I recently had a dialogue, that I wanted to share with you. These are not the exact words, but it went a little like this:
Non-Catholic: Carlus, are do you really believe that Mary remained a Virgin for her entire life?
Me: Why yes I believe that Mary was Ever Virgin. She died without ever knowing any man.
Non-Catholic: You know in the Bible it says that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Your belief that she was a Perptual Virgin is just not supported in Scriptures. This is just one of the man-made traditions of the Catholic Church.
Me: Really. I find this ironic because most, if not all of the Reformers believed that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
Non-Catholic: Well, they got it wrong too.
Me: Okay, so let me get this straight. Martin Luther, who is hailed as the Father of the Reformation, translated the entire Bible into a common language for the people.
Non-Catholic: Yes.
Me: During his translation of Scripture, he must have come across the verses that you are mentioning where it clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but he chose to ignore it, and believe the lie that Mary was a Perpetual Virgin.
Non-Catholic: That is exactly right.
Me: So, if that is the case, if Luther was wrong about something so trivial about the faith, if he cannot be trusted when it comes to such a simple matter of Christian dogma, how in the world can anyone trust his opinion when it comes to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide? Is this what you are actually suggesting that I leave the Catholic Church for? For someone's theology who was wrong about something so plain and evident in Scripture? ...That's okay. I'll stick to the faith that has been passed down since the time of Christ instead.
God Bless...
25 comments:
everyone's mike tyson when they're shadow-boxing, Carlus. Everyone's a MENSA candidate as long as they can look at the Teacher's Edition.
There's more discussion happening. Interested to see where it will go.
Jason
Has the Catholic Church ever been wrong about anything? Haven't the changed their doctrine thrugh the years concerning having to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved? Early writings stated it was necessary and later down the road they said you could be saved outside of Catholocism, and again now the current Pope going back to the original writings?
If that is so, what does it do to infallibility? The Pope is infallible and maye the underlings are not? The infallibility of the "Church" is often heard. History says the some Popes were total scoundrels. Infallibly 'scoundrely'.
One definition I found states almost the same thing as the doctrine of sola scriptura as it petians to the bible being the sole authority fot faith and practice. Only in this one the Pope is infallible.
Th big question goes to ANYONE claiming infallibility. I don't believe Luther claimed infallibility, though. The speciic question concerns the infallibiliby of the Roman church.
Dan
Hey Dan,
Haven't the changed their doctrine thrugh the years concerning having to be a member of the Catholic Church to be saved? Early writings stated it was necessary and later down the road they said you could be saved outside of Catholocism, and again now the current Pope going back to the original writings?
For accurate Church teaching on salvation only comes from the Catholic Church, I would like to offer you to read this article, Salvation Outside the Church.
If that is so, what does it do to infallibility...Popes were total scoundrels...
Yes. There has been bad Popes. But what that does to the doctrine of infallability...nothing. Papal Infallibility does not mean that the Pope cannot sin. In order to understand this doctrine, Papal Infallibility.
God bless...
Thanks, I have much of that information, and now have additional information on the subject.
I do need to ask about a couple of scriptures:
John 3:16 promises eternal life to those who believe in Christ, not believe in Christ by way of a certain organization.
Eph 2:8-9 state that we are saved by grace through faith and also excludes mention of through/via a particular organization.
How do you deal with those? Are these a couple of "that's what is says, now let me tell you what the Church says they mean?
Dan
Dan,
Help me to understand how you think I would object to these scriptures?
I agree with them both, but granted, our understanding of them may be different.
I believe, and so does the Catholic Church, that salvation can be attained outside of Her. At the same time, I believe that only the Catholic Church has the complete set of tools necessary for salvation.
I don't know if this is a good starting point or not. I am just trying to share with you what I believe. Now, what is your understanding of Catholic Teaching that would contradict those scriptures?
You wouldn't object to them, but your Church adds to them.
• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Your current Pope recently approved a document restating the above.
Anonymous,
Trust me, I can completely understand the hostility that you may have to such statements. These are statements and perceptions that I had prior to deciding to join the Church as well.
I have already provided a link on this post regarding the Church's position of Salvation outside of the Church being feasible. I also did a post on this very subject, because someone told me the exact same thing that you are telling me now. You can find it here Do Catholics Claim the sole means of Salvation.
If you still find this teaching hard to understand, I would recommend looking at the following discussion thread, Is Catholicism the only true Christian Religion, or any other Catholic discussion threads. As you know, the internet is full of people who think they know what the Catholic Church teaches. Why not hear it from the source?
God bless...
I have a good amount of "source" documents and discussions/articles from both Protestant and Catholic positions. I cannot get away from your Church adding works to grace, according to your own canons.
I bare no hostility, but am merely examining your own documents.
Consider these:
• “There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215.)
• “We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302.)
• “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)
Dan
You must be talking about this little spiritual 'sleight of hand'.
"For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."
I believe this is one of the latest 'pronouncements' and agreed to by your current pope.
All it really says, grammatically, is that God 'uses' non-catholic religions in the process of salvation, and that those he does use derive their 'efficacy' from guess who? the Catholic church.
Dan
Dan,
Short answer, yes. Therefore, as you have seen, the Catholic Church does believe that salvation is offered to those outside of Her.
Medium length answer:
The Catholic Church was the only Church from 33AD-1000AD. That was when the Great Schism occured. From there we had the Protestant Reformation near 1500's. All of these churches came from the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church recognizes that she is the source of the faith. Historically, this is an accurate statement.
So therefore, even though many of the churches are in schism to her, we are all brothers in Christ with the means to salvation.
God bless.
Only to those "ignorant" of the Catholic church do you say might find salvation 'outside' the Church! It's in YOUR documents.
The Catholic was NOT the only church between 33 and 1000 AD. The church, the bride of Christ is the called out body of believers, regardless of 'organizational' affiliation.
Bingo! The Catholic church is the source of faith? I kind of thought that God was source of faith. The Bible seems to say so, anyway. That would be Hebrews 12:2, and would make your statement rather questionable (maybe heretical?)and one that places the authority of your Church above the authority of Scripture.
Enough said. I do pray that God will bless you also.
Dan
Dan,
Let us remember...
...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 (1 Peter 3:15)
Please do not use caps, I feel like I am being yelled at - and you and I are both better than that. Let us discuss the differences that we have with charity and love.
only to those "ignorant" of the Catholic church do you say might find salvation 'outside' the Church!
You are right. But let us be clear about this statement. Just because you have heard of the Catholic Church, does not mean that you are no longer "ignorant" of the Church. I have heard of the Catholic Church for years, yet I was still ignorant of her. It is the same as just because you have heard of the Jesus Christ, that does not mean that you are instantly no longer "ignorant" of Christ.
Being ignorant of the Catholic Church means that it has not been revealed to you that the Catholic Church is the institution created by Christ and led into all truths of the Holy Spirit. As you can imagine, there are many people that fall within this category. Therefore, salvation is attainable to many. Does that make sense?
The church, the bride of Christ is the called out body of believers, regardless of 'organizational' affiliation.
What other body of believers were there that were not a part of the Catholic faith? Remember, at this time, Catholic was synonymous with Christian. There was no such thing as other Christian denominations, there was only one faith spanning many churches, but all part of the one Christian faith.
Bingo! The Catholic church is the source of faith? I kind of thought that God was source of faith. The Bible seems to say so, anyway. That would be Hebrews 12:2, and would make your statement rather questionable (maybe heretical?)and one that places the authority of your Church above the authority of Scripture.
Of course God is the source of the faith. At the same time, God uses people in order to communicate His Word. My statement of the Catholic Church is not diminishing God in any way. The same Holy Spirit that lead the Early Church leads the Catholic Church today. We do not worship the Catholic Church, we worship the Trinity that has led the Catholic Church from the beginning, now and beyond.
The Authority of the Catholic Church is not above the Authority of Scripture. The Catholic Church is led by the Holy Spirit to understand and interpret the Scripture. Scripture is part of the deposit of faith.
God bless.
I have to admit that you are always ready to give an answer, but your answers all seem to be by way of the Catholic, not directly from scripture. That would probably go to Peter being the first "Pope" the primacy of the pope, and apostolic succession as defined by the Catholic Church. The link below goes to an examination of Rome's teachings in light of scripture. After all, that is what is most important - what scripture says of any matter.
Whoops, that would be Sola Scriptura......sorry. . .
Dan
Dan,
We all have a perspective on Holy Scriptures. We all approach it with our own set of goggles. When we do not understand a verse, we all go to the source that we think has the ultimate authority, or at least an authority that we trust.
The Catholic Church sees itself as an extension of the Church started by the Apostles, therefore, all of the rules still apply. When it comes to someone teaching foreign doctrine, they treat them the same way (Gal 1:8-9).
Many of the Church documents should also be considered within the context of the time it was written as well. The Catholic Church has fought many heresies throughout time. In order to help keep the faithful on track, they encouraged them to stay with the faith, and keep on the one true path of God. Not those crazy lunatics who were preaching heresey, which there were plenty of (Great Heresies).
God bless you brother.
"When we do not understand a verse, we all go to the source that we think has the ultimate authority, or at least an authority that we trust."
Thank you for that! Very true! that is why some of us follow one of the main principles of hermaneutics and allow infallible inerrant scripture interpret itself, which it does quite nicely without the aid of an organization outside of itself!
You are still getting right back to the need for the Catholic Church as the authority between God and us ordinary folks. Can you show me from scripture that the same Holy Spirit that you say was given to the one true church is not the same Holy Spirit given to every believer? Is the Holy Spirit that indwells every believer somehow different? Show me that one in scripture also.
Come on, give me something from scripture, chapter and verse, in context that says that Christ establiched a specific organization to be the true church.
Dan
Dan,
allow infallible inerrant scripture interpret itself, which it does quite nicely without the aid of an organization outside of itself!
The Bible is infallible and inerrant. That is not the question. It is us, who is not. People are not infallible and inerrant. Because of this, that is why you have so many different people interpreting the same infallible and inerrant scriptures differently, yet they are all being led by the Holy Spirit. They can't all be truly led by the Holy Spirit.
For this reason, we all appeal to some higher power. Whether that higher power is a Church Organization, notable biblical scholars, or my own personal interpretation. I know the Holy Spirit is at work within us all, yet sometimes, I do believe that many of us have deluded ourselves. Because of that, it is always good to talk to someone else about what Scripture is saying.
No man is an island unto himself. Especially when talking about Christianity. We are all in this together, and we should be believing the same thing.
Can you show me from scripture that the same Holy Spirit that you say was given to the one true church is not the same Holy Spirit given to every believer? Is the Holy Spirit that indwells every believer somehow different? Show me that one in scripture also.
I don't need to show you scripture and verse for this one, because I completely agree with you. The same Holy Spirit that works within us, is the same Holy Spirit that works within the Catholic Church. I believe that the Catholic Church is always listening infallibly to that Holy Spirit. I do not trust us, to always listen to that Holy Spirit without error. That is why I always go back to the Church, to make sure I understand things correctly. Sometimes, I was listening to the Holy Spirit correctly, other times what I thought was the Holy Spirit, wasn't at all. Just me deluding myself.
Come on, give me something from scripture, chapter and verse, in context that says that Christ establiched a specific organization to be the true church.
I will do even better. I will point you to a site that contains many scripture references to God establishing His Church here on Earth.
The Church.
God bless...
Went there, and did a bit of scriptural research. I would be careful using the term 'better' here. My comment to your last post here:
So the Catholic church listens 'infallibly' to the Holy Spirit while the rest of us are prone to 'fallible' hearing. That is what you are saying. This forces you to you go right back to the 'Catholic Church' being infallible, which then leads to the primacy of the Pope, Peter as the first one and Apostolic succession.
The site you sent me begins there (with Peter as the 'rock' and first Pope. Once you have 'established' Peter as the 'rock' and first Pope, you fit him (Peter) into the majority of scripture cited in the link you sent me, even back into the Old Testament! I have to confess that you have given me an example of eisegesis at it's finest.
If Peter goes away as the rock upon which the church is built, your whole argument seems to vanish into thin air.
I could offer you quite a bit of scripture in which Jesus, Peter and Paul say that Christ is the rock upon which the church is built, but I'll refrain. I noticed in some of the material you provided you have that neatly covered by saying that there are many meanings/mrtasphors to words used in scripture. That of course sets up the 'need' for an outside source, 'infallibly' led by the Holy Spirit to interpret things for the 'fallible among us' (everyone outside the church).
I make these comments so that you would know that I did research, verse by verse, the material at the site concerning Peter as the rock and first pope. I am not blowing smoke here, or trying to prove a 'Protestant' point.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we listen 'fallibly' to the Holy Spirit and wonder at your statement that you know the Holy Spirit led you to the Catholic church because you would never on your own become a Catholic. Do you realize how silly that sounds? So you go shoot somebody that just made you really mad, but since you wouldn't have done it all on your own, it's the Holy Spirit also?
On to your next post......
Dan
Dan,
I really don't have much to comment on. I just wanted to let you know that I did read what you had to say.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that we listen 'fallibly' to the Holy Spirit and wonder at your statement that you know the Holy Spirit led you to the Catholic church because you would never on your own become a Catholic. Do you realize how silly that sounds?
No. It is not silly at all really. If you knew me and the different church experiences that I have had all of them differing on one point or another, yet all agreeing that the Catholic Church was wrong and leading billions of people to hell...you would not think my statement strange at all.
So you go shoot somebody that just made you really mad, but since you wouldn't have done it all on your own, it's the Holy Spirit also?
Exactly. Yet people claim that the Holy Spirit has done things that are clearly not the Holy Spirit. As you and I both agree, people can delude themselves into believing whatever they want.
God Bless...
Dan,
I am curious as to what faith tradition you are coming from, or are you non-denominational?
So how do you know what 'spirit" is speaking? I would say examine scripture, you apparently examined yourself and how you would normally do things/behave.
The scripture does tell us to test every spirit, as you probably know. The Bereans examined scripture to see if what Paul preached was of the Holy Spirit.
Anonymous...
You have no idea. My whole life was turned upside down. When I was challenged to study the scriptures and see if what the Catholic Church is saying is true regarding Apostalic Succession, Eucharist, Peter being the Leader of the Church, Baptism....I spent the better part of 2 weeks reading through scriptures trying my best to catch anything that may prove the Catholic Church wrong.
Then I listened to many debates, including some available at bringtoyou.
Then I spent some time challenging my friends that are Catholic...one of them now is my confirmation sponsor.
This was no easy jump for me by any means. So yes, through scriptural, historical examination, not to mention a whole lot of prayer, I find myself today on the road to joining the Catholic Church.
God bless...
All you need do is ask a single question while reading. Does Scripture actually SAY what the Catholic church says it does, or did they have to read into scripture what they wanted it to say, or make deductions not warranted by the text?. Almost everything I read in the link you sent me was not actually stated but eisegeted or 'deduced' to make it mean something.
Anonymous...
That is a great question, fortunately, we come up with different answers.
Taking into account the teachings of Scripture and the teachings of the Church Fathers who learned from the feet of the Apostles, who identified the books of Scripture, as far as their understanding is concerned, and that same understanding for the first 1500 years of Christianity, prior to the Protestant Reformation, the teachings of the Catholic church has always been congruent with Scripture.
The only time it is fortunate for two people to come up with different answers is when the different answers complement each other concerning the mraning of the scriptural text. When one of those answers contracdicts the text, one of them is wrong. Guess which one?
Dan
Dan,
Maybe fortunately was a bad choice of words.
And, once again, we agree. The correct answer is the one that is congruent with Scripture.
Post a Comment