The Big Discovery [by David, former Presbyterian]

Journeyof ImperfectSaint.blogspot.com ^ | October 4, 2009 | David

[Salvation]

Sunday, October 4, 2009

The Big Discovery

        I made some good friends outside my church and found out that they were all Catholics.  Now, I did not know much about Catholicism at the time.  By the way, the Mass did seem somewhat mysterious to me externally.  In fact, what little I had heard from other church members was all negative.  There was a Mrs. J at my church, who had just retired from her missionary post in China.  She was such a kind and endearing soul to all.  One day she got back from visiting someone at a hospital and looked extremely sad and disturbed.  It turned out that when she got to the hospital room, she saw that a Catholic priest was already there with the patient.  Now the question was if the patient would ever get to heaven. 

 

        Nevertheless, my Catholic friends all looked quite normal and happy.  Then could the Catholic Church, the largest church in the the world, be in error?  It so happened that at that time I was also beginning to question my Protestant faith.  The fact that there were numerous different denominations around the world bothered me.  Also, as a Protestant, whether you're a minister or lay person, you are free to marry and divorce any number of times.  It's hard to see that Jesus would be happy with these two facts.  Since I am the kind of person who always likes to find the answer to any question that's important, I decided to look into Catholicism.

 

        I made up my mind not to talk to anyone about my investigation.  I was single then and had a lot of free time to myself.  The local public library housed an excellent collection of books on Catholicism, so I started borrowing books on the subject.  I read every weekend, even taking notes as I read.  The went on for over a year.  I read all those books that viciously attack the Catholic Church too, but somehow they did not affect me much because I sensed that these attacks could not have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.  The books that really helped me were the ones on early Church history.  I could see that the continuity was there and the beliefs and practices of the early Church had been preserved to this day in the Catholic Church.  The only conclusion I could come to was that the Catholic Church was indeed the church Jesus had come and established.  Like Christ himself, the Church, being his body, must be accepted (or rejected) totally, with no middle ground. 

 

        Here's some advice for those who seek the truth.  Your chances of success will greatly improve if, first, you start out with a completely open mind and secondly, go to the source(s) directly to get the facts.  Many who misunderstand the Catholic Church today have already made up their mind that the Church is wrong, thus never bothering to pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what the Church really teaches.  This is being close-minded. 

[RFEngineer]

Please.

You are grasping at straws.

Your redirection is irrelevant

[Jvette]

****Because it is their beliefs you are discussing and they have the right to have input into it as well****

I was?

Gee, looking over my posts, I don’t find a single belief of any of them expressed by me. In fact, I don’t have a clue what any of them actually do believe.

If it is of such import to them, then they can do what I did, which is to click on a thread which interests me and respond to someone if I have a response or a question.

And, why do they have a right to have input? Other than we all have a right to express ourselves on this forum, but I never felt the need to ping a whole list of people to a particular post or thread.

I speak only for myself, use only my own words and thoughts and if any other Catholic cares to join in, then that is great and they are welcome.

[RFEngineer]

Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of annulments are really divorces by another name.

You argue the exception to justify the majority.

Catholic annulments are no different than protestant divorces for most cases.

You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s fine.

There is no real difference for the vast majority of non-kennedy, non-gingrich annulments.

[papertyger]

You are grasping at straws. Your redirection is irrelevant

It's not irrelevant. But I wouldn't expect a Muslim to understand simple analogies if they go against the sayings of the prophet.

[Jvette]

I think the Bible calls it “pride”.

[RFEngineer]

You have lost the bubble friend.

Care to take another stab at it?

[papertyger]

I think the Bible calls it “pride”.

Actually, I think that's "taking the name of the Lord in vain."

[papertyger]

You have lost the bubble friend. Care to take another stab at it?

Nah. I just figure if you can make things up as you go along, I can too!

[Jvette]

That too and so much more.

Thanks for your input:)

Have a good night.

[papertyger]

*Of course you ignore the fact that the vast majority of
annulments are really divorces by another name.*

*You argue the exception to justify the manority*

*You feel smug that they are called something else, and that’s
fine.*

If this guy was Catholic, you’d be on him like white on rice.

[Natural Law]

"Catholic annulments are no different than protestant divorces for most cases."

I am not so naive so as to believe that there have not been abuses or that people, properly coached and suitably motivated cannot co-opt the process. Canon lawyers, like any of us can be duped. Those cases will ultimately be judged by God. My point is that a categorical repudiation of nullification is pretty dumb.

Peace be with you

[metmom]

And to the extent that they reject Church teaching, they are actually Protestant, though they might call themselves Catholic.

Wow. Y'all are sure quick enough to disown Catholics y'all disagree with, until it comes time for a head count.

Whatever happened to *once a Catholic, always a Catholic*?

[Natural Law]

"If this guy was Catholic, you’d be on him like white on rice."

It won't accomplish anything by pointing out the obvious except to possibly exacerbate the already existent antipathy toward Catholics.

[Religion Moderator]

You feel smug

Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[metmom]

And your 7 year posting history is a supporting testimony that being Catholic believe in Jesus and are just as saved as those in the store front churches so many "individual believers" attend?

People who trust Christ alone for salvation and not their church are saved no matter what church they go to or if they even go at all.

There are going to be saved and unsaved people in every church. The only difference is going to be in the ratios, with some denominations having a higher saved to unsaved ratio than others.

People are not saved because they're Catholic, or Baptist, or Lutheran, but in spite of it.

[daniel1212]

FWIW< there's more than enough evidence in the CCC and the canons from the council of Trent to know that disagreement with Catholic doctrine is NOT tolerated. Much of it results in anathemas

Hey, dan, this is another one Catholics disagree on. Their ability to disagree with the Church

Not only, but here there is even interpretive disagreement on whether Trent’s anathemas stand against Protestantism or entail, besides what parts of Trent, etc. are infallible.

[daniel1212]

I am not interested in a cut and paste response from anyone on any topic. I never do that, I always use my own words unless I am quoting Scripture.

You may never do that, but when we post material that impugns Rome we are disparaged if it is not referenced, and or not from Rome, and it should often be both (though even that sometimes will not stop attempts to discredit such).

Many Catholics disagree with the Church on many things. So what? They do not have the authority to declare binding beliefs on anyone and must answer for their own dissent when the time comes.

But as what all the binding beliefs are, then what dissent may allowed can be unclear, while the church is not supposed to wait until the Lord's return for discipline, and in reality her overall lack of discipline, and even official approval of teachings including things which conservative Catholics rail against, effectually conveys allowance of a broad degree of liberty of liberal doctrine.

A cursory reading of “your” list was enough for me. I found it to be misleading and disingenuous at best. There are actually only seven doctrines which a Catholic is bound to hold as Truth.....

Rather, it is your unsubstantiated statement that is misleading, as in your cursory reading you must have missed that neither list is dealing with binding truths, in which case the Protestant list would also be very short. In addition, as expressed, a more meaningful comparison is between sola ecclesia churches and SS type churches.

The Nature of God, as in the Holy Trinity including the Nature of Jesus as True God and True Man
The Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus
The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
The Assumption of Mary
The Immaculate Conception of Mary
Papal Infallibility regarding matters of faith and morals.

The rest is tradition with a small “t” and disciplines and practices which are not defined.

Thank you for your opinion, but while these are “binding*,” the number of binding doctrines is open to some interpretation, as “The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm)

Thus there is is disagreement even over how many infallible papal statements have been made, from 20 or less to perhaps many more.

Recently, the Vatican official responsible for relations with the Jews, stated that,

The Catholic Church's relationship to Judaism as taught by the Second Vatican Council and the interpretations and developments of that teaching by subsequent popes, "are binding on a Catholic... "All the doctrinal decisions of the church are binding on a Catholic, including the Second Vatican Council and all its texts," Cardinal Koch said. (May 17, 2012, http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=31359&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cathnews%2FRSS+%28CathNews%29)

But just what doctrinal decisions are can see different interpretations:

The Second Vatican Council’s declarations on non-Christian religions and religious freedom do not contain “binding doctrinal content,” Cardinal Walter Brandmüller said at a press conference on May 21 [2012]...Stating that the conciliar documents have differing degrees of authority, Cardinal Brandmuller said that “there is a huge difference between a great constitution and simple declarations.”

“Strangely enough, the two most controversial documents [on religious liberty and relations with non-Christian religions] do not have a binding doctrinal content, so one can dialogue about them,” he continued. “So I don’t understand why our friends in the Society of St. Pius X concentrate almost exclusively on these two texts.” (http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14369)

And the SSPX (partly) and sedevacantists reject Vatican Two teaching as being binding. (http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/renew2.html)

In addition, your list is shorter than what i see.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998, provided a partial list of “those doctrines of divine and catholic faith which the Church taught as divinely and formally revealed. . ."

• The articles of faith of the Creed

• The various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas

• The doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace

• The doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration

• The foundation of the Church by the will of Christ

• The doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff

• The doctrine on the existence of original sin

• The doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death

• The absence of error in the inspired sacred texts

• The doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being.

(http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM)

Then there is the priest:

God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or

to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes,

and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2. http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

* Mysterium Ecclesia says,

"All those things are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the written or transmitted Word of God and which are proposed by the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, to be believed as having been divinely revealed" (dogmas).

Very briefly, infallible teaching (existing in 2 categories) is binding in an absolute and irrevocable way, requiring assent “de fide” (of faith) or sacred assent. Below that is teaching which requires submission, with an obsequium religiosum, often called “a religious assent of mind and will.” or ordinary assent. Private dissent may be allowed for such, with a submissive spirit. (cf. CCC 891,92, http://www.catholicplanet.com/TSM/assent-dissent.htm)

A fourth category, ordinary prudential teaching on disciplinary matters, is commonly accepted by theologians and can be inferred from the text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s Donum Veritatis. (http://catholicism.org/the-three-levels-of-magisterial-teaching.html)

Outside infallible decrees, other teachings are subject to the possibility of error, even on matters of faith and morals, but never to such an extent that any error, or set of errors, could lead the faithful away from the path of salvation. (http://www.catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm)

[metmom]

Do you think a marriage between a man and a seven year old girl is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

And just what is any priest in his right mind doing marrying a seven year old child?

No, it's not valid in any respect.

It is no excuse for an annulment because there was no marriage, it's child rape and needs to be prosecuted as the crime it is.

Do you think that a marriage against the will of either party is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

Does not the couple go to pre-cana and should not the priest have determined that BEFORE marrying them? And in this day and age? Marrying against one's will?

We are past the days of arranged marriages but I simply cannot believe that all arranged marriages were entered into by willing partners and yet those marriages were considered valid and binding. Didn't amtter what the man and woman thought.

And where does God allow an exception for that anyway? Would you care to provide some Scripture to support that?

Do you think the marriage involving a seriously mentally disabled or unconscious person is invalid or should the Church nullify it?

See response to marrying a child. Do you mean to seriously assert that one of your priests is going to marry someone who is unconscious for the wedding? Really?

Or that the priest can't determine that someone is mentally deficient to the point that they ought not to marry?

So what business does he have marrying them in the first place?

Do you think that the marriage to someone who is already married to one or more other persons is a valid marriage or should the Church nullify it?

Bigamy is also a crime and the marriage is already not recognized by civil authorities. It doesn't take an annulment to admit that.

[metmom]

Psst..... gamecock. Over here......

Then there is the priest: God Himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of His priest, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution… The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it.” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2.

http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

God is obliged to follow the whims of mere sinful, easily corruptible man.

Imagine that.

And Catholics wonder why people don't take them or their religion seriously.

1 John 1:9 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[Natural Law]

"People who trust Christ alone for salvation and not their church are saved no matter what church they go to or if they even go at all."

Then why the constant lack of respect and the twaddle condemning Catholics because of Catholicism? Your actions don't match your rhetoric. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”

"But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." - 1 Peter 3:14-16