Christian Forums

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 22:37:03
If she truly loved them, she would get her facts straight. But clearly she'd rather rail against them and judge them than actually take seriously

Kinda like when Cartholics bask Prot's in ignorance?     Ya, I see that all the time.

Ignorance is not necessarily the problem--though it is lamentable wherever it is found--rather, willful ignorance is the problem.  Most of the Catholic bashing that goes on here is definitely willful ignorance, bordering in some cases on outright hate.

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 22:37:03
Is *that* what all the snarky sarcasm and false allegations are?  Sorry.  I must have missed it.

(For one who claims to be an expert on Catholicism, I've never seen so much ignorance about a religion.  If she truly loved them, she would get her facts straight. But clearly she'd rather rail against them and judge them than actually take seriously what they say about their own faith.  Feel the luv.)

I don't hate Catholics... I hate Catholicism the practice of an idolatrous religion that threatens to take my loved ones for at least 3 generations to Hell for a false "salvation" based on the teachings of such religion that they have fallen for  ... and while you may not know it, there is a difference.  I am related to some of the most lovable Catholics ever born.. and I have NEVER claimed to be an expert... (talk about false accusations and getting facts straight)..  No, I do not just take your word for what they walk and believe before my very eyes... I take theirs.  And that is what I base my opinion of Catholicism on. It would be ignorant not to.

I have my facts straight... they are not saved. They need Jesus. That is a FACT.

I know what they have said they believe, I know what they have walked out in front of me based on what they believe, and no matter how much you dig in and you refuse to acknowledge it, you cannot walk it out for them.  It doesn't work that way.  You say I am ignorant, but how can I be the one who is ignorant concerning people who I talk to every day, who I see and walk with, who I cry with and care for.. it seems the only one of us who can actually be ignorant concerning what they believe concerning my husband, and their religion is you.  IMHO.

Quote from: kensington on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 00:12:11
I don't hate Catholics... I hate Catholicism

Hey, that's me!

Quote from: Charles Sloan on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 00:18:08

Quote from: kensington on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 00:12:11
I don't hate Catholics... I hate Catholicism

Hey, that's me!

I KNOW!!   

I don't know why people can't get that... it's like saying we can't distinguish the fish from the water...   

Quote from: Snargles on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 22:29:06

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 22:20:27

Quote from: kensington on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 21:06:07PS.. I don't hate Catholics...

You couldn't tell it.

That she doesn't hate them is shown by her concern for their souls.

I agree - anger can easily be misinterpreted as hate in the written word here.   
I find people sometimes think I should be all syrupy sweet bec I'm Christian and work that into any conversation. ( It usually starts with the "How are you?"  -"Fabulous, by the Grace of God!!!")

Sometimes I will bring up, when the moment calls for it, Jesus immediately after the Transfiguration -which is one of my favorite parts of Jesus' life and is not mentiond enough, imo.
(IMO, should be thought of at least once a day:)  Mt. 17

Jesus shows James, John and Peter ---who He really is. And then on top of that as if that wasn't enough ---talks with Elijah and Moses right in front of His obviously top most prepared disciples ---but right afterwards -according to which interrpretation you read  ---He says how long do I have to remain with you - How long do I have to suffer (bear) you?      You  all read the details and picture the scene ---after He has just shown who He really is ---His face became like the SUN!! (picture that each morning)

( For Trekkies very much like, I think it's called  The Transformation Episode -pls correct me and remind me which season that is :)

Oh, I go on...:) And this was 6 days after Ch 16 !!

Anyway, Kensington, you hang in there -it's our born again, shining love that may one day show a Catholic what they're missing out on  ( and everyone )---drip, by drip, you know?
But, fired-up is apprpriate also, imo.   :)

In-laws are like a curse, don't you find?   ;) ;)

Love talking to you, Elaine 
God Bless you always, Live long and prosper...

Quote from: kensington on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 00:12:11I have my facts straight... they are not saved. They need Jesus. That is a FACT.

They have Jesus.  You're the one ignorant of the fact.  And you just committed a sin: judging the salvation of another person.

Quote from: kensington on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 00:12:11You say I am ignorant, .  . .

No, you demonstrate it with every post.

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 23:08:51
Most of the Catholic bashing that goes on here is definitely willful ignorance, bordering in some cases on outright hate.

And almost all of the lifelong Catholics I know (which includes dozens in my own family) are ignorant of Catholicism.  And they don't feel any particular urgency to learn -- hence, willfully so.  And yet, because they got baptized Catholic as newborns and they go to Mass once in a while, they proudly wear the label.

Which, of course, describes many Protestants as well...

Quote from: CDHealy on Fri Oct 24, 2008 - 23:08:51
Most of the Catholic bashing that goes on here is definitely willful ignorance

Another thought:

Most of the Catholics I know (including dozens in my own family) don't know enough about their own religion to explain it to their Prot. friends.  Hence, in my observation, the ignorance of Prot's is largely due to the inability of Catholics to explain themselves.

Can't blame the Protestants for that.

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:31:17Hence, in my observation, the ignorance of Prot's is largely due to the inability of Catholics to explain themselves.

Can't blame the Protestants for that.

With the entire Catholic Catechism online, the ready availability of Catholic books and other materials, uh, no  . . . Protestant ignorance is willful, mate.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:36:42

Quote from: stevehut on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:31:17Hence, in my observation, the ignorance of Prot's is largely due to the inability of Catholics to explain themselves.

Can't blame the Protestants for that.

With the entire Catholic Catechism online, the ready availability of Catholic books and other materials, uh, no  . . . Protestant ignorance is willful, mate.

Protestant ignorance of what?  A wrong theology?  There are untold thousands of such wrong theologies including the Roman Catholic one.  It isn't necessary to know the wrong ones.

It is if you're going to criticize one of them as wrong, or, more salaciouisly as "idolatrous."

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:51:39
It is if you're going to criticize one of them as wrong, or, more salaciouisly as "idolatrous."

All you really need to know is what is right.  In the case of the Catholic theology, you don't need to get very deep into it to see that it isn't a Scriptural theology.  In fact I don't think you don't need to get much beyond the functional hierarchy to see that.

Quote from: Jimmy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 10:02:27All you really need to know is what is right.  In the case of the Catholic theology, you don't need to get very deep into it to see that it isn't a Scriptural theology.  In fact I don't think you don't need to get much beyond the functional hierarchy to see that.

Actually, Catholic theology is much more biblical than any Restorationist or generic evangelical theology.

Let's compare 'em, shall we?

Quote from: Jimmy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 10:02:27

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:51:39
It is if you're going to criticize one of them as wrong, or, more salaciouisly as "idolatrous."

All you really need to know is what is right.  In the case of the Catholic theology, you don't need to get very deep into it to see that it isn't a Scriptural theology.  In fact I don't think you don't need to get much beyond the functional hierarchy to see that.

This is right, but it is also the exact point when they have been taught to "twist" the content of the scriptures to mean something in Catholicism that is not actually in scripture.  And they believe it.  They get offended if it is pointed out to them, and of course tell you that you did not take the time to learn enough about it. 

I think that CD is grasping at straws....  especially when it come to me...  I can go directly to the WORD of God, I need not read the Catechism online to know if a person is actually saved or if they need the salvation of the LORD...  if they need Jesus.  And since the Great Commission is to go into all the world... which includes unsaved Catholics, I have done nothing wrong to see that, and understand that.  My BIL is an abusive drug addict/drunk who has no love for the common man....  He is not saved. He has been a Catholic his whole life, but he has yet to meet Jesus and to repent of his sins or get saved.

It appears to me that CD believes that just because that banner over you is "Catholic" you have salvation and that you know Jesus as LORD.  But, that not true.  He gets upset with me for pointing out this fact, but I can't worry about what he thinks of me... I have family who need salvation and whose Children need salvation before it's too late.  It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or not, unsaved is unsaved.  They need Jesus.  They peek at him for a while at mass on Sunday, but they never actually die to self and take up His cross and carry it.  They leave the "daily missle" on the table and go to the bars, smoke the crack, gamble or lie....  don't tell me that is saved. To be saved is to be transformed from what you were to what you are supposed to be... not to take what you are with you and continue in that, thinking that being a member of a religion is your salvation.  That is foolish.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 12:39:20

Quote from: Jimmy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 10:02:27All you really need to know is what is right.  In the case of the Catholic theology, you don't need to get very deep into it to see that it isn't a Scriptural theology.  In fact I don't think you don't need to get much beyond the functional hierarchy to see that.

Actually, Catholic theology is much more biblical than any Restorationist or generic evangelical theology.

Let's compare 'em, shall we?

Do you have a handy-dandy chart, or would we need to joust back and forth to get this done?

kensington:

Nothing of your claims about me are true.  I am well acquainted with Catholic theology, Scripture and individual Catholics.  I also can read what you write pretty clearly.

You, however, are mired in abject ignorance and bigotry--which is more than evident by your words.  Your arrogance regarding your belief that your personal opinion and personal interpretation of Scripture is right saturates every word.

The fact of the matter is simple: Catholics have Jesus.  They don't subscribe to your narrow bigotry and judgmentalism, but they have Jesus.  They have faith in Jesus.  They have the same New Testament you do, they believe in Jesus, the Son of God and second Person of the Trinity.  They believe Jesus died for their sins and rose again.

Do they sin?  Sure do.  And so do you.  So, which is worse: struggling with alcoholism or the sort of judging you do which Jesus forbids?  Guess what: you both need, you both have, Jesus.

Period.

I'm sorry that you're so twisted up in your lack of love that you can't see it.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 15:34:26Do you have a handy-dandy chart, or would we need to joust back and forth to get this done?

Charts 're fer sissies!  Bring it on.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 16:31:34

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 15:34:26Do you have a handy-dandy chart, or would we need to joust back and forth to get this done?

Charts 're fer sissies!  Bring it on.

Sorry...spent too many years in the Army.

I prefer pictures.

But thanks anyway.

Joking aside, HRoberson--

The entire problem is that Catholic dogma is being caricatured as it is on these boards.  To then further reduce comparative theologies to bullet points (which bullet points inescapably take on the prejudices being elucidates), is only to exacerbate the problem.

But, look, one doesn't have to engage in 20-page, footnoted back-and-forth.  Just take one or two important items.

For example, Catholics and Restoration Movement Christians both believe that baptism is a necessary component of salvation and that grace happens in baptism (i.e., that a salvific act of God takes place in baptism).  Both Catholics and RM Christians believe that baptism unites the person with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

There is, of course, the difference on who each group allows to be baptized (though having been an RM Christian and now being an Orthodox Christian, in actual practice this is a difference without much distinction).  Which group has the more biblical doctrine?  Given the totality of the Scriptures (as opposed to a handful of isolated verses), I happen to think the ancient Christian view is the right one.

But we can surely discuss these differences, respectfully, giving each his/her due.

Of course, baptism has been done to death on these boards.

But my point is that most Catholic bashing is a bunch of straw-man attacks and not a real engagement with actual Catholic dogma.  So a point by point comparison would be welcome so that some of the hateful bigotry evidenced on these boards could be called out.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 16:57:58
But my point is that most Catholic bashing is a bunch of straw-man attacks and not a real engagement with actual Catholic dogma.  So a point by point comparison would be welcome so that some of the hateful bigotry evidenced on these boards could be called out.

I don't do Catholic bashing - at least I don't intend to. Quite frankly, I think there are some very good aspects of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

My view however isn't one that determines "correctness" based on options chosen by Christians in the early centuries. Without getting into a baptism discussion, my view would be that a decision made to follow God is only something that a competent person could do, and at the same time I understand the confirmatory and community-sealing that baptism represents as well. However, Jewish ablutions weren't designed for children and baptism is a direct descendant of those ablutions. Therefore, it's a nice consideration that RC and Orthodox folk baptize sub-one-year-old children, but I'm not convinced that we don't lose something in doing that.

As I have said earlier in this thread, I have some trouble with the centrality of Mariology - which I understand the development of, but can't quite find it in Scripture. If I could believe Fr. Corapi that the Rosary's center is Jesus, it might make it a bit easier to want to follow. But - the Rosary continues the centrality of Mary in many RC and Orthodox practices.

I like the Orthodox idea of the church being a local community of faith, but I shy away from councils making "law." Of course, I have concerns about any group of humans making law, but that's another story.

In short, I view the RC and Orthodox folks much like the RC view non-Catholics. Essentially, if you're following God as best you can, you're likely "in." At least that's what the two priests on Web of Faith say.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14However, Jewish ablutions weren't designed for children and baptism is a direct descendant of those ablutions.

Actually, the New Testament is pretty clear: baptism is a direct descendent (type/antitype) of circumcision, not Jewish ritual ablutions, nor Jewish proselyte baptism, nor the baptism of John the Baptist.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14As I have said earlier in this thread, I have some trouble with the centrality of Mariology - which I understand the development of, but can't quite find it in Scripture.

Perhaps you need to read Luke 1 all over again: "All generations will call me blessed," "the mother of my Lord," and so on.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14If I could believe Fr. Corapi that the Rosary's center is Jesus, it might make it a bit easier to want to follow. But - the Rosary continues the centrality of Mary in many RC and Orthodox practices.

Perhaps your Christology needs a bit more filling out.  But the Rosary prayers are pretty clear: the Our Father, the Gloria Patri, even the Ave Maria is all about Christ.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14I like the Orthodox idea of the church being a local community of faith, but I shy away from councils making "law." Of course, I have concerns about any group of humans making law, but that's another story.

Sounds like the problem is your own hang ups and not the fact that the Church was given authority by Christ to bind and to loose.

In any case, "law" in Orthodoxy is bounded by the grace of economy (frequently the "loosening" of canons, sometimes the tightening of them), and not by the more Western rigidity that is frequently evidenced.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14In short, I view the RC and Orthodox folks much like the RC view non-Catholics. Essentially, if you're following God as best you can, you're likely "in." At least that's what the two priests on Web of Faith say.

The Orthodox understanding is that faith in Christ is the sine qua non.  There are members of the Orthodox Church who will be going to hell, and Christians outside the Orthodox Church that God will have mercy on and include in the Kingdom.  But the Orthodox Church is nonetheless the Body of Christ--if one wants to be united to Christ, one wants to be united with his Body, for the two are inseparable.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 21:55:13

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14However, Jewish ablutions weren't designed for children and baptism is a direct descendant of those ablutions.

Actually, the New Testament is pretty clear: baptism is a direct descendent (type/antitype) of circumcision, not Jewish ritual ablutions, nor Jewish proselyte baptism, nor the baptism of John the Baptist.

We're going to have to disagree about how clear that is.

Quote

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14As I have said earlier in this thread, I have some trouble with the centrality of Mariology - which I understand the development of, but can't quite find it in Scripture.

Perhaps you need to read Luke 1 all over again: "All generations will call me blessed," "the mother of my Lord," and so on.

I would expect Scripture to mention Mary; I simply am not convinced that she needs as much centrality as she has.

Quote

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14If I could believe Fr. Corapi that the Rosary's center is Jesus, it might make it a bit easier to want to follow. But - the Rosary continues the centrality of Mary in many RC and Orthodox practices.

Perhaps your Christology needs a bit more filling out.  But the Rosary prayers are pretty clear: the Our Father, the Gloria Patri, even the Ave Maria is all about Christ.

Didn't I say that? But even so, she takes on a more obvious role than I believe Scripture appoints her. I don't mind if you want to appeal to her; I actually object to the implication that if I don't buy Mariology, there's something demonstrably wrong with my theology.

Quote

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14I like the Orthodox idea of the church being a local community of faith, but I shy away from councils making "law." Of course, I have concerns about any group of humans making law, but that's another story.

Sounds like the problem is your own hang ups and not the fact that the Church was given authority by Christ to bind and to loose.

Yeah...I don't see that either. I don't know that I'd call it a hang up as much as unconvincing evidence in Scripture.

QuoteIn any case, "law" in Orthodoxy is bounded by the grace of economy (frequently the "loosening" of canons, sometimes the tightening of them), and not by the more Western rigidity that is frequently evidenced.

Quote from: HRoberson on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 17:31:14In short, I view the RC and Orthodox folks much like the RC view non-Catholics. Essentially, if you're following God as best you can, you're likely "in." At least that's what the two priests on Web of Faith say.

The Orthodox understanding is that faith in Christ is the sine qua non.  There are members of the Orthodox Church who will be going to hell, and Christians outside the Orthodox Church that God will have mercy on and include in the Kingdom.  But the Orthodox Church is nonetheless the Body of Christ--if one wants to be united to Christ, one wants to be united with his Body, for the two are inseparable.

Yes well, the Web priests don't seem to agree. Granted they're not Orthodox but those schismatic Romans.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 16:30:53
kensington:

Nothing of your claims about me are true.  I am well acquainted with Catholic theology, Scripture and individual Catholics.

You, however, are mired in abject ignorance and bigotry--which is more than evident by your words.  

I'm sorry that you're so twisted up in your lack of love that you can't see it.

Really, you are really "sorry" that I am twisted... did you read your remarks... does this mean you have all the answers and you are taking your precious time to share them with the lowly me?  Whatever...   What a game you play.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 12:39:20

Quote from: Jimmy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 10:02:27All you really need to know is what is right.  In the case of the Catholic theology, you don't need to get very deep into it to see that it isn't a Scriptural theology.  In fact I don't think you don't need to get much beyond the functional hierarchy to see that.

Actually, Catholic theology is much more biblical than any Restorationist or generic evangelical theology.

Let's compare 'em, shall we?

Please do, you 2 - I'm all ears - I want to know what the deal is with people not thinking Catholics are Biblical - I've heard that since 1994 - and didn't know what was meant ----I've got more of an idea now, of course, because of these type of sites.  But I need to get  a better idea. Thank you, Elaine

I think one big problem is that most Prots believe in sola scriptura - we get our authority from Genesis to Revelation and from no other source. Scripture warns us about taking away or adding to scripture.

Catholics think the tradition of the fathers is also a valid source of teaching. In 1872 the Pope declared he was infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

We are using two different sets of rules. It is like one of us is using football rules and and one is using rugby rules. The games look similar but there are enough differences that we end up with more blood spilled than goals scored.

Quote from: Snargles on Sun Oct 26, 2008 - 20:54:48
I think one big problem is that most Prots believe in sola scriptura - we get our authority from Genesis to Revelation and from no other source. Scripture warns us about taking away or adding to scripture.

Catholics think the tradition of the fathers is also a valid source of teaching. In 1872 the Pope declared he was infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

We are using two different sets of rules. It is like one of us is using football rules and and one is using rugby rules. The games look similar but there are enough differences that we end up with more blood spilled than goals scored.

Thank you and very good...that's a start for me understanding this more.
Could you tell me what sola scriptura and ex cathedra mean,btw - I can surmise - but don't want to. I want to be accurate.
As I understand Catholicism and watch EWTN I'm getting more of what you're saying.

May I quote something I JUST yesterday discovered. Has nothing to do with Cath or Prots necessarily...there is just soo much one can discover in the Bible when you least expect it...:)

Quote from: Elaine on Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 10:33:40

Quote from: Snargles on Sun Oct 26, 2008 - 20:54:48
I think one big problem is that most Prots believe in sola scriptura - we get our authority from Genesis to Revelation and from no other source. Scripture warns us about taking away or adding to scripture.

Catholics think the tradition of the fathers is also a valid source of teaching. In 1872 the Pope declared he was infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

We are using two different sets of rules. It is like one of us is using football rules and and one is using rugby rules. The games look similar but there are enough differences that we end up with more blood spilled than goals scored.

Thank you and very good...that's a start for me understanding this more.
Could you tell me what sola scriptura and ex cathedra mean,btw - I can surmise - but don't want to. I want to be accurate.
As I understand Catholicism and watch EWTN I'm getting more of what you're saying.

May I quote something I JUST yesterday discovered. Has nothing to do with Cath or Prots necessarily...there is just soo much one can discover in the Bible when you least expect it...:)

Sorry I hit a button by accident... the quote many of us may have not thoroughly studied:

I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All the the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.                                                                                   
                                                              John 16:12-15 RSV

If you're asking yourself why did Elaine insert this here on this thread?
I have no answer except - shear enthusiasm.

I have a Prot friend (me being a freelance Christian with my youth in Catholicism) that if I suggest something he has never thought of -willl frown and say - I don't know if that is in the Bible...I think he gets stuck by not opening to simple inner God-given revelations or simple insights.

This would help him understand, I think, that there is no limit to inner insight -lessons- wisdoms taught by the Holy Spirit - still awaiting us!!
Maybe it is of interest to some of you.

Jesus couldn't teach everything - the disciples were just not ready ---afterall He could only take the 3 of them with Him to watch His transfiguraton and His talk with Elijah and Moses. These were simple fisherman or treasurers, most of them.   Even at the end He says according to the translation - He still had many things to say to them.

It may seem as if this is a point to be made for Catholic beliefs - I did not mean it to be -but, it certainly could be used by a Catholic.

Just more things to think about, :) Elaine

Quote from: Snargles on Sun Oct 26, 2008 - 20:54:48
We are using two different sets of rules. It is like one of us is using football rules and and one is using rugby rules. The games look similar but there are enough differences that we end up with more blood spilled than goals scored.

I LOVE THIS ANALOGY!!  Well done!

Quote from: Snargles on Sun Oct 26, 2008 - 20:54:48
1- I think one big problem is that most Prots believe in sola scriptura

2-In 1872 the Pope declared he was infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

1- Perhaps in theory, but not in reality.  Most churches have a creed or confession as well.

2- Nope.  That was the Vatican Council.

Quote from: CDHealy on Sat Oct 25, 2008 - 09:36:42
With the entire Catholic Catechism online,

You're kidding, right?

Most Catholics don't know or read their Catechism, even after studying it in school.  My Catholic friends think I'm crazy, when I tell them that the Immaculate Conception isn't about Jesus.

Hence, they're not equipped to witness to their Protestant friends and neighbors.

Elaine --

Sola scriptura is the belief that the scriptures (Old and New Testaments) are sufficient in themselves to tell us all we need to know about God and his plans for us. We need dictionaries and commentaries to help us understand what we read, after all, the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew thousands of years ago by people in cultures different from ours, but no other writings have the authority to add to or take away from the Bible. As Steve pointed out, many denominations that claim to believe in sola scriptura still use creeds to help define their beliefs but I think this is more a matter of interpretation than adding something entirely new. Catholics believe that the patristic writers (men who wrote in the first few centuries of the church) and traditions of the church have the same authority as the Bible. If I am wrong in this CD will be sure to correct me.

As to ex cathedra, Steve is right and I am wrong. The Pope didn't say he was infallible, a Vatican council said it. Ex Cathedra means "from the chair" or "from the throne". The idea is that if the pope says "It looks like rain today" that doesn't mean it has to rain but if he make an official statement in his capacity as head of the church then it is to be taken as gospel. I think the first official ex cathedra statement was that Mary was taken up into heaven without ever having died. You won't find that in the Bible.

Quote from: Snargles on Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 12:10:33
1- As Steve pointed out, many denominations that claim to believe in sola scriptura still use creeds to help define their beliefs but I think this is more a matter of interpretation than adding something entirely new.

2- Catholics believe that the patristic writers (men who wrote in the first few centuries of the church) and traditions of the church have the same authority as the Bible.

3-I think the first official ex cathedra statement was that Mary was taken up into heaven without ever having died. You won't find that in the Bible.

1- But since many Prot's read their creeds carefully and the Bible only casually, they will never know.

2- Actually, it was the Immaculate Conception.  The Vatican Council was convened because the Pope introduced the doctrine by decree, instead of the usual practice of consulting the Bishops first.  The IC doctrine was not entirely new, but in proclaiming it in the way he did, he was claiming a level of authority that was not yet officially established.

[/quote]

1- But since many Prot's read their creeds carefully and the Bible only casually, they will never know.

Coming from a supposedly non-creedal denomination (don't tell me how we really do have one we just don't admit to it) I have never understood just what creeds do. Do some churches repeat them every Sunday out loud? Do they quote them as proof texts like we CoCers quote Acts 2:38? What do you do with a creed?

Quote from: Snargles on Mon Oct 27, 2008 - 12:10:33
many denominations that claim to believe in sola scriptura still use creeds to help define their beliefs but I think this is more a matter of interpretation than adding something entirely new.

Another thought:

Whether you add to the Bible or misinterpret it, does it really matter?  Either way, you could end up with a false doctrine.

And creeds are something that make it easy to study a church's doctrines without having to study for yourself.  A rather lazy approach, methinks.