Ask A Catholic II

[GhostWriter16]

Nice joke. Hardly wrong when he is simply expounding the universal teaching of the Church from the beginning. Need I mention again he was a student of St John the Apostle himself. Someone who knew Christ personally.

I'm going to ask Plotinus because TBH I don't trust either of us when it comes to knowledge on the subject, and I'd like to ask a neutral source before continuing on this line of thought.

read my previous response on the topic, i've already answered that question. Its in post #725

I read the entire post twice and found nothing.

As for the biggest areas Catholic doctrine is wrong:

Catholic Dogma: Mary was totally sinless

Biblical Refutation of Catholic Dogma:

20Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before him. For by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest, being witnessed by the law and the prophets.

22Even the justice of God, by faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all them that believe in him: for there is no distinction:

23For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

24Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus,

25Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,

This refutation was taken by Douay-Rheims, which I am fairly certain is a Catholic translation. And it still says clearly ALL have sinned. ALL. This logically includes Mary. Any attempts to exclude her are simply suppositions based on Catholic Faith rather than Scripture-based logic.

Catholic Dogma: By mortally sinning, Christians can sacrifice their salvation, and through penance they can again be saved.

Biblical Refuting of Catholic Dogma: (Again, even using a Catholic Bible!)

1Wherefore leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect, not laying again the foundation of penance from dead works, and of faith towards God,

2Of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

3And this will we do, if God permit.

4For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5Have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6And are fallen away: to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God, and making him a mockery.

If loss of Salvation is possible, it can never be restored.

17If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.

How can someone simply dance back and forth between old and new through sinning and then penance? This is totally illogical.

Catholic Dogma: Intercession to Mary and the Saints is encouraged.

Biblical Refutation: 1 Timothy 2:5

5For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

There's simply no way to defend these doctrines from the Bible. They are clearly wrong doctrine, and the only way to defend them is to put tradition above the Bible.

 

[Jehoshua]

I'm going to ask Plotinus because TBH I don't trust either of us when it comes to knowledge on the subject, and I'd like to ask a neutral source before continuing on this line of thought.

So be it

I read the entire post twice and found nothing.

You weren't looking hard enough

Catholics believe that upon the consecration what was mere bread and wine becomes substantially the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ whole and entire under each species under the accidents (physical appearance and attributes) of bread and wine. This was later called transubstantiation by Thomistic scholars co-opting a term from aristotelian thought to describe a pre-existing christian idea in response to the emergence of protestant ideas rejecting the real presence (and thus establishing the neccessity for a definition).

When we say that that Christ is really present we mean that the very essence, the ultimate intrinsic reality of the bread and wine is changed totally into the fullness of Christ in person, we do not believe that it is literally a piece of material flesh in its material form but that its true essence or reality has been changed and the true essence of bread and wine is now totally absent. When this happens the one, eternal and timeless sacrifice of Christ on the cross is RE-presented, literally made present now once again in its entirety so that the communicant partakes of Christ the sacrificial lamb of God described in revelation and through that union of man and God is sanctified in union with Him who is saviour to the sinner and who became incarnate as the son of man.

Thus we do not re-create the sacrifice, we make the one sacrifice present again. This is why we call Christ the one Sacerdos, the one priest in the original sacrificial sense who's sacrificial action as pre-concieved in the jewish temple sacrifices is made effective to the congregation through his ministers, the presbyters, commonly called priests in common parlance as they make effective the eucharistic sacrifice.

-

As for the biggest areas Catholic doctrine is wrong:

Catholic Dogma: Mary was totally sinless

Biblical Refutation of Catholic Dogma:

This refutation was taken by Douay-Rheims, which I am fairly certain is a Catholic translation. And it still says clearly ALL have sinned. ALL. This logically includes Mary. Any attempts to exclude her are simply suppositions based on Catholic Faith rather than Scripture-based logic.

Of course Mary had sin. She had original sin which by a singular act of God's grace was removed from her at conception in order that she could bear God the Son, absolute perfection in her womb. Incidentally this passage prooves the catholic doctrine that it is through grace alone that one is justified by God, not faith alone. Might I also mention the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to reveal ALL truth. Revelation was not complete at the time of Christs death and is continual process of perpetually increasing the depth of understanding of the sacred mysteries. To say it stopped at the time of the apostles is an unbiblical and very protestant notion.

Catholic Dogma: By mortally sinning, Christians can sacrifice their salvation, and through penance they can again be saved.

Biblical Refuting of Catholic Dogma: (Again, even using a Catholic Bible!)

If loss of Salvation is possible, it can never be restored.

How can someone simply dance back and forth between old and new through sinning and then penance? This is totally illogical.

your quote is simply a condemnation of the public and ostentatious penances such as those the so-called pious at the time did to show their "piety" and perhaps gain a good reputation. This incidentally is a reason why in the Phillipines the Church condemns the practice in some local villages of people voluntarily crucifying themselves on Good Friday. Incidentally this is why confession is a private one-on-one affair and the penances supposed to be personal and effective in increasing humility.

As to biblical support of the sacrament of penance

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

How would you explain this if there is no need for confession and penitence?

furthermore here is an apologetics site defending the sacrament of penance amongst other things. http://www.scripturecatholic.com/confession_qa.html

-

As to becoming a new man, this passage is referring to the fact that by baptism and initiation into the Church, one becomes ontologically changed. The mark of a christian remains in his soul forever. He literally becomes 'born again' in Christ and changed from his previous state of being. However this does not reject the notion of free will where the person who is changed can reject Christ or fail in his duty and fall into sin. He remains this new man despite obscuring its potential with sin because the ontological change on his soul remains regardless of the corruption of sin. To use a metaphor a blindingly white sheet becomes sullied with filth, but it still remains the same sheet. The sacrament of penance is similar perhaps to cleaning this new sheet made in Christ to ensure it achieves its true potential as a blindigly white and clean piece of cloth exept of course in regards to the sanctification of the human soul.

Heres that conversion story of an evangelical again, mildly relevant as she rejected protestantism due to the unbiblicalness of the doctrine of eternal security. http://whyimcatholic.com/index.php/...cal/item/55-evangelical-convert-pam-forrester

Catholic Dogma: Intercession to Mary and the Saints is encouraged.

Biblical Refutation: 1 Timothy 2:5

There's simply no way to defend these doctrines from the Bible. They are clearly wrong doctrine, and the only way to defend them is to put tradition above the Bible.

So you reject the notion of someone such as say your mother, or a friend praying for you?

incidentally how about this nice little quote: "the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16) also, just because I don't want to steal it and write it here, behold a brief defence of the intercession of saints which is good from Catholic Answers. It is targetted at catholic wanting to know more to defend the faith. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011sbs.asp

As to a very brief comment of my own. The saints pray with us to Christ in heaven who is fully man and fully God and thus links humanity to the divine nature and is thus our one mediator to God the Father through the filial relationship between them within the singular nature of the Triune God. It is a matter of praying with us to Christ our mediator rather than the saints ignoring Christ and circumventing his mediatory role.

As to putting tradition over the bible, the bible itself emerged from the sacred tradition of the Church, it is the highest pinnacle of tradition because it enshrines in the written word the old testament and the tradition of the early Church notated in writing. Furthermore you are again holding to a fallacious sola scriptura understanding which is logically impossible as for it to be correct it by its own premise it must be stated in scripture... it isn't. Thus scripture alone is insufficient and one requires other sources of divine authority in concert with Sacred Scripture to ensure the preservation of truth ergo Sacred tradition and sacred Magisterium. These three sources of authority are like the three legs of a stool, they are indivisable, they cannot contradict the other. They are three parts of the whole, which is called the deposit of faith. The infallible scripture requires an infallible interpretor which is the sacred magisterium. Sacred tradition is truth revealed extra-biblically as per Christs promise to send the holy spirit to reveal all truth, while also providing the context for interpretation in the total sum of the deposit of faith.

Furthermore one must remember that for centuries after Christ there was no such thing as a set biblical canon and thus a scripture alone understanding would have been inconcievable in the early centuries of Christianity as the scripture in its totality and coglomerate form (ie the christian bible) simply didn't exist.

Christ established a Church, he didn't come to write a book.

 

[Jehoshua]

[double post]

Just recalled I already answered your questions regarding Mary way back when soon after I first forayed into this thread.

And as an addition here is a blog from that evangelical convert I mentioned who addresses most of your concerns and shows how your positions are unbiblical deviations of the divine teaching. http://bfhu.wordpress.com/

 

[Arakhor]

Why are you spending so much time refuting Catholic doctrine, Domination, when your own beliefs are just as much as a mixture of tradition (i.e. extra-Biblical) and scripture? You claim that we cannot know that Ignatius was being literal, yet you know that Genesis was literal from start to finish. You also seem to know who will be saved and surely only God knows that.

 

[Jehoshua]

When someone is confronted with a genuine challenge to their beliefs oftentimes they will seek to redirect their energies to trying to cast the opposing view aside, denigrating it or somehow 'proving' its wrong to reinforce their current worldview.

Such is the way with people who encounter the Truth as it is. In almost every conversion story I have read the person went through a phase of trying to deny the truth right in front of them, trying to 'prove' it wrong but inevitably being called home by the Holy Spirit into the sublime, divinely inspired unity of faith and reason which is the Truth in its fullness contained only within the Holy Catholic Church.

David (domination300) is for the first time encountering what the Catholic Church actually teaches. It is not an unnatural response to this contact that he seeks to reaffirm his own faith in addition to asking questions and seeking the Catholic apologetic to the standard protestant arguments against its teachings (in fact challenging the Catholic response is a way of gaining deeper understanding). Of course in light of this dialogue it is my hope that the Holy Spirit opens his mind and softens his heart that he may discern the Truth and enter into the fullfilment of Christs salvific action which is only complete within the One True Faith, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Of course Mary had sin. She had original sin which by a singular act of God's grace was removed from her at conception in order that she could bear God the Son, absolute perfection in her womb. Incidentally this passage prooves the catholic doctrine that it is through grace alone that one is justified by God, not faith alone. Might I also mention the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to reveal ALL truth. Revelation was not complete at the time of Christs death and is continual process of perpetually increasing the depth of understanding of the sacred mysteries. To say it stopped at the time of the apostles is an unbiblical and very protestant notion.

Then, naturally, she never sinned now did she? She may have had original sin, but she never sinned, which is in contradiction to Romans 3:23.

your quote is simply a condemnation of the public and ostentatious penances such as those the so-called pious at the time did to show their "piety" and perhaps gain a good reputation. This incidentally is a reason why in the Phillipines the Church condemns the practice in some local villages of people voluntarily crucifying themselves on Good Friday. Incidentally this is why confession is a private one-on-one affair and the penances supposed to be personal and effective in increasing humility.

Actually, its a criticism of the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin. Catholics teach that mortal sin takes away salvation, and that penance (Even if its a one on one affair this still applies) will remove the mortal sin and make you saved again.

But according to Hebrews 6, if a person can lose their Salvation, they can NEVER get it back again. And according to the other Biblical quote I provided, a Christian is a NEW CREATION. How can a new creation become an "Old" creation again? "Old" is by definition older than "New." thus, we can logically deduce that a new creation will remain "New."

As to becoming a new man, this passage is referring to the fact that by baptism and initiation into the Church, one becomes ontologically changed. The mark of a christian remains in his soul forever. He literally becomes 'born again' in Christ and changed from his previous state of being. However this does not reject the notion of free will where the person who is changed can reject Christ or fail in his duty and fall into sin. He remains this new man despite obscuring its potential with sin because the ontological change on his soul remains regardless of the corruption of sin. To use a metaphor a blindingly white sheet becomes sullied with filth, but it still remains the same sheet. The sacrament of penance is similar perhaps to cleaning this new sheet made in Christ to ensure it achieves its true potential as a blindigly white and clean piece of cloth exept of course in regards to the sanctification of the human soul.

By this logic then, a Christian should remain saved regardless of what sins he commits (Note, that is not the same as saying sinning habitually is OK) but you would claim any mortal sin destroys Salvation.

That said, I will willingly admit that I don't have a good answer to John 20:23. I don't think this definitively proves me wrong, but I'm not going to argue a point that I admittedly don't know. I'll have to do some research and get back to you.

Christ established a Church, he didn't come to write a book.

I would argue that Christ came to die to pay for our sins first of all, but short of that, I'd say he established the Christian Church. Where you say the Catholic Church "Further defined its doctrines," I would say they became increasingly unbiblical and in contrast to the simple faith of the early Church. While I do admit Catholicism has a few solid arguments (John 20:23) ultimately I think it is imperfect in many respects, and if I researched, I am quite sure I could find more references.

Why are you spending so much time refuting Catholic doctrine, Domination, when your own beliefs are just as much as a mixture of tradition (i.e. extra-Biblical) and scripture? You claim that we cannot know that Ignatius was being literal, yet you know that Genesis was literal from start to finish. You also seem to know who will be saved and surely only God knows that.

I never said I knew who would be saved, anyone can repent before death, although it is required to sometime before death acknowledge that Jesus died for your sins, otherwise, you cannot receive his forgiveness. That is fairy standard Christian doctrine.

Also, I'm not "Spending so much time trying to prove Catholicism wrong." I could just as well say Jehoshua is spending so much time trying to prove Protestantism wrong But ultimately, I'm asking questions to better see how Catholics defend their doctrine. Also, it seems from this thread that Jehoshua doesn't seem to mind the discussion. Ironically, it is YOU, who has nothing to do with this current discussion, who seems to be worried about it. If Jehoshua would like me to stop asking questions, he can simply say so and that will be the end of it.

 

[Jehoshua]

Then, naturally, she never sinned now did she? She may have had original sin, but she never sinned, which is in contradiction to Romans 3:23.

I could say that ipso facto by possession of original sin one has sinned by the very fact they posess this sin to begin with. Furthermore you point seems to me to an example of absolute biblical literalism, that everything is exactly as its written. For example one could argue that simply by saying all have sinned its a general statement about humanity in general and that it would of been rather pointless to say that All have sinned except Christ (who is FULLY human in addition to being fully God) and Mary who had sin removed at the moment of conception.

Actually, its a criticism of the Catholic doctrine of mortal sin. Catholics teach that mortal sin takes away salvation, and that penance (Even if its a one on one affair this still applies) will remove the mortal sin and make you saved again.

But according to Hebrews 6, if a person can lose their Salvation, they can NEVER get it back again. And according to the other Biblical quote I provided, a Christian is a NEW CREATION. How can a new creation become an "Old" creation again? "Old" is by definition older than "New." thus, we can logically deduce that a new creation will remain "New."

I don;t think you understand my point. The salvation is not what makes a man new rather its the end result of one who continues on the path of sanctification. Rather the New man is one who is christian as his soul is ontologically changed even if he is in the gravest depths of sin. Its like a priest, his soul is ontologically changed by his concecration so even if he is defrocked and dismissed from public ministry that priestly nature is still intrinsic to his being.

As to Hebrews six, this is easily interpreted as referring to teh unforgivable sin blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or genuine unbelief as it is often called. One who through genuine unbelief and faithlessness rejects God and the Holy Spirit, rejects the very means of salvation and thus cannot be saved as God respects the individuals choice ceasing the flow of grace to the soul of the one who has commited the unforgivable sin.

Furthermore considering as you freely admitted you have no good answer to John 20:23 you see how your understanding of new man is flawed. Your equating salvation the end result with the ontological mark of a christian which is a source of spiritual strength and sanctifying grace and indeed makes one a new man in Christ the Lord.

I would argue that Christ came to die to pay for our sins first of all, but short of that, I'd say he established the Christian Church. Where you say the Catholic Church "Further defined its doctrines," I would say they became increasingly unbiblical and in contrast to the simple faith of the early Church. While I do admit Catholicism has a few solid arguments (John 20:23) ultimately I think it is imperfect in many respects, and if I researched, I am quite sure I could find more references.

Naturally Christ came to atone for man I never said he exclusively came to establish the Catholic Church. As to your claim he established the Christian Church that is true. He did establish the Christian Church because originally the only christian church was the Catholic Church. If he came to establish a bunch of separate contradictory and argumentative denominations I hardly think he would have prayed that we be ONE, nor would he of warned about heresy and false shepherds. (although of course you would hardly think various deviations of opinion in protestantism constitute that do you, since protestantism rejects on a basis the principle of authority )

As to further definition to say they deviated is again to deny the promises of Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, by definition this includes the security against doctrinal error. Either way in furhter developing its doctrine it is simply a deepening of understanding, nothing is changed rather than deepened and further understood. (thus you have papal infallibility stemming from the infallibility of the Church and Gods promise to preserve the Church against doctrinal error)

Also, I'm not "Spending so much time trying to prove Catholicism wrong." I could just as well say Jehoshua is spending so much time trying to prove Protestantism wrong But ultimately, I'm asking questions to better see how Catholics defend their doctrine. Also, it seems from this thread that Jehoshua doesn't seem to mind the discussion. Ironically, it is YOU, who has nothing to do with this current discussion, who seems to be worried about it. If Jehoshua would like me to stop asking questions, he can simply say so and that will be the end of it.

On the contrary I am not trying to "proove' protestantism wrong because it is wrong, there is no prooving to be done, and I am just answering your questions anyway. Of course if you see the truth right in front of you that is an added bonus

As to asking questions shoot away.

 

[Arakhor]

I actually said "refuting Catholic doctrine". An Evangelical Protestant and a Roman Catholic trying to prove each other wrong would be at it until the cows come home.

 

[Jehoshua]

I actually said "refuting Catholic doctrine". An Evangelical Protestant and a Roman Catholic trying to prove each other wrong would be at it until the cows come home.

or until the evangelical (well baptist) protestant in this case converted.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I could say that ipso facto by possession of original sin one has sinned by the very fact they posess this sin to begin with. Furthermore you point seems to me to an example of absolute biblical literalism, that everything is exactly as its written. For example one could argue that simply by saying all have sinned its a general statement about humanity in general and that it would of been rather pointless to say that All have sinned except Christ (who is FULLY human in addition to being fully God) and Mary who had sin removed at the moment of conception.

Christ obviously doesn't count though, since this is specifically stated that he never sinned (If I really need to dig for references, I will.)

On the other hand, any evidence of Mary's perfection is found only in Catholic tradition. There is absolutely no mention of it in Scripture. If Mary is as important as Catholics claim, why is this NEVER mentioned?

I don;t think you understand my point. The salvation is not what makes a man new rather its the end result of one who continues on the path of sanctification. Rather the New man is one who is christian as his soul is ontologically changed even if he is in the gravest depths of sin. Its like a priest, his soul is ontologically changed by his concecration so even if he is defrocked and dismissed from public ministry that priestly nature is still intrinsic to his being.

So no man is "In Christ" until his death? To me this seems very odd. So basically then nobody would be "Saved" until the end of his life, according to Catholic doctrine.

Acts 16:31 "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

At THE MOMENT of belief, the person is saved.

As to Hebrews six, this is easily interpreted as referring to teh unforgivable sin blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, or genuine unbelief as it is often called. One who through genuine unbelief and faithlessness rejects God and the Holy Spirit, rejects the very means of salvation and thus cannot be saved as God respects the individuals choice ceasing the flow of grace to the soul of the one who has commited the unforgivable sin.

What IS genuine unbelief in your opinion? That said, interpreting it as talking about the unpardonable sin is reasonable I guess. And to extend upon that, what IS the unpardonable sin to Catholics? And can someone, in your view, ever commit the unpardonable sin and then wish for Salvation? Or would such a person never again have any desire for Salvation?

Furthermore considering as you freely admitted you have no good answer to John 20:23 you see how your understanding of new man is flawed. Your equating salvation the end result with the ontological mark of a christian which is a source of spiritual strength and sanctifying grace and indeed makes one a new man in Christ the Lord.

Actually, me admitting I didn't have a good answer handy admits exactly that, and no more than that.

Naturally Christ came to atone for man I never said he exclusively came to establish the Catholic Church. As to your claim he established the Christian Church that is true. He did establish the Christian Church because originally the only christian church was the Catholic Church. If he came to establish a bunch of separate contradictory and argumentative denominations I hardly think he would have prayed that we be ONE, nor would he of warned about heresy and false shepherds. (although of course you would hardly think various deviations of opinion in protestantism constitute that do you, since protestantism rejects on a basis the principle of authority )

My belief is that there is a difference between disagreement and heresy. Disagreement on things which aren't clear isn't heresy (Even Catholicism admits this as Catholics do have different opinions.)

Also, I wouldn't claim that God established all the Protestant Churches, obviously they were established by men (And, BTW, so was the Catholic Church.) And as I have explained to you several times now, I do not think every Protestant Church is equally accurate. I think some are more wrong than others, and I believe at the end of the day, on a given doctrinal issue, only one position can be right. I just think God left room for disagreement on some issues to make us think.

And I don't always assume Protestants are in good shape. Liberal churches like the Episcopal Church and some Lutheran churches are no doubt just as off base, if not more so, than the Catholic Church.

As to further definition to say they deviated is again to deny the promises of Christ that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, by definition this includes the security against doctrinal error. Either way in furhter developing its doctrine it is simply a deepening of understanding, nothing is changed rather than deepened and further understood. (thus you have papal infallibility stemming from the infallibility of the Church and Gods promise to preserve the Church against doctrinal error)

I've interpreted "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it" as that the "Church" (Christianity) will not be destroyed, not that it will always be 100% doctrinally accurate.

That said, even Catholics disagree on some things. For instance, you admitted yourself that some Catholics believe in Evolution while others believe in seven-day Creation. So, obviously one group must be wrong right? Yet, you don't have the Church to tell you who is wrong, so you have only personal opinions. Is there inherently anything wrong with this?

I would interpret this a little bit more broadly to say that some important, but not critical, issues in the Bible are not made clear, so while obviously someone has to be right and other people must be wrong, God left gaps to allow us to think freely and decide for ourselves what we wish to believe based on study of the Bible.

On the contrary I am not trying to "proove' protestantism wrong because it is wrong, there is no prooving to be done, and I am just answering your questions anyway. Of course if you see the truth right in front of you that is an added bonus

I know you aren't, but I'm not trying to prove Catholicism wrong either. I'm arguing against some of its tenants to see how they are defended. Ultimately, while I'm not agreeing with you (So far) I can say that these answers have given me some insight into why Catholics believe what they believe. On some issues, I can say that the Catholic defense is fairly weak, so I still am not convinced of them, but I certainly thank you for taking the time to answer them anyhow.

I actually said "refuting Catholic doctrine". An Evangelical Protestant and a Roman Catholic trying to prove each other wrong would be at it until the cows come home.

Maybe, but I think we'll exhaust ourselves eventually

or until the evangelical (well baptist) protestant in this case converted.

Actually, I prefer Evangelical. While I attend a Baptist Church, I don't really think that makes me a Baptist, especially since there are several baptist doctrines I disagree with, especially in my baptist Church.

I have another question though: Let's assume, for a moment, I bought all your arguments and joined the Catholic Church (You haven't convinced me yet This is merely a hypothetical.)

Now, in my particular situation, I am a 16 year old teen who lives with two quite anti-Catholic parents (Probably more so than me, they won't call Catholicism a Christian denomination, I will.)

Now, for me, it would not be as simple as me being able to go to a priest to confess my sins and attend a Catholic Church to take sacraments. Even if I wished to do this, I would not be able to.

Assuming I just converted to Catholicism, what could I do to ensure (As much as possible) my eternal salvation?

 

[Jehoshua]

Christ obviously doesn't count though, since this is specifically stated that he never sinned (If I really need to dig for references, I will.)

On the other hand, any evidence of Mary's perfection is found only in Catholic tradition. There is absolutely no mention of it in Scripture. If Mary is as important as Catholics claim, why is this NEVER mentioned?

Christ is far more important than Mary and thus in scripture, the very account of Christs ministry as he becomes more immanent she grows less immanent. The universal beliefs regarding Mary come from sacred tradition (which the bible itself emerged from) and were universally believed by the early Church (minus the clarification of the immaculate conception which isn;t defined in the east). For example the belief of the assumption (Mary was bodily assumed into heaven at the end of her earthly existence) is universally believed in the ancient Churches, but it isn;t in scripture because it postdates the events and times it describes.

So no man is "In Christ" until his death? To me this seems very odd. So basically then nobody would be "Saved" until the end of his life, according to Catholic doctrine.

One is in Christ in that His grace and presence is within the person (even more so with the Eucharist) but he has not yet achieved the beatific vision. If I was in Christ in your sense now I would be in heaven. Salvation in itself is achieving the beatific vision, ie heaven, thus your understanding of salvation is defective because ipso facto it would mean I would be in heaven now. One could say that someone hypothetically assuming you could actually know is 'saved' while they are alive but this would be simply that they if they were to die right now, they would be granted entrance into heaven and that they would achieve the end result which is salvation, the beatifiv vision in union with God. Although of course no man can determine that, only God.

At THE MOMENT of belief, the person is saved.

According to the error of Sola Fide an unbiblical protestant tradition. The answer is pretty much explained in the previous section which is that in saying someone is saved your only saying that they would achieve salvation if they died at any given point, not that they have achieved salvation in life.

What IS genuine unbelief in your opinion? That said, interpreting it as talking about the unpardonable sin is reasonable I guess. And to extend upon that, what IS the unpardonable sin to Catholics? And can someone, in your view, ever commit the unpardonable sin and then wish for Salvation? Or would such a person never again have any desire for Salvation?

Total rejection of God, that is the true atheist who lacks even the most rudimentary doubt as to the possible existence of God or more specifically the Christian God (you could say still believe in a polytheistic system). It is called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because it is a rejection of the Holy Spirit the agent of grace. As to wishing for salvation of course they could, but since they have rejected God they totally and irrevocably they wouldn't be wishing for the salvation the Church teaches.

Actually, me admitting I didn't have a good answer handy admits exactly that, and no more than that.

Did I say otherwise, I merely extended an argument from that.

My belief is that there is a difference between disagreement and heresy. Disagreement on things which aren't clear isn't heresy (Even Catholicism admits this as Catholics do have different opinions.)

Also, I wouldn't claim that God established all the Protestant Churches, obviously they were established by men (And, BTW, so was the Catholic Church.) And as I have explained to you several times now, I do not think every Protestant Church is equally accurate. I think some are more wrong than others, and I believe at the end of the day, on a given doctrinal issue, only one position can be right. I just think God left room for disagreement on some issues to make us think.

And I don't always assume Protestants are in good shape. Liberal churches like the Episcopal Church and some Lutheran churches are no doubt just as off base, if not more so, than the Catholic Church.

As to opinions there can be no opinion on dogma, you either believe what the Church infallibly teaches or you are a heretic. Anything defined is unquestionable in the eyes of the Church.

As to the Catholic Church being established by men of course it was, it was established by Jesus Christ who is fully MAN and fully GOD to the apostles.

Either way your obfuscating the point which is that Christ hardly came to establish a number of piddly denominations when he meant for the Church to be ONE./

I've interpreted "The gates of Hell will not prevail against it" as that the "Church" (Christianity) will not be destroyed, not that it will always be 100% doctrinally accurate.

That said, even Catholics disagree on some things. For instance, you admitted yourself that some Catholics believe in Evolution while others believe in seven-day Creation. So, obviously one group must be wrong right? Yet, you don't have the Church to tell you who is wrong, so you have only personal opinions. Is there inherently anything wrong with this?

I would interpret this a little bit more broadly to say that some important, but not critical, issues in the Bible are not made clear, so while obviously someone has to be right and other people must be wrong, God left gaps to allow us to think freely and decide for ourselves what we wish to believe based on study of the Bible.

You have interpreted don't make me laugh you are a fallible 16 year old adolescent who lacks any authority whatsoever. Wheres your basis for that interpretation, are you an infallible interpretor of scripture? what about all those other people, protestants even who disagree with you? Your statements bring a point that is at the heart of protestantism which is of grave consequence, the rejection of authority.

As to evolution its a modern issue and the Church hasn;t bothered to define it and so there is legitimate diversity of opinions. It is not dogma, as I have said dogma is undebateable.

I know you aren't, but I'm not trying to prove Catholicism wrong either. I'm arguing against some of its tenants to see how they are defended. Ultimately, while I'm not agreeing with you (So far) I can say that these answers have given me some insight into why Catholics believe what they believe. On some issues, I can say that the Catholic defense is fairly weak, so I still am not convinced of them, but I certainly thank you for taking the time to answer them anyhow.

weak, I admit that Im not the best at making what im saying clear but on the contrary I would say protestantism is exceedingly weak. Such as the entire fallacious impossibility of Sola Scriptura. (its not mentioned in the bible and so by its own basis the doctrine must be wrong). Catholicism is the most rational of the religions, I would think that you simply due to the fact of being your evangelical self are being stubborn in failing to look deeply at what I am saying (even if it isn't neccesarily the most clear of exhortations to 16 year old adolescent)

I have another question though: Let's assume, for a moment, I bought all your arguments and joined the Catholic Church (You haven't convinced me yet This is merely a hypothetical.)

Now, in my particular situation, I am a 16 year old teen who lives with two quite anti-Catholic parents (Probably more so than me, they won't call Catholicism a Christian denomination, I will.)

Now, for me, it would not be as simple as me being able to go to a priest to confess my sins and attend a Catholic Church to take sacraments. Even if I wished to do this, I would not be able to.

Assuming I just converted to Catholicism, what could I do to ensure (As much as possible) my eternal salvation?

Firstly to convert you would have to undergo RCIA which generally takes around a year and finishes at easter vigil (not to mention the constant process of conversion to Christ that every Catholic undertakes throughout their lives).

However to your question what a Catholic would do to ensure their salvation that is simple.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your strength and all your soul and love thy neighbour as thyself.

Effectively in practice this means practicing and believing what the Church teaches (ie the teachings of Christ) and partaking of its sacraments (instituted by Christ). All that the Church teaches and does revolves around these things, Love of God and the love of neighbour that flows from love of God.

however as I have mentioned, no individual can be certain of their salvation.

--

PS: good to see that Plotinus leans in the Catholic direction in favour of protestantism while still of course holding out the impartial arbiter direction by giving the opposing point of view and counter-arguments.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Christ is far more important than Mary and thus in scripture the very account of Christs ministry as he becoems more immanent she grows less. The universal beliefs regarding Mary come from sacred tradition (which the bible itself emerged from) and were universally believed by the early Church (minus the clarification of the immaculate conception which isn;t defined in the east)

So is the immaculate conception not considered to be dogma then?

According to the error of Sola Fide a protestant tradition. The answer is pretty much explained in the previous section which is that in saying someone is saved your only sayign that they would achieve salvation if they died at any given point, not that they have achieved salvation in life.

Actually, my quote was from Acts 16:31.

Total rejection of God, that is the true atheist who lacks even the most rudimentary doubt as to the possible existence of God or more specifically the Christian God (you could say still believe in a polytheistic system). It is called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because it is a rejection of the Holy Spirit the agent of grace. As to wishing for salvation of course they could, but since they have rejected God they totally and irrevocably they wouldn't be wishing for the salvation the Church teaches.

Fair enough.

As to opinions there can be no opinion on dogma, you either believe what the Church infallibly teaches or you are a heretic. Anything defined is unquestionable in the eyes of the Church.

What does this mean BTW? Does this mean they are damned?

Either way your obfuscating the point which is that Christ hardly came to establish a number of piddly denominations when he meant for the Church to be ONE./

Again, you missed my point. I never said he did. I said that believers are allowed to have different opinions and that not every doctrinal issue is made 100% clear.

weak, I admit that Im not the best at making what im saying clear but on the contrary I would say protestantism is exceedingly weak. Such as the entire fallacious impossibility of Sola Scriptura. (its not mentioned in the bible and so by its own basis the doctrine must be wrong). Catholicism is the most rational of the religions, I would think that you simply due to the fact of being your evangelical self are being stubborn in failing to look deeply at what I am saying (even if it isn't neccesarily the most clear of exhortations to 16 year old adolescent)

Actually, its not really anything to do with your posts in particular so much as the fact that this is quite literally the only way to defend the Catholic doctrine, even though it is clearly unbiblical as ALL have sinned.

Firstly to convert you would have to undergo RCIA which generally takes around a year and finishes at easter vigil

I am now confused.

Effectively in practice this means practicing and believing what the Church teaches and partaking of its sacraments.

As I asked, how would this apply to someone who is unable to do so?

 

[Jehoshua]

So is the immaculate conception not considered to be dogma then?

It is Dogma

Actually, my quote was from Acts 16:31.

That prooves nothing as of course you will need to believe (barring invincible the exceedingly exceptional case of invincible ignorance) to be saved. But genuine belief manifests itself in fidelity to ALL Christ commanded. It hardly means an intellectual belief that Christ is your Lord and Saviour and then going on your merry way to sin your heart out.

What does this mean BTW? Does this mean they are damned?

That there is no legitimate diversity on opinion regarding dogma, if you hold a contrary view you are simply wrong. It does not however neccesarily mean that one is damned if they do as they are not actually sinning, they simply lack understanding and thus have a duty to learn why the Church teaches what it does and adhere to it.

Again, you missed my point. I never said he did. I said that believers are allowed to have different opinions and that not every doctrinal issue is made 100% clear.

au contrair you are failing to address my point. Either way I have addressed this before. There is ONE God and so there can only be ONE truth about this God because otherwise you are saying that God is two different things and by affirming that you are saying that he is lieing which is impossible as scripture clearly says God does not lie. Thus there can only be ONE Truth given by God to be followed, there cannot be diversity of opinion for example on such matters of sola scriptura or not, or eternal security or not or perhaps whether the eucharist is symbolic or not or your making God a human construction which he isn't. Thus either ONE Church is right the one founded by Christ (The Catholic Church) or they are all wrong because you think this God is a human construction.

As I said Dogma is non-negotiable.

Actually, its not really anything to do with your posts in particular so much as the fact that this is quite literally the only way to defend the Catholic doctrine, even though it is clearly unbiblical as ALL have sinned.

Again you are showcasing the problem of absolute literalism. By your logic a dragon will literally emerge from the sea in the end days wearing a crown on one of its multiple heads. For example the quote you previously referred to could equally be taken to refer to humanity generally rather than the two exceptional cases, with mentioning them specifically being unnecessary.

However I am not sure what you actually meant by this comment considering the context of my comment. (although of course the logic is undeniable considering the impossibility of Sola Scriptura)

I am now confused.

Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults. Basically an extended catechesis and immersion into the faith.

Not surprising your confused given the obvious lack of comprehension (perhaps born from the lack of depth in protestantism to begin with) in regards to previous posts. Although that neither here and there, but I thought I would mention it anyway

As I asked, how would this apply to someone who is unable to do so

The only thing would be prevented to do would participate in the sacraments, and as you aren;t Catholic to begin with you wouldn't be able to anyway so thats irrelevant. In regards to everything else such as the corporal and spiritual works of mercy, prayer, living in pious devotion to God and charity to neighbour one hardly needs to ahve access to the Church to do. (although of course being in sin the Church is the one that keeps people on track in living in a christian manner as compared to those 'sunday christians' the ex-baptist cousin of my mother so despises)

-

Cor Thaobh a Leithid: 'Airdi Cuain' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9xAGo9XyAM&feature=related

 

[civ_king]

So is the immaculate conception not considered to be dogma then?



Actually, my quote was from Acts 16:31.



Fair enough.



What does this mean BTW? Does this mean they are damned?



Again, you missed my point. I never said he did. I said that believers are allowed to have different opinions and that not every doctrinal issue is made 100% clear.



Actually, its not really anything to do with your posts in particular so much as the fact that this is quite literally the only way to defend the Catholic doctrine, even though it is clearly unbiblical as ALL have sinned.



I am now confused.




As I asked, how would this apply to someone who is unable to do so?

It most certainly is.

Yes, but you must believe in his message, you can't just believe that and then commit sinful acts, actions speak louder than words!

To practice heresy or teach it is damnable (definite), but to only believe heresy just makes you wrong (IIRC)


Christ's Church is a living Church, there would have to be a mechanism for how to deal with new things

Are you saying Paul was wrong in Rom. 9:10-11 when he said "And not only so, but also when Rebecca had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad, in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call"? Since there are two interpretations and yours is contradicts Scripture that means either mine is correct or you are in fact correct and Scripture in fact is wrong.

 

[Jehoshua]

alas our evangelical come baptist friend shall be refraining from answering publicly on this forum for the time being until certain incidents on his part have been justly recompensed by his quarter.

Any other lapsed-catholic or non-catholic wish to ask a question in the meantime while we wait for our primary demagogue?

 

[GenMarshall]

What if I cannot remember all of my mortal sins in confession?

Ive already gone through confirmation and first communiton via RCIA, Do I need to through it again?

How can God, even if I turned my back on him and blamed him for my fall (Lost my job, don't have a girlfriend), repair my life and get it back together? God just has a broken bird in front of him, not a broken angel.

 

[Jehoshua]

If you genuinely cannot remember a mortal sin then we entrust and hope that God forgives it. But should you remember one you have failed to confess you must confess at the soonest possible opportunity as unconfessed mortal sin is a rather dangerous commodity to have sitting around.

As to confirmation it is a sacrament that cannot be repeated and so you do not have to go through it again. First communion is effectively communion like you have at any mass and is not a sacrament. So you can definitely go to a first communion again and it would be just like any other communion.

As to God repairing your life, you will have to trust in him and continue in fidelity to him and see what provides. God answers in his own time and what he does to aid people is hardly a general one size fits all scenario, he works on a personal basis. However in itself fidelity to Christ and all he commandment in itself is a great reward, many people say its a load of restrictions but on the contrary they set you free from the chains of sin. Furthermore through the sacraments of the Church God imparts grace unto the soul who receives it, strengthening you and furthering you along the path of sanctification.

 

[GenMarshall]

Well that does not make it any better . Heck I don't keep tally of sins I've committed.

Though how would I return back? I mean if I set foot on even the property, the whole place will fall down around me.

Does God know the pain I have been going through these past years? Why has he stood by on the sidelines while the whole world fell apart around me and fell into depression?

Does the church care about single unmarried people? Since I have seen so much emphasis on marriage yet not touching upon singles. Before going on, the priesthood is not really my fit.

 

[Jehoshua]

If you are already a baptised and confirmed catholic as you have stated then all you have to do is go to confession and then go enter into participation into the life of the Church again (at an orthodox parish ofc). However generally it is good to join RCIA or at the very least engage in comprehensive research so you understand what the Church believes and why and how to participate in christian life in fidelity to Christ.

As to God knowing the pain you have been through of course he knows. And He most definitely has not being on the sidelines after all why are you talking to me about returning to the Church otherwise , God works in his own time and allows for the free choice of the individual. The individual (you) on their part must hold trust in him and follow the path he sets before you trusting that God is not going to throw you to the lions (which he doesn't).

Being single and unmarried is not a problem so long as you don't go around commiting immoral acts sexual or otherwise. As to the priesthood it may not be your vocation, but who knows give it time you may discern down the line in a few years or so that it is for you. You will just have to wait and see what God calls you to do.

-

COLLECT FROM THE FEAST OF PENTECOST (12 OF JUNE)

-

Deus, qui sacramento festivitatis hodiernae
universam Ecclesiam tuam
in omni gente et natione sanctificas,
in totam mundi latitudinem Spiritus Sancti dona defunde,
et, quod inter ipsa evangelicae praedicationis exordia
operata est divina dignatio,
nunc quoque per credentium corda perfunde.

O God, who by the sacramental mystery of today’s feast
does sanctify Your universal Church
in every people and nation,
pour down the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon the whole breadth of the earth,
and, because divine favor was at work
amongst the very beginnings of the preaching of the Gospel,
make them now to flow also through the hearts of believers.


courtesy of WDTPRS. (especially the english translation, quite difficult to translate into english)

 

[aneeshm]

@ Domination3000:

Though I'm no Catholic, I can tell you that your attacks on Catholics using the Bible are pretty pointless, because the Catholics are not book-fetishists. In Catholicism, the Bible (and a host of other things) is interpreted through tradition, not the other way around. Religion/revelation isn't an abstraction, floating freely in space (carried through history in a book) as you would have it. It is instead a complex, social, and human activity (though directed to the divine), and finds concrete form in the Church and its traditions. The Bible is understood through this tradition, which is continuous since the time of Christ himself. Not only that, but revelation is meaningful only in the context of tradition.

Any attempt, therefore, to attack Catholics with the Bible is bound to fail, because they do not share one of the core assumptions required for the attack to work.