Ask a catholic

(Unorthodox Christian;36105)
Oh My! I'm so glad to be a called a Holy Roller! To be grouped with those of the Azuza Street Revival! OH MY!.
Oh my I hope you are kidding me? Go from Catholics (Superstition) to Azuza Street Revival! (Enthusiasm) Both are false religions. You, however, Unorthodox appear sound in every aspect I have known of you. It’s just I have heard some bad things coming out of that revival so be careful.

(DrBubbaLove;36625)
BearingChristaHammer Like the name BTW, be bold as Paul was bold. Guess I should have considered your name in light of your post. No hard feelings dude.Ask you a question. Ok.Why would a Catholic that understood Church teachings ask a question like "Why not follow God and His true Spirit instead of assuming you already have that with the Pope?"
Thanks for the complement. If I was a Catholic I wouldn't ask that. That is something I am asking as a non-Catholic. What I meant was; ask me a question as if I were contending for the Catholic Faith as you are. All in all I am not very articulate as some are in these forums. I know that the wording of that question was not very good, but my point here is that the Spirit can move about, it’s not just going to stay with the Pope because Tradition mandates it. Follow the Holy Spirit is what I am saying - don’t just assume because of some historic lineage or traditions that God is still resting with the Pope. If there is evidence otherwise be called out to God and worship Him in truth and Sprit as He is seeking. This can be done outside of any denomination. Religion is wrong because it makes the issue just that.

(biblicalthought;36618)
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. So it is your understanding that there are no Bible verses that demonstrate an appeal to tradition for authority or doctrine?Regarding your view of Tradition based on your use of Paul, is it your position that there are two revelatory streams that have flowed from the Apostles, one written and the other oral or handed down as you say? A clearer way to ask it is, are you saying that in addition to Scripture, there was another "canon" floating along side that you are referring to as Tradition?
If we understand each other in terms/definition yes, but it should be understood that properly speaking sacred scripture and an apostolic teaching cannot contradict as both are of Divine Inspired origin. Let me be clear.The Church says what has been revealed to Man through Jesus and His twelve Apostles represents a "deposit of faith" which is separate from what has been given to us in inspired writings, the Bible. Those teachings, that “deposit” along with scripture represent “public revelation” to man from God. Things God wanted ALL men to know. The Apostles were told to go and teach – not write books. So the teachings were IMPORTANT. And public revelation ended with the death of John, the last living Apostle. (Jesus would be the final prophet, some would say, the Final Word, the end of that prophetic age)Those two together, the Bible and the deposit of faith along with the teaching Authority given to the Church, (we call that the Magisterium), form the foundation of our faith. Tradition in this sense does NOT mean custom, like having Mass only in Latin, which can change. This is why we distinguish those two ideas by captilzing the T. Dogma on the other hand is something which develops from study and reason of our deposit of faith. It is an understanding that comes from, develops out of the deposit of faith. Dogma too, cannot contradict Scripture or Tradition either though unlike Tradition or Scripture it can certainly change over time.We would all agree we do not have everything that either Jesus or the Apostles taught recorded in scripture. John mentions it would fill the earth books (Jesus Words). So yes, we say there is a body of teachings that is not recorded for us in scripture that comes to us via Jesus and the Apostles that is what the Church holds as Tradition or Divine Tradition. And such things are what the Church says Paul was telling Timothy to remember to faithfully teach.

(BearingChristaHammer;36655)
Thanks for the complement. If I was a Catholic I wouldn't ask that. That is something I am asking as a non-Catholic. What I meant was; ask me a question as if I were contending for the Catholic Faith as you are. All in all I am not very articulate as some are in these forums. I know that the wording of that question was not very good, but my point here is that the Spirit can move about, it’s not just going to stay with the Pope because Tradition mandates it. Follow the Holy Spirit is what I am saying - don’t just assume because of some historic lineage or traditions that God is still resting with the Pope. If there is evidence otherwise be called out to God and worship Him in truth and Sprit as He is seeking. This can be done outside of any denomination. Religion is wrong because it makes the issue just that.
Well then implied in that question, which was what I was getting at, would be that Catholics do not follow the Spirit and that somehow have relegated that function to following the Pope. Such an understanding by any Catholic is severely misinformed and distorted.We are to be Spirit filled and led by that Spirit.Here is a whole section of what the Spirit does for us from the Catechism, a small part here;688 The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit: - in the Scriptures he inspired; - in the Tradition, to which the Church Fathers are always timely witnesses; - in the Church's Magisterium, which he assists; - in the sacramental liturgy, through its words and symbols, in which the Holy Spirit puts us into communion with Christ; - in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us; - in the charisms and ministries by which the Church is built up; - in the signs of apostolic and missionary life; - in the witness of saints through whom he manifests his holiness and continues the work of salvation. So it cannot be said that a Catholic is not to be Spirit filled and led. We are to be FILLED with that Spirit and RENEWED with that Spirit continuously.The Pope is a man, and like all Christians the Spirit, God Himself dwells in the Pope and in us. It is not a matter of one or the other. So my point was the question implied/assumes a false belief of a Catholic and attempted to demonstrate that such a belief is bad. We can move on.Why does a good Catholic, even the Pope kiss a Cross once a year?

Thanks for the answer. There are various forms of Catholicism, and I wanted to be sure not to mischaracterize you as a type you're not. The primary complaint that I have against your form of Catholicism, is regarding what you have noted above as "foundation of our faith." Of course this has been expressed in various forms, but I find that it is contradictory to what we find when we actually do the work and dig into church history.For me, a Protestant after the Reformation, I agree with much of the early church's view of the foundation of "our" faith. Of course the Apostle's named Jesus as "the" foundation, upon which the structure is built. And Judas referred to it as "the-once-having-been-delivered-for-all-time-faith" in verse 3 of his letter to the Christians. So for us, "our" faith is the one that has been deposited (the Greek is rendered: delivered) to the saints, and we are to earnestly contend for it. We see this continue beyond the Apostolic era with the "fathers." Irenaeus said that according to, and in line with, "tradition," Scripture is the ground and pillar of our faith. Pretty much saying the same thing as the Apostles. This is one major area of contention.But given that principle, when we evaluate what the RC teaches, we do not agree with the claim that there is no contradiction between Scripture and what has been called "Tradition." We find numerous contradictions of an explicit nature, so explicit that when pressed, typically RC's revert to an argument of Authority. This is why I asked the initial question in the manner I did. My question to you is, if it were shown to you that Scripture proved Rome wrong, would you submit to the infallibility and authority of Scripture, or would you accept the RC interpretation, thus rendering the contradiction only an apparent contradiction and not an actual contradiction?

Stephen,Am tempted first perhaps to say show me (maybe we can do that next), but as you probably no doubt know from the nod to it in your question; the Catholic is not left to guess or wonder about the meaning of scripture or to seek and find it solely on his own. Before we get to far off that thought, consider this, what sense would it make to say two Christians living either at the same time or separated by thousands of years; both read the same scripture and the Spirit leads them to opposite, contradictory or conflicting understandings? Would that make any sense at all? Is it not the same Spirit leading both? Now in my view, that same Spirit has led Christians for all these years, since it first came down in flames on their heads in that room. And like the man in Gaaza (Acts 8:31) trying to read scripture for the first time said to Philip, how can I understand unless someone SHOWS/TELLS me.So yes, to answer your question I do have to say that I have to have faith that this same Spirit has led Christians from that time until now, and that my understanding of scripture is focused by centuries of that same Spirit leading men to a fuller understanding of scripture (and Tradition) and that no where is that focus better than in the Church. The last step is the one that troubles most Protestants and perhaps it is there were some Catholics do have to take a leap of faith.So for me in understanding scripture, it is not a matter of "allowing" the Spirit to guide me or not (of course He is to guide us), but believing that the same Spirit has guided this Church from the beginning and still does today. So to suggest that I can ignore everything the Spirit has revealed all the centuries through the Church and simply reach my own conclusions independently seems foolish to me. Why would I want to ignore where the Spirit led Christians all these years? Of course your question implies how can one be sure at some point the Spirit did not stop leading the RC Church. While some might say it is mostly or maybe partially a matter of faith, am something more of a practical/engineer type. To me the message as been remarkably consistent for several thousand years, so it would be difficult for me to look at that history and say, wow look, they really took a u-turn there.Now note, we did not say mistakes, even very sinful acts were not committed along the way (even perhaps by a couple of Popes). We were talking about teachings, and it is there I see the most consistency. Human and human actions can always fail us, so I don't look to the warts of the Church as evidence of a u-turn in teachings. It is evidence the Church on earth is full of sinners, and sinners can do bad things, but then we should be in agreement on that no matter which Church we speak of.So when a Catholic says no conflict and others reply “no, you mean in your view no “apparent” conflict”, we can only reply yes. It just happens to be a view with no apparent conflict for several thousand years and to me that is something only a Holy Spirit can do. Might also add that having been a Protestor for most of my life, the whole Bible fits together which must less…..issues in the Catholic view, to me a more complete picture.

what sense would it make to say two Christians living either at the same time or separated by thousands of years; both read the same scripture and the Spirit leads them to opposite, contradictory or conflicting understandings?
It wouldn't make much sense if it were indeed the Spirit as the scapegoat for an error that may have resulted in the error. Since the Scriptures are objective, and man is subjective, either both Christians are wrong, one is wrong and the other right (or vice versa), but they can't both be right. But once again, it must be assumed that the Spirit is to blame wherein man should be the guilty culprit.
And like the man in Gaaza (Acts 8:31) trying to read scripture for the first time said to Philip, how can I understand unless someone SHOWS/TELLS me.
Yes, that is a great historical story. Tradition has it that he went back to Ethiopia, preached the gospel, and founded the Ethiopian Church! But does this verse help your position? Philip was a deacon. This strengthens the position that Scripture can and has been interpreted correctly outside of the model that Rome has subscribed to. He also baptized him.
The last step is the one that troubles most Protestants and perhaps it is there were some Catholics do have to take a leap of faith.
Yes, I find it troubling. Mainly because faith is always said in Scripture to be grounded to an object - and is never blind. In other words, I would never use the term "leap" of faith, slang or otherwise. Since faith is used in its noun form "and" its verb form, any verbal (that is, verb-al) use of faith other than the way John uses it in 1 Jn, would seem "shabby" to me, pardon the language. Also troubling is that since faith is always defined by its object (faith in >), to have to leap seems risky. But that isn't even a main distinction. i'm just trying to keep the dialogue flowing.
So for me in understanding scripture, it is not a matter of "allowing" the Spirit to guide me or not (of course He is to guide us), but believing that the same Spirit has guided this Church from the beginning and still does today. So to suggest that I can ignore everything the Spirit has revealed all the centuries through the Church and simply reach my own conclusions independently seems foolish to me. Why would I want to ignore where the Spirit led Christians all these years?
I’m not sure how much you have studied logic, but here there are some fallacies I would like to make you aware of. 1. You have indicated that the same Spirit has guided the Church from the beginning until now. 2. You have equated reaching an independent conclusion with ignoring everything the Spirit has revealed through Christ throughout the centuries. 3. You have concluded that that this would be foolish since it would be ignoring the Spirit’s lead. There are too many fallacies to even structure these into a syllogism in order to even test their validity. (Warning, this language sounds strong to most. Most take it as an attack. Give me the benefit of the doubt, you will see that I am not being nasty)1. The major premise is unproven and is merely an assertion. That is fine. I’m not even going to question your major premise: that it is the same Spirit, or that He has done any guiding. The question lies in your term “the beginning.” You are aware, aren’t you, that Rome had a beginning, and it wasn’t Matt. 16, since that has been refuted many, many times? Therefore, when you say beginning, to which beginning do you refer? Does this include the time period of Moses? Adam and Eve? Which beginning?2. You describe two things that are not mutually exclusive, therefore you have a false dichotomy, nullifying your argument as invalid. In Christian theology, independent interpretation can be by the Spirit. Scripture says the believer has the mind of Christ, not something exclusively reserved to the Vatican, which did not even exist yet when that was given.3. You result in circularity. Your conclusion was already in view when the premise was made. Your premise was assumed the conclusion, and is invalid. You began by assuming in your premise that the contrary was foolish, therefore X = foolish.
Of course your question implies how can one be sure at some point the Spirit did not stop leading the RC Church. While some might say it is mostly or maybe partially a matter of faith, am something more of a practical/engineer type. To me the message as been remarkably consistent for several thousand years, so it would be difficult for me to look at that history and say, wow look, they really took a u-turn there.
The question is, if it were shown to you, would you? I have provided one example in Irenaeus. He said that Scripture was the ground and pillar (singular) of our faith. This is an historical evidence that at one time, prior to the establishment of the papacy, the principle of sola scriptura was the final authority in matters of morals and doctrine. Rome has certainly "u-turned" from this. Besides this, well, if you would llike to have a more narrow dialogue about this, then we can do that. Too many subjects require too much typing

Stephen,Thank you for your tone and respect, no worries and certainly no offense taken. Hope you feel the same from me.Let me say that nothing about my post was meant to suggest the Spirit is to blame. As St Irenaeus said in the writings you quoted earlier:“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.”My point was simply that if I am aware these things exist it would be foolish to ignore them. As the Ethiopian would have been foolish to say to Philip “you know what, thanks for your help but I think I am going to study this for my self, disregard everything you said and let the Spirit guide where ever it will”. And am not sure how Philip being a deacon makes my connection to the present Church invalid. Then as now, the Church has deacons teaching and evening preaching the Word. The same structure that is a Church is evident in the Church now, though not exclusive to the Catholic Church. Am not sure how to see Philip’s deed being “outside” this model, but the focus there was not so much on structure as the need for external reference other than my own dependence on the Spirit to guide. Obviously this man was seeking and the Spirit helped him by bringing someone to him to explain scripture.Either I presented poorly or you misunderstood partially. It would be others that would say my faith (in the Church) is blind or that final step mentioned (that many Protestants would say is always a leap) is a leap of faith for SOME Catholics. I do not include myself in that. For me it was not a leap at all. In reading St Irenaeus or any of the early Christian writers it was my realization that many things they spoke of did not resemble my Church at all. To me that was like a new door being opened to ask why was it different and what Church today does it resemble, and definitely not a “leap of faith”.Do not think I “equated” ignoring centuries of Christians interpreting scripture with reaching a conclusion on our own. I said as Irenaeus does that my understanding should be helped, “focused” by the Spirit led understanding of those going before and it would be foolish for me to ignore that history/tradition of understanding scripture. And it would indeed be foolish if we both agreed it was the Spirit leading them to the understanding they expressed.To say one disagrees with a premise is not to say the logical structure is invalid (or a fallacy as you suggest). It just means my conclusion is wrong, if the premise can be shown to be false. Obviously for you the premise that such pre-Vatican tradition is our Tradition today is false, otherwise you would be Catholic.You claim the major premise is “unproven”. We must note this was not a formal logical debate or presentation, we are just talking, lets be fair. In logical cases, a premise is assumed true unless attacked. One does not need to support or “prove” a premise is true. The premise is assumed true because the validity of every premise is what makes the conclusions possible. If any premise can be proven false then the conclusion is invalid. In attacking a premise one cannot just say it is unproven, though one could suggest another discussion on why the premise should be assumed true. You left that claim (premise is unproven) hanging however and preceded to attack a definition. The “beginning”, while an interesting question in itself, it doesn’t really go to my point. My point was we have almost 4 complete centuries of Christians writing about the faith before we have a “Roman” Catholic faith. So if we take any given doctrine or understanding of scripture…etc, and can show one or often many of these guys talking about it and defending it, then we cannot call that particular thing a “Roman” invention (pagan or otherwise). The beginning in this context goes to the first century, from what Jesus and the Apostles taught. Don’t think I said independent revelation by the Spirit to indivduals and the reference to Tradition were mutually exclusive. At least that was not intended. In fact a few things the Church teaches, one can only conclude an independent revelation and scripture itself gives us many examples of such things. And Catholics still believe in private revaltion, (which means not for everyone) so obviously the two cannot be seen as mutual exclusive to us. No, my point was once something is revealed by the Spirit, it is revealed and must be true. So it cannot be said that at another time the Spirit would lead someone to an opposing/contradicting “truth”. In fact, that would be a mutually exclusive possibility, an impossibility.The Vatican is just a building, it does not have anything exclusive to itself except perhaps many historical artifacts and art. What I am referring to St Irenaeus also refers to in correcting against heresies claiming to know something opposed to Tradition;“But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.”And yes Irenaeus says this several hundred years BEFORE there was a Vatican. So already we see in the earlymid second century a body of TRADITION being appealed to by Christian leaders to fight heresies.If by arguing in a circle you mean my saying that the Tradition of the Church is the same being spoken of here, then I guess that it is true as this is my belief. But that was not my point. My point was, that there was a TRADITION, a body of understanding being passed down and appealed to that was OUTSIDE of scripture for 400 years of Christians before there was a Vatican. The fact it looks very much To ME as the same Tradition the Church preserves for us today was not really stated, but goes without saying as I am Catholic. I do think when looked at individually a very, very strong case can be made that it is the same, but that is another question. I do not expect anyone here to accept that nor was I really intending to make a case that they should.St Irenaeus sums up for us why tradition was necessary, needed and referred to;“Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”Actually Irenaeus called the 4 Gospels the “pillar and ground” of our faith in defending an attack on the faith by people that wanted to exclude one or more of the Gospels (or add others for some) in order to “let the Spirit” guide them in "another" way. He was not defending “scriptures” but specifically just the four Gospels and the message in them from heresies. In the same Chapter he goes on to mention how these people have titled a recent work the “Gospel of Truth” which he says in no way resembled what the Apostles had passed down (and not speaking of just Apostle's writings there). So clearly from that and elsewhere where he appeals to tradition, he is appealing here to a body of work from the Apostles, an oral tradition to defend against this “Gospel of Truth” and even defend the Gospel’s themselves with that same tradition. Yes I will agree they would appeal often to scripture, but as Irenaeus said; two might not always agree on what scripture said or if someone used scripture to refute what had previously been taught from scripture, they only had tradition to then defend it and clearly they used and appealed to it. BTW I do not mean to give the impression that everything in scripture is clear as a bell to the Catholic, laid out exactly for us to not deviate from at all. That is not the case. There are many areas where a Catholic is free to see it one of several ways and nothing to say one is wrong or sinful or another right. There we can only site opinions from tradition, not a Tradition or teaching of an Apostle that must be held. The creation story is a good example of this. Catholics could be creationist (in it’s various forms) or theistic evolutionist in it’s varied forms. Either way is acceptable to the Church. We lack Apostle teaching; have no public revelation from God that has made it clear/definitive for us. So do not assume Catholics are not free to have opinions about many things.

Many different branches of Christianity are like the different parts of Christ's body. Yes the foot may be different from the hand, the hand from the foot, or the hand to the arm. Does not the foot, the hand, and the arm all belong to the body of Christ. Even though Catholics may work differently, the methodists may work differently, and thus forth. Understand that we all are Christs people regardless. It may be better to benefit us all if we listened to one another and helped each other grow in Christ rather than fight over which is the better part of the body of Christ. If the body of Christ was all feet, would it be a body? If it was all hands, would it be a body? No, the body of Christ is made up of different parts, but when we are together we make up the body of Christ.

(kentots;36863)
Many different branches of Christianity are like the different parts of Christ's body. Yes the foot may be different from the hand, the hand from the foot, or the hand to the arm. Does not the foot, the hand, and the arm all belong to the body of Christ. Even though Catholics may work differently, the methodists may work differently, and thus forth. Understand that we all are Christs people regardless. It may be better to benefit us all if we listened to one another and helped each other grow in Christ rather than fight over which is the better part of the body of Christ. If the body of Christ was all feet, would it be a body? If it was all hands, would it be a body? No, the body of Christ is made up of different parts, but when we are together we make up the body of Christ.
Kentots, in your view, does this include the Mormons, the JW's, the followers of Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda, the Moonies, etc.? Are they just "other" parts of the same whole? Where do you draw the line, if you draw one at all? This thread "ask a Catholic" or something like that, should yield an objection to what you've just posted, but in case they don't, I will. What we disagree on is what we believe are essential. But if you read carefully, you will see that we are not fighting, and that we are listening to eachother. Will you listen?P.S. DrBubbaLove, please give me until tomorrow to respond to you. I had an apologetics class tonight that ate up several hours, and it's late. Thanks for the thoughtful response though!

I understand your point. Thank you for your response. Yes i guess there has to be a line drawn somewhere. Sorry, about that, but where i wonder is the line to be drawn.

In the Apostles creed, it says Jesus decended in to hell. Is this correct, I presumed he went up to heaven.Roger

Thanks for the answer.Why we are on the subject and a subject I know not to much , could you tell me why in Praying the Rosary that the lords prayer and the Hail marys are repeated so many times. ThanksRoger

It is suppose to be about meditation, meditation on the life of Christ. If one is just repeating words then the whole point is being missed. Each decade (10 beads) is devoted to one of the 15 “mysteries” of Christ life. BTW there are many prayers associated with the Rosary, but commonly the Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be and the Apostles Creed are recited in the process.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Is the catholic's lord prayer shorter than the anglican version. You don't include this bit do you ? Why is that ? For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. AmenThank you.

(slipstream;39448)
Is the catholic's lord prayer shorter than the anglican version. You don't include this bit do you ? Why is that ? For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. AmenThank you.
Actually we do say that.At every mass we say the Lord's prayer, but we stop after "and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."Then the Priest says: "Deliver us, Lord, from every evil, and grant us peace in our day. In your mercy keep us free from sin and protect us from all anxiety as we wait in joyful hope for the coming of our Savior, Jesus Christ."Then we say: "For the Kingdom and the power and the glory are yours, now and forever. Amen."

Slipstream,Look at Luke 11.14. When the protestors in the reformation created the KJV they assumed the Greek version of the Bible they used was the oldest and truest manuscript. In this case at least the words; "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever"; were a much later additions to the original verse in Matthew 6:13. IOW originally those words were not part of scripture. Those words come to us from the tradition of the Eastern Liturgy and at some point along the way went from a side note to being included in the verse in Matthew.So while as noted we do say those words regularly as a part of the Mass in the US today, it is not today and was not officially a part of what we call the "Our Father".