How I interpret the Catechism of the Catholic Church

[Nihilo]

I interpret it in light of the Scripture. As such, the Scripture is my final authority. But the Scripture does not contradict the Catechism, but informs it, and vice versa, as they work in tandem to teach the one historic Christian faith.

I never reject what the Catechism says because of my reading of the Scripture, because my hermeneutic in reading the Catechism bases itself in Scripture, and is that the Holy See, when teaching from Peter's chair, teaches the genuine faith and none other. If my reading of the Scripture contradicts what the Catechism plainly teaches, then I use that to inform myself more of the one historic faith, which is what the Scripture represents, explicitly, and indirectly, as a shadow of an object represents perfectly that same object. I also inform myself more of how to interpret the Catechism based upon what priests, bishops, and especially what the pope teaches, off the cuff, and not from Peter's chair. I never hold these comments and lessons as equal in authority to the Scripture or to the Catechism, but they inform my readings of both.

I always accept that Scripture is Scripture, and cannot be broken, so if the Catechism appears to teach something contrary to Scripture, then my reading of Scripture is somehow defective. Sometimes the Catechism teaches something that is not found in Scripture for whatever reason, and as such it does not contradict Scripture, nor does Scripture contradict it. The Scripture and the Catechism do not overlap one another on every point, but the Catechism provides teachings on matters not found in Scripture explicitly, though they are matters that figure integrally to the one historic faith, e.g., the Trinity, abortion, pornography, etc.

 

[Robert Pate]

I interpret it in light of the Scripture. As such, the Scripture is my final authority. But the Scripture does not contradict the Catechism, but informs it, and vice versa, as they work in tandem to teach the one historic Christian faith.

I never reject what the Catechism says because of my reading of the Scripture, because my hermeneutic in reading the Catechism bases itself in Scripture, and is that the Holy See, when teaching from Peter's chair, teaches the genuine faith and none other. If my reading of the Scripture contradicts what the Catechism plainly teaches, then I use that to inform myself more of the one historic faith, which is what the Scripture represents, explicitly, and indirectly, as a shadow of an object represents perfectly that same object. I also inform myself more of how to interpret the Catechism based upon what priests, bishops, and especially what the pope teaches, off the cuff, and not from Peter's chair. I never hold these comments and lessons as equal in authority to the Scripture or to the Catechism, but they inform my readings of both.

I always accept that Scripture is Scripture, and cannot be broken, so if the Catechism appears to teach something contrary to Scripture, then my reading of Scripture is somehow defective. Sometimes the Catechism teaches something that is not found in Scripture for whatever reason, and as such it does not contradict Scripture, nor does Scripture contradict it. The Scripture and the Catechism do not overlap one another on every point, but the Catechism provides teachings on matters not found in Scripture explicitly, though they are matters that figure integrally to the one historic faith, e.g., the Trinity, abortion, pornography, etc.

The Catechism is not the inspired word of God. It is the inspired word of man. All men are sinners, Romans 3:23. This is why God gave us the Bible, it was written by men that were inspired by God to write. There are no apostles today. Just some that think that they are. If you want the truth you will find it in the Bible.

 

[Ac28]

If the scripture and the catechism contradict, the catechism is ALWAYS at fault. I would guess that 95% of the catechism is non-Biblical.

 

[serpentdove]

If the scripture and the catechism contradict, the catechism is ALWAYS at fault. I would guess that 95% of the catechism is non-Biblical.

You could line the bird cage with it. :idunno: Rev. 22:18, 19

 

[Ac28]

You could line the bird cage with it. :idunno: Rev. 22:18, 19

And, you know what Christ said about traditions: they make the Word of God of none effect. Almost all the catechism is nothing but traditions and most of these are of pagan origin.

 

[Nihilo]

The Catechism is not the inspired word of God. It is the inspired word of man.

The Catechism is what the Lord Himself wants us to know about matters of faith, doctrine and morals.

All men are sinners, Romans 3:23.

Also, the Catechism teaches this.

This is why God gave us the Bible, it was written by men that were inspired by God to write.

The Scripture was completed almost 2000 years ago, before the printing press, before automobiles and telecommunication, etc. The Catechism was last updated in 1995, 21 years ago. The Scripture is what the Lord wanted us to know in the first century AD, and the Catechism is what the Lord wants us to know 21 years ago.

There are no apostles today. Just some that think that they are.

You're right, and none of those that think that they are apostles, are Catholic churchmen.

If you want the truth you will find it in the Bible.

I've never said different, and I don't now.

If the scripture and the catechism contradict, the catechism is ALWAYS at fault.

That is fundamentally my position also. Here's what's different---the Catechism is the good fruit from the good tree whose good seed was planted by the Lord and His Apostles. That planting occurred in the first century and was described in the New Testament scriptures.

I would guess that 95% of the catechism is non-Biblical.

I would guess that most Christians agree with 80-95% of the Catechism without knowing it.

You could line the bird cage with it. :idunno: Rev. 22:18, 19

"Crunch all you want, we'll make more."

 

[Nihilo]

[MENTION=6696]Lon[/MENTION] FYI re: Sola Scriptura.

 

[Lon]

@Lon FYI re: Sola Scriptura.

Thank you for the invite.

The Catechism is what the Lord Himself wants us to know about matters of faith, doctrine and morals.
Also, the Catechism teaches this.
The Scripture was completed almost 2000 years ago, before the printing press, before automobiles and telecommunication, etc. The Catechism was last updated in 1995, 21 years ago. The Scripture is what the Lord wanted us to know in the first century AD, and the Catechism is what the Lord wants us to know 21 years ago.

Two considerations: The Magisterium and a Catholic apologetic website

The Magisterium is basically: The pillars of infallible truth in the RC are 1) Scriptures 2) Tradition and writings 3) Ex Cathedra proclamation and the leadership and 4) the Sacraments.

The Apologetic website attempts to establish those pillars with 'ten reasons.'

I'd said this in the other thread: The basic difference is that Catholics believe all of their pillars are infallible and self-authenticating whereas in Protestant churches, anywhere fallen man is part of the equation, there is need for checks and balances. Because of that, the RC's pillars are all challenged by 1 the Bible 2) Body members, including pastors and teachers, 3) Church doctrines and creeds and 4) the Holy Spirit's work and guidance and His Sovereignty over our lives.

We do not question the veracity or accuracy of the scriptures, but question one-another's interpretations. We do not question the veracity of the Holy Spirit or God' Sovereignty, but rather one's subjectivity and feelings involved in interpreting His interaction. Brothers/pastors, and creeds we hold up to scrutiny but with a good bit of reliance with proven track-records such plays in the background. The seat for both Catholics and Protestants, we'd claim, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Importance? We function differently out of the gates and it is important to grasp both what we hold in common, yet how we use those in our lives differently.

I would guess that most Christians agree with 80-95% of the Catechism without knowing it.
"Crunch all you want, we'll make more."

Yes. I've read a bit of the Catechism and would agree with that percentage range.

 

[Nihilo]

Thank you for the invite.

Giving me a link to address is not fair, unless I invited you, which I did.

Two considerations: The Magisterium and a Catholic apologetic website

The Magisterium is basically: The pillars of infallible truth in the RC are 1) Scriptures 2) Tradition and writings 3) Ex Cathedra proclamation and the leadership and 4) the Sacraments.

The Apologetic website attempts to establish those pillars with 'ten reasons.'

I'll address them one by one for you. Understand that I speak as a personal interpreter, not for the Catholic Church, and while your link does seem to speak for the Catholic Church, I'm not sure that a bishop has given his stamp of approval, the imprimatur. If it is "Nihil Obstat," all it means is that there is nothing in it against Catholic teaching.

"1. The Bible is a Catholic book"

This just means that before AD 1054, there was only One Church, visibly or otherwise. It's an historical fact. There weren't denominations then, only particular churches or dioceses, all of whom were in communion with the Roman diocese. IOW this doesn't argue for Catholicism. It is a sneaky way to say that that One Church then is today the Catholic Church, and the author should have made that argument instead of begging the question by saying that the Bible is Catholic. Besides, the Catholic Bible is 73 books instead of the Protestant's 66, so their point is moot right out of the gate.

"2. The Bible refutes the “Bible alone” principle
"...The Bible teaches that not the Bible or the Protestant interpreters of the 16th century and of the present, but “the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15)..."

This should have been the beginning and end of the argument, because in this passage Scripture alone says Church alone. The rest of this explanation distracts from the only true point.

"It also warns against “twisted” interpretations of Scriptures (2 Pt 3:16). While the Church has one teaching, there are now 43,000 evangelical groups with 2.3 added daily. Their views on the Trinity, on gays, etc. contradict each other. Since truth (e.g. Jesus is God) cannot be falsehood at the same time, real falsehoods are sadly being taught among these groups."

More an argument against division in the Church than anything, and it's special pleading and begging the question again that the Catholic Church should be seen as the true Church. The author needs to spell that out instead of gloss over their implication.

"3. Jesus built his Church on a man he named Rock"

Protestants do need a better answer than they have for this point for Catholicism. The Lord did call Simon "Rock," and He did say He'd build His Church upon that rock, Peter. (Yes, also upon Peter's confession, but the Catholic Church admits that anyway, it's a non-starter.) Somehow, if we take the LORD Jesus Christ at His Word, the Church is built upon Peter in some way, and not just upon Peter's confession alone, but upon Peter himself, because that's what the Lord said that He'd do. This point is solid and no Protestant has given a good reason to believe against Catholicism while satisfactorily explaining how the Church is built upon the fisherman from Galilee Peter. The Catholic Church is the only ecclesial community that even tries to make a compelling case, and it's because the Catholic Church owns the only compelling case, since she is based upon Peter's seat as the supreme pastor of the Church.

"4. Jesus and the Church are one"

Even Catholic teaching says that the Church consists of all those baptized people who believe in the Lord Jesus, regardless of whether they're Catholic, so again, a poor point.

"5. The Bible says we are saved “not by faith alone”"

I disagree (with the one sticking point that I cannot see how a true, cold-blooded murderer can be a Christian). I also believe that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

Just as a point of reference, do you believe in such a person as a true Christian who is also a true cold-blooded murderer? Paul was a murderer, before believing in the Lord, and in His resurrection from the dead on the third day according to the Scripture.

"6. The Bible and the early Christians believe in purgatory"

Who cares? Purgatory is no big deal. You believe the Bible, you believe 2nd Corinthians 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." Note Paul says "we," even the Apostles are not free from the consequences and penalties that we've all earned and continue to earn for ourselves "while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners" (Ga2:17). The Bible says that we will reap what we sow, and purgatory is what that is.

Purgatory is reserved for the redeemed. No resurrection-denier can enter purgatory. It's no big deal, and I'm looking forward to it. There's also indication in Church teaching that we can begin the purification process now in this life here on earth, and that it's even possible to complete it entirely before departing.

"7. The Bible and the early Christians believe in the Catholic sacraments"

Another weak point since to argue with a Protestant, you must argue from Scripture and not from history, though their statement is true. It doesn't prove that the Church was right.

"8. The Catholic Church is salt and light"

This argument could be made for all Christendom, a poor point.

"9. The Catholic Church is catholic"

An argument from popularity, another fallacy. And besides, as I mentioned above, the Catholic Church has sustained the status of non-Catholic baptized people who believe in the Lord's resurrection as true Christians, and in fact as Catholics themselves, however imperfectly united they may be. As such, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians everywhere are all part of the One Church, whether they are Catholic or not. So the total size of the Church is not "1.2 billion" or whatever figure they gave, but actually double that, according to Catholic teaching on the matter of what constitutes valid membership (however imperfectly united) in the One Church.

"10. Jesus and the Bible glorify his mother"

The author really needed to, if they were going to bring up Mary, justify why a Christian should pray to her. Most Christians value her faith as a model, but it takes a greater understanding of Catholicism to see how praying to her makes sense. So another weak point.

I'd said this in the other thread: The basic difference is that Catholics believe all of their pillars are infallible and self-authenticating whereas in Protestant churches, anywhere fallen man is part of the equation, there is need for checks and balances. Because of that, the RC's pillars are all challenged by 1 the Bible 2) Body members, including pastors and teachers, 3) Church doctrines and creeds and 4) the Holy Spirit's work and guidance and His Sovereignty over our lives.

We do not question the veracity or accuracy of the scriptures, but question one-another's interpretations.

All I'm doing is challenging your interpretations. I accept what you accept.

We do not question the veracity of the Holy Spirit or God' Sovereignty, but rather one's subjectivity and feelings involved in interpreting His interaction. Brothers/pastors, and creeds we hold up to scrutiny but with a good bit of reliance with proven track-records such plays in the background.

With other meanings but with much the same words, I could say the same. I don't question the veracity of the Holy Spirit or God's Sovereignty at all, and find their full treatment in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hold up to scrutiny everything the Church teaches, and I have been won over, and see in her teachings that which renders the Scripture fully understood, accessible and complete. There is no part of Scripture that is a mystery, or is off-limits, in the Catholic faith. The Church and the Scripture go together, they are a matched set, a pair, the one constantly enforces and refers to the other, and this has always been, from her beginning (which was AD 33, more than a decade before a single New Testament book was penned). The Scripture and the Church complement each other.

The seat for both Catholics and Protestants, we'd claim, is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes, and I'd argue that in the Eucharist, Catholics encounter Him in an entirely unique way, although I think that because of Holy Orders still being validly celebrated by the Orthodox churches, that the Orthodox too truly eat His body and drink His blood during communion.

Importance? We function differently out of the gates and it is important to grasp both what we hold in common, yet how we use those in our lives differently.

There were no fewer than 14 martyrdoms of Apostles and Church bishops in the first century. Martyr means witness. What were they witnesses of, and witnesses to? The resurrection of the Lord from the dead on the third day according to the Scripture. No fewer than 14 people died horribly, just for saying that He rose from the dead. This is what got them killed, was the resurrection, and their witness to it.

Yes. I've read a bit of the Catechism and would agree with that percentage range.

For my part, if people were really as devoted to knowing what they believe from Scripture, it would be 100%.

 

[jsanford108]

If the scripture and the catechism contradict, the catechism is ALWAYS at fault. I would guess that 95% of the catechism is non-Biblical.

Two things. First, I have never found a contradiction between the Catechism and the Bible. Second, your guess of 95% illustrates a lack of knowledge on the Catechism. It demonstrates, in sync with the rest of your statement, an ignorance of Catholicism.

Not trying to be abrasive, just highlighting areas in need of research if one wants to make accurate and compelling arguments/statements.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[jsanford108]

And, you know what Christ said about traditions: they make the Word of God of none effect. Almost all the catechism is nothing but traditions and most of these are of pagan origin.

Once again, this statement demonstrates ignorance of Catholicism an the Catechism. It also demonstrates a historical ignorance. If you believe in use of a wedding ring, that is pagan in origin. What you have done is utilize a partial fact in order to blemish the image of Catholicism.

This statement also features an ignorance of Scripture. In Matthew, when Christ teaches against "traditions of men," He is explicitly teaching against corrupt traditions. Prayer before a meal is a tradition. Would Christ be teaching against this? Naturally, one would say no. The marriage ring is a tradition. Is Christ teaching against this? Of course not. He is specifically targeting the corrupt traditions practiced by Pharisees that are in contradiction with all things Holy.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Lon]

Giving me a link to address is not fair, unless I invited you, which I did.

It is almost more a curse on me, now that I have to address it! :noway: My original intent was to give context for my comments as well as the context for my general post. In addition, it was my hope that anyone reading along, if interested, would click the links. They were fairly readable, and so I'd hoped they'd serve rather than cause you or I a long post

I'll address them one by one for you. Understand that I speak as a personal interpreter, not for the Catholic Church, and while your link does seem to speak for the Catholic Church, I'm not sure that a bishop has given his stamp of approval, the imprimatur. If it is "Nihil Obstat," all it means is that there is nothing in it against Catholic teaching.

It also can help other Catholics on TOL see where you are coming from.

This just means that before AD 1054, there was only One Church, visibly or otherwise. It's an historical fact. There weren't denominations then, only particular churches or dioceses, all of whom were in communion with the Roman diocese. IOW this doesn't argue for Catholicism. It is a sneaky way to say that that One Church then is today the Catholic Church, and the author should have made that argument instead of begging the question by saying that the Bible is Catholic. Besides, the Catholic Bible is 73 books instead of the Protestant's 66, so their point is moot right out of the gate.
This should have been the beginning and end of the argument, because in this passage Scripture alone says Church alone. The rest of this explanation distracts from the only true point.

I'm not sure your fellow Catholics would agree to it being a moot point, we do value those early endeavors to protect and preserve. The Coptic churches have always existed independently too, mostly because of how remote they had been. They included a number of apocrypha, but I think it a good discussion. I tend to appreciate the Catholic church and its efforts in those first centuries.

More an argument against division in the Church than anything, and it's special pleading and begging the question again that the Catholic Church should be seen as the true Church. The author needs to spell that out instead of gloss over their implication.
Protestants do need a better answer than they have for this point for Catholicism. The Lord did call Simon "Rock," and He did say He'd build His Church upon that rock, Peter. (Yes, also upon Peter's confession, but the Catholic Church admits that anyway, it's a non-starter.) Somehow, if we take the LORD Jesus Christ at His Word, the Church is built upon Peter in some way, and not just upon Peter's confession alone, but upon Peter himself, because that's what the Lord said that He'd do. This point is solid and no Protestant has given a good reason to believe against Catholicism while satisfactorily explaining how the Church is built upon the fisherman from Galilee Peter. The Catholic Church is the only ecclesial community that even tries to make a compelling case, and it's because the Catholic Church owns the only compelling case, since she is based upon Peter's seat as the supreme pastor of the Church.

Briefly, Protestants either agree that Peter was the first to preach, or they believe Peter was only 'part' of the Rock of established faith. The Lord Jesus Christ had just told Peter that Spirit had revealed truth to Him. A link 'if' you want further reading or address on this material. I tend to give them as references/footnotes, so one can check my work if they like. I'd not intended that you should 'have' to read all of them.

Even Catholic teaching says that the Church consists of all those baptized people who believe in the Lord Jesus, regardless of whether they're Catholic, so again, a poor point.
I disagree (with the one sticking point that I cannot see how a true, cold-blooded murderer can be a Christian).
I also believe that the Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

A bit of tension: The sacraments. New Advent (very lengthy and for reference only) says they are not essential as to their physical observation, but rather essential as to the heart of a believer. Many Protestants are under the impression (and some of this asserted by Catholics on TOL) that without the sacraments, one cannot be saved.

Just as a point of reference, do you believe in such a person as a true Christian who is also a true cold-blooded murderer? Paul was a murderer, before believing in the Lord, and in His resurrection from the dead on the third day according to the Scripture.

1 Samuel 16:7 God said this to Samuel regarding David. David wound up murdering Uriah 2 Samuel 11. With you, I think murder a terrible thing. 1 John 3:15 I think they must face human consequences for it. It is best we both leave them in God's hands after that, I think, lest we harbor the same in our hearts. Forgive me if this answer is unsatisfactory.

Who cares? Purgatory is no big deal. You believe the Bible, you believe 2nd Corinthians 5:10, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." Note Paul says "we," even the Apostles are not free from the consequences and penalties that we've all earned and continue to earn for ourselves "while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners" (Ga2:17). The Bible says that we will reap what we sow, and purgatory is what that is.

Purgatory is reserved for the redeemed. No resurrection-denier can enter purgatory. It's no big deal, and I'm looking forward to it. There's also indication in Church teaching that we can begin the purification process now in this life here on earth, and that it's even possible to complete it entirely before departing.
Another weak point since to argue with a Protestant, you must argue from Scripture and not from history, though their statement is true. It doesn't prove that the Church was right.
This argument could be made for all Christendom, a poor point.

I'll leave it to a Catholic to counter if they wish.

An argument from popularity, another fallacy. And besides, as I mentioned above, the Catholic Church has sustained the status of non-Catholic baptized people who believe in the Lord's resurrection as true Christians, and in fact as Catholics themselves, however imperfectly united they may be. As such, the Catholic Church teaches that all Christians everywhere are all part of the One Church, whether they are Catholic or not. So the total size of the Church is not "1.2 billion" or whatever figure they gave, but actually double that, according to Catholic teaching on the matter of what constitutes valid membership (however imperfectly united) in the One Church.

I think it depends on the how big the numbers are. In another thread, I was telling an Arian that we outnumber them 600 to one. That's a huge number and I think the sheer volume of it does speak for itself. 600 of us believe that God expresses Himself as Triune. One, doesn't. By the numbers, one of them doesn't look right after a more than obvious fashion. "Likelihood" is, imho, a valid argument.

The author really needed to, if they were going to bring up Mary, justify why a Christian should pray to her. Most Christians value her faith as a model, but it takes a greater understanding of Catholicism to see how praying to her makes sense. So another weak point.

Mariology is an interesting phenomena in that much of it is a movement by the congregation more than top-down. You are correct, no protestant will accept veneration beyond God's own veneration of Mary.
Similarly, with veneration of all the saints. The best I'd heard from a Catholic was simply scriptures Galatians 6:2, James 5:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:25 etc.

All I'm doing is challenging your interpretations. I accept what you accept.

Well, if we hold about 80 to 90% the same, that'd make sense.

With other meanings but with much the same words, I could say the same. I don't question the veracity of the Holy Spirit or God's Sovereignty at all, and find their full treatment in the teachings of the Catholic Church. I hold up to scrutiny everything the Church teaches, and I have been won over, and see in her teachings that which renders the Scripture fully understood, accessible and complete. There is no part of Scripture that is a mystery, or is off-limits, in the Catholic faith. The Church and the Scripture go together, they are a matched set, a pair, the one constantly enforces and refers to the other, and this has always been, from her beginning (which was AD 33, more than a decade before a single New Testament book was penned). The Scripture and the Church complement each other.

I will leave off comment on this. It is a point of contention and separation. In a nutshell, the hierarchical structure of the RC holds its members locked in that structure. Those coming in, like yourself, come into it able to examine and decide for yourself before coming under that authority. A good note, would be that you agree with them, but the RC is not conducive for a Protestant, especially given that there will be from 10 to 20% disagreement over doctrine that is a significant disagreement.

Yes, and I'd argue that in the Eucharist, Catholics encounter Him in an entirely unique way, although I think that because of Holy Orders still being validly celebrated by the Orthodox churches, that the Orthodox too truly eat His body and drink His blood during communion.

I touched on this above with the New Advent link.

There were no fewer than 14 martyrdoms of Apostles and Church bishops in the first century. Martyr means witness. What were they witnesses of, and witnesses to? The resurrection of the Lord from the dead on the third day according to the Scripture. No fewer than 14 people died horribly, just for saying that He rose from the dead. This is what got them killed, was the resurrection, and their witness to it.
For my part, if people were really as devoted to knowing what they believe from Scripture, it would be 100%.

I am fairly devoted. The best I can do is about the percentage you gave. My 10 to 20% is significant enough that I will remain Protestant. In Him -Lon

 

[Nihilo]

It is almost more a curse on me, now that I have to address it! :noway: My original intent was to give context for my comments as well as the context for my general post. In addition, it was my hope that anyone reading along, if interested, would click the links. They were fairly readable, and so I'd hoped they'd serve rather than cause you or I a long post


It also can help other Catholics on TOL see where you are coming from.


I'm not sure your fellow Catholics would agree to it being a moot point, we do value those early endeavors to protect and preserve. The Coptic churches have always existed independently too, mostly because of how remote they had been. They included a number of apocrypha, but I think it a good discussion. I tend to appreciate the Catholic church and its efforts in those first centuries.

Briefly, Protestants either agree that Peter was the first to preach, or they believe Peter was only 'part' of the Rock of established faith. The Lord Jesus Christ had just told Peter that Spirit had revealed truth to Him. A link 'if' you want further reading or address on this material. I tend to give them as references/footnotes, so one can check my work if they like. I'd not intended that you should 'have' to read all of them.

A bit of tension: The sacraments. New Advent (very lengthy and for reference only) says they are not essential as to their physical observation, but rather essential as to the heart of a believer. Many Protestants are under the impression (and some of this asserted by Catholics on TOL) that without the sacraments, one cannot be saved.
1 Samuel 16:7 God said this to Samuel regarding David. David wound up murdering Uriah 2 Samuel 11. With you, I think murder a terrible thing. 1 John 3:15 I think they must face human consequences for it. It is best we both leave them in God's hands after that, I think, lest we harbor the same in our hearts. Forgive me if this answer is unsatisfactory.


I'll leave it to a Catholic to counter if they wish.


I think it depends on the how big the numbers are. In another thread, I was telling an Arian that we outnumber them 600 to one. That's a huge number and I think the sheer volume of it does speak for itself. 600 of us believe that God expresses Himself as Triune. One, doesn't. By the numbers, one of them doesn't look right after a more than obvious fashion. "Likelihood" is, imho, a valid argument.

Mariology is an interesting phenomena in that much of it is a movement by the congregation more than top-down. You are correct, no protestant will accept veneration beyond God's own veneration of Mary.
Similarly, with veneration of all the saints. The best I'd heard from a Catholic was simply scriptures Galatians 6:2, James 5:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:25 etc.

Well, if we hold about 80 to 90% the same, that'd make sense.

I will leave off comment on this. It is a point of contention and separation. In a nutshell, the hierarchical structure of the RC holds its members locked in that structure. Those coming in, like yourself, come into it able to examine and decide for yourself before coming under that authority. A good note, would be that you agree with them, but the RC is not conducive for a Protestant, especially given that there will be from 10 to 20% disagreement over doctrine that is a significant disagreement.

I touched on this above with the New Advent link.

I am fairly devoted. The best I can do is about the percentage you gave. My 10 to 20% is significant enough that I will remain Protestant. In Him -Lon

Lon, I am not Catholic, I am a Protestant.

 

[Lon]

Lon, I am not Catholic, I am a Protestant.

Now there is a twist I had NOT expected or seen coming :chuckle:

This thread is interesting in that light. Some of your language suggested you'd taken the leap.

How does that work when you agree with 100% of the Catechism?

Can you explain some of your interest and concern regarding this thread etc.

Thanks. -Lon

 

[Nihilo]

Now there is a twist I had NOT expected or seen coming :chuckle:

This thread is interesting in that light. Some of your language suggested you'd taken the leap.

How does that work when you agree with 100% of the Catechism?

Can you explain some of your interest and concern regarding this thread etc.

Thanks. -Lon

My interest and concern is evangelizing. My drive to learn theology is to facilitate evangelism. Acknowledging the papacy is to be inestimably equipped for evangelization as a Protestant. Better than anything else out there---better than the Mormons.

I want people to know that I believe and practice Sola Scriptura.

 

[Nihilo]

... A link 'if' you want ... New Advent ...

I can confidently tell you as a Protestant Lon, that such websites are at best temporary diversions from where you really want to be reading if you want to understand Catholic teaching, either for evangelization, or for interacting with Catholics. Every infallible teaching on matters of faith and morals is included in the Catechism, and while there are also teachings that are not infallible, they are authoritative.

Every RCIA (rite of Christian initiation for adults) involves working through the whole Catechism. Catholic websites and individual Catholics are at best capable students, but the teacher is the Catechism, it is the "teacher's edition" of the verbal expression of the Catholic faith.

And Pope St. John Paul prefaced the Catechism in part by saying that the Catechism is intended, as its primary audience, for the whole college of bishops. Pope Francis has recently reminded us that the two duties of the bishop is prayer, and teaching, so the bishops are literally the teachers, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is specifically addressed to the bishops, by their primate Pope St. John Paul, so it is literally the teachers' edition of the verbal expression of the Catholic faith.

So you needn't spend time even entertaining what other Catholic sources may think or write or say, because you are capable, because you are a devout Bible-thumping Protestant, of telling Catholics what they believe, just accepting the Catechism as the authoritative verbal expression of the Catholic faith. I'd say that most Bible-thumpers have all the basic intellectual tools to go toe-to-toe with any bishop and even with any pope, in explaining the Catholic faith to the world. They've given away the answer guide, and us Bible-thumping Protestants know what hermeneutics is, and we're good at, and that's all we need. You throw in our belief in the resurrection, and our belief in Sola Scriptura, and evangelism becomes a cinch, piece of cake.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I want people to know that I believe and practice Sola Scriptura.

Can you tell me how you reconcile what Rome says here in regard to eternal life

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2010).​

How can it be said that a person must merit for themselves all of the graces need to obtain eternal life since the Lord Jesus says that those who believe obtain eternal life?:

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).​

 

[Nihilo]

Can you tell me how you reconcile what Rome says here in regard to eternal life

"Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2010).​

How can it be said that a person must merit for themselves all of the graces need to obtain eternal life since the Lord Jesus says that those who believe obtain eternal life?:

I think that the answer is found in purgatory, but I think we're dealing some homonymy where the Church is using one homonym, and you're thinking about another homonym. That's been my frequent experience as I've incorporated the Catechism into my mind.

"Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life" (Jn.5:24).
​

The Church teaches this, especially eternal judgment. Temporal penalties (contrast eternal penalties) for bad deeds done in the body (2Co5:10KJV) are earned and paid out, unless the Church grants an indulgence.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The Church teaches this, especially eternal judgment. Temporal penalties (contrast eternal penalties) for bad deeds done in the body (2Co5:10KJV) are earned and paid out, unless the Church grants an indulgence.

So what does Rome teach in regard to a Christian's possession of eternal life (1 Jn.5:11)?

Can a Christian lose that eternal life because of bad deeds done in his body?

I do not know how that can be possible since the Lord Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish (Jn.10:28).

 

[Nihilo]

So what does Rome teach in regard to a Christian's possession of eternal life (1 Jn.5:11)?

The only potential matter here is what the Church calls mortal sin. Mortal sin is a gravely immoral choice, made "with full knowledge and deliberate consent," and if committed, mortal sin kills the love in our heart. I addressed mortal sin in the following post from another thread, but the bottom line is that I do not believe that Christians commit mortal sins, and not because we don't commit grave moral offenses, which we can, and do.

Spoiler

...I don't believe that Christians commit mortal sins. Mortal sins, or fatal sins, are by infallible definition grave moral offenses, which are precisely defined themselves by the Church, done fully freely and voluntarily, "with full knowledge and deliberate consent," such that their guilt is fully and justly eternally imputed to the offender. Committing a grave moral offense objectively makes one a grave moral offender, but this in and of itself is not enough to prove that it was done completely deliberately, and utterly uncoercedly voluntarily, and so whether or not a grave moral offense constitutes a mortal sin for the offender, is not knowable to anyone but God, Who alone sees our heart.

Here are some of the conditions that "diminish," "attenuate," or "nullify" all together, the guilt otherwise deserved by the commission of a grave moral offense, such as murder or adultery, according to the Catholic Church's infallible teaching of the Christian faith :

"...ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors..."

"...Unintentional ignorance..."

"...The promptings of feelings and passions..."

"...external pressures or pathological disorders..."

"...destitution, blackmail, or social pressure..."

The presence of any of these, or conditions like them, according to the supreme pastor of the Catholic Church, and so therefore infallibly, render, for the Christian, an otherwise mortal sin venial, because it makes the immoral choice without "full knowledge and deliberate consent."

...This is a personal interpretation of the infallible and objective teaching of the One (Eph4:5KJV) Holy Catholic faith. You're free to disagree, and perhaps even Pope Francis and all the bishops would disagree with me also, which, if so, I would take under advisement, but I maintain today that I'm taking the infallible, ex cathedra teaching of the Office of the Chair of St. Peter, digesting its lessons, and reading between those sacred infallible lines to arrive at my conclusion.

Can a Christian lose that eternal life because of bad deeds done in his body?

If a Christian could commit grave matter "with full knowledge and deliberate consent," then yes, but as I explained, I do not believe that Christians can do this.

I do not know how that can be possible since the Lord Jesus said that those to whom He gives eternal life shall never perish (Jn.10:28).

The Church teaches this.