Roman Catholics have to say about it.

In this thread, admittedly, no I didn't post here in order to learn what Protestants believe. I was one before I was Catholic, so usually (not always,  but usually) I already know the typical protestant objections. More often, others don't know the Catholic POV, though, hence the thread.

QuoteIt's as though we can ask a question, but not question the answer.

Um..well,

It would probably be best, then, for the both of us if I just talk to my RC friend Steve.  He is more interested in dialogue and lacks even the slightest taint of condescension.

I'm so glad you have a Catholic friend to dialogue with, that's lovely! 

God Bless!

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:55:50

Quote from: ravenlorre on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 21:54:48

Quote from: Gary on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:37:25

Quote from: broach972 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 18:19:06
Catholicism operates on an objective standard while most Protestants opreate on a subjective standard, as you have pointed out in your post.

You have got to be kidding me.

Well, it does appear that the Catholics that post on this board agree which each other; while the Protestants here seem to disagree quite a bit.

blessings

That hardly proves objectivity.

Hmm, I wonder if we're using the terms in a similar manner or not?

The fact is, the Catholic Church very clearly states (in documents accessible to all) what it is Catholics are to believe. This is why it is "objective" and not "subjective," because it's not up to the individuals to interpret scripture or decide what to believe, it's not dependent upon personal experience or understanding, etc. Therefore, when several Catholics (as we have here) get together, even if they've never met or talked before, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree, because Church teaching is clearly stated elsewhere, externally, objectively, and they simply each present this same objective teaching.

Protestants, on the other hand, are more likely to read the bible with their own personal ideas in mind and come away with different interpretations, since there is no official external interpretor. That's not to say they are any less sincere in their desire to serve God faithfully and study His Word, certainly not! But since protestantism largely leaves biblical interpretation up to the reader, it makes sense that protestant beliefs will, therefore, by the very nature of their understanding of how scripture works, be more subjective than Catholicism. They will be more personal, more individual, because there is not one objective interpretation agreed upon by all of them.

I'm not even saying this is a good or bad thing at this point, it just...is! Some may certainly argue that the protestant way is the better way, because people are allowed to decide for themselves and aren't bound to what some external source tells them. Others, of course, would argue differently.

But the bottom line is, Catholics rely on an exterior source to know Catholic teaching (which may or may not be correct), thus it's objective. Protestants, by and large, rely on their own understanding of scripture and Christianity for their teaching (which may or may not be correct), thus it's subjective. At least, that's how I'm understanding the usage of the terms in this thread! Not meant to be offensive or belittling, just stating the reality of the situation.

Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.

It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.

It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.

Oh certainly! That's why I said, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."

It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.

But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.

Hope that makes sense!

Lady, exactly what am I supposed to be protesting?  Y'all toss around that "Protestant" label the way the Bible-time Jews used "Gentile".

It's so nice to know, as a Catholic, that I could simply look up some nice catechism or hit the Vatican website, and thus be relieved of the need to think.

Quote from: janine on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 14:04:10
Lady, exactly what am I supposed to be protesting?  Y'all toss around that "Protestant" label the way the Bible-time Jews used "Gentile".

My apologies, I didn't mean it in an offensive way.

I'll try to remember to stick to "non-Catholics" if that's better.

QuoteIt's so nice to know, as a Catholic, that I could simply look up some nice catechism or hit the Vatican website, and thus be relieved of the need to think.

Oh certainly not, I haven't done more thinking than after I became Catholic, there is SO much deep theology to study and understand and devour. I quite enjoy it! 

It is nice, though, to be free of the doubts about which biblical interpretation is correct and constant questions without definitive answers I had growing up. I admit that this is one of the reasons I like the idea that Our Father provided us with an earthly authority guided by the Holy Spirit to go for answers! 

Lord, have mercy.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:33:30

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.

It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.

Oh certainly! That's why I said, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."

It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.

But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.

Hope that makes sense!

OK, so are the disidents Catholics? With what must one disagree in order to not be Catholic?

Actually, since Protestants, generally, claim the Bible as sufficient, what else would they need? If Catholics can be Catholics and not see Catholicism in the same way, why can't Protestants not see the Bible the same way and still be 'kosher?'

We won't go into the churches that claim apostolic succession and yet don't do the Pope thing.

Quote from: mllevaleur on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 22:14:18

Quote from: janine on Mon Sep 03, 2007 - 15:41:53
If this "Ask-A-Catholic" thread is intended to explain the one-and-only teaching/position of the Roman Catholic Church on XYZ issues --

Have any of you practicing Catholics who've come here to discuss this stuff a position of high authority within Catholicism?  Who are you to provide the Official Catholic Answers?

The beauty of being Catholic is that official Catholic answers are pretty easy to find.  We can look to the catechism, canon law, Church documents, etc, for answers and thorough explanations, since the Church doesn't expect us to make up our own understanding of doctrine. So all we have to do is find an official source that explains our understanding, point to that, and we're good to go!

I can appreciate the advantages of having the doctrine clear and spelled out.   In fact, that is a major responsibility of teachers according to Paul and really much of each of our own understanding of doctrine has been passed on to us as well.  I am not convinced however that the pursuit of doctrine (or the resting in knowing one does not have to pursue doctrine themself), in and of itself, is the mark of a true disciple.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 15:40:57

Quote from: mllevaleur on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:33:30

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 13:21:38
Catholics that believe all Roman pronouncements will say the same thing. Seems there are and have been quite a few Catholics that don't believe all the same ideas (birth control, women priests, authority of the Pope, etc.). Yes, I know the more vocal are black-listed or described as modern heretics, but that hardly goes to the point. There are Catholics, despite the availability of catechisms and the Vatican website, who do not agree, and interpret Scripture and church history slightly differently than the official line.

It is somewhat different to say that there is a comprehensive deposit of official dogma, and quite another to say that everyone believes it. Most high-church Protestants can claim to have a central repository as well, but that doesn't mean that all their adherents buy all of it.

Oh certainly! That's why I said, if they're faithful to Church teaching then they'll all agree. The difference lies in the fact that I can easily point to an external Church document accessible to all and say very clearly, "That person who identifies himself as Catholic is not actually in agreement with Catholic teaching on this matter."

It's much harder for a protestant to do the same, as there is no external source to point to, and various teachings tend to be based on personal and individual understandings rather than external official sources.

But I wasn't claiming that, therefore, all Catholics are always in agreement. Just that it's clear and easy to see when an individual Catholic is holding a dissident view since there is an external, objective source to compare it to in the first place.

Hope that makes sense!

OK, so are the disidents Catholics? With what must one disagree in order to not be Catholic?

Well certainly the dissenting Catholics are still Catholic, but that doesn't mean they're not in error. We believe the Church has wheat and chaff like Christ said, so you'll have those who agree with Church teaching, and those who disagree with Church teaching. Among those who agree, all of them will fail to live up to Church teaching, lol, as none of us are perfect, but we'll keep trying. Among those who disagree with Church teaching, you have those who obey anyway out of submission to Christ (which I think it a great testament to their faith), and those who choose to dissent, they disagree and choose to actively disobey. That doesn't make them not Catholic, as it's baptism that makes one Catholic/Christian or not. I don't stop being a Christian when I sin, they don't stop being Catholic when they dissent. I mean, in one way, no matter what a Christian will always be a Christian, by virtue of his baptism, even if he decided to become an atheist. But since we don't see being Christian/Catholic as necessarily "being saved," then it's possible to be dissenting but still be Catholic.

Now, depending on one's action and beliefs, they may be an actively dissenting Catholic, or a Catholic that holds to heresy (knowingly or unkowingly), or any number of things. I would say that in our everyday view, one who rejected the Catholic Church as a whole, rejected the sacraments, the magisterium and Sacred Tradition, etc, would probably be considered "not Catholic" anymore, although in one way he would remain so forever because of the indelible mark of baptism on his soul.

Sorry...I know that's kind of confusing! Suffice it to say, most Catholics I know don't tend to spend much time worrying about who is Catholic enough to be considered Catholic! They just consider anyone who identifies himself as Catholic as such. Whether they're dissenting or not is a separate issue.

QuoteActually, since Protestants, generally, claim the Bible as sufficient, what else would they need? If Catholics can be Catholics and not see Catholicism in the same way, why can't Protestants not see the Bible the same way and still be 'kosher?'

Well...I think they can! I mean, I would never say that someone isn't a Protestant because, for instance, they don't hold to the doctrine of OSAS.

But as I said, being a dissenting Catholic doesn't mean you're not in error. So likewise, someone may hold to some doctrine as a Protestant/Non-Catholic, but still be in error, and yet still be protestant/non-Catholic.

It's just that, when it comes to the Bible, there are obviously many different interpretations, all by good hearted and sincere and God-loving people. Who's to say which is correct? Sometimes looking at the original language helps people figure it out, sometimes looking at other passages in the bible helps people to figure it out, but sometimes it's just kind of a mystery and people do the best they can, and you'll end up with lots of different understandings of the same thing, with no place that says "this is the right way, and this is the wrong way."

With Catholic teaching, very precise language is usually used to be very clear about what is being said. You may have a dissenting Catholic, but most dissenting Catholics won't say, for instance, "Oh, I don't think the Church says abortion is wrong...I think they're ok with it in some circumstances." It's not an issue of disagreement about interpretation. Instead, what they'll say is, "I know the Church is against abortion in all circumstances, but I just disagree with them." This is because the Church is VERY clear about their stance on abortion, and unless someone had their head in the sand, lol, it would be pretty hard to not be aware of it!

Now, likewise in a Protestant/non-Catholic group, you don't usually have people just blatantly saying, "I know the bible says xyz, I just disagree with it." Usually, the issue is that people disagree about what the bible actually says.

Make sense?

So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?

I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.

Quote from: HRoberson on Tue Sep 04, 2007 - 17:35:16
So what must I do to be Catholic - dissenting of course, from the start, but what would I need to do, since I've been baptized, and Benedict says that that's good enough?

I'll let go for now the distinction between being saved and being a Christian. May want to re-look that one at a later time.

Well I'll let you in on a little secret...as we believe that anyone who is baptized is baptized into "the Church," and as we believe that "the Church" means the Catholic (Universal) Church, on some level, we consider all Christians to be part of the Catholic Church already.

Obviously, though, there is a separation between us in doctrine! This is why the Church speaks of non-Catholic Christians as our separated brothers and sisters. One of the main things that signifies a Catholic from a non-Catholic, in an everyday manner of speaking, is reception of the sacraments. If one believes in and/or partakes of the sacraments, he would likely be considered Catholic, even if he was dissenting on some issues.

And I'm not sure what you mean about Pope Benedict saying "that's good enough."