Featured Vicar of Jesus Christ?

Perhaps. I made one or two posts and then you answered with a full page of posts which I didn't want to take the time or energy to go through. If you are going to devote so much time to one point then take one point at a time.
For example, concerning birth control or contraception, it seems apparent that Pope Francis changed the church's position which would be a change in doctrine. But this isn't the first time. Changes in doctrine are not new with the RCC. It makes changes to fit in with other nations and societies whenever it deems it is necessary. I saw that on the missionfield. I see here in Canada as Catholic priests work hand in hand with the native people blessing the water of a lake nearby hereby. The priest prays and the chief prays to his god. The water of the lake is now blessed by both gods, and supposedly has supernatural healing powers. Thousands of people come here, deceived into thinking that wading into the waters of this lake will heal them. Do they really get healed? I doubt it?

Back to the topic.
Here is an article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/catholic-church-vatican-bishops-birth-control

It goes through some history how contraception came to be banned today. If the Pope changed it then it was a change in doctrine, not that its position hadn't been changed before. Nothing is new.

 

DHK,

Thanks for the response. It is heartening to know that I'm not just left here waiting.

You said: Perhaps. I made one or two posts and then you answered with a full page of posts which I didn't want to take the time or energy to go through. If you are going to devote so much time to one point then take one point at a time.

A response: What's more important than the number of times you posted is the nature and content of your posts. They were, as I said above, what I'd describe as presented in a "shotgun" format. You brought up a host of issues. I didn't. If you didn't want me, a new party here at this forum, to respond to each point, at least briefly, other than for rhetorical effect, I wonder why you presented so many assertions only to tell me to "take one point at a time." For my part, I would have been happy to address things point for point.

You continued: For example, concerning birth control or contraception, it seems apparent that Pope Francis changed the church's position which would be a change in doctrine.

A response: It is understandable that it would seem to you that Pope Francis has changed the Church's position. The conversation you're referring to (concerning Zika and contraception) was indeed confusing and fraught with ambiguities. But what is really the case and what "seems" to be the case are often quite different things. A number of prominent moral theologians chimed in shortly after those remarks were published and expressed some confusion. First of all, though, regardless of the conversational ambiguities that come about as an extemporaneous interview is translated and presented by a biased media, the Pope cannot "change" Church doctrine in such a manner. The conditions which must be met for a Pope's teaching to be understood as binding are quite specific and well-defined. Further, as far as settled dogmatic teaching goes, Pope's do not have the authority, even if they tried to, to change teachings of that nature.

You continued: But this isn't the first time. Changes in doctrine are not new with the RCC.

A response: You have stated a number of times now, the notion that Catholic doctrines have changed. In the Church, the idea of the development of doctrine is certainly held. The notion of the moral law changing, however, is something that is rejected heartily in the Catholic Church. If you're not speaking of "development," though, and actually are making the claim that the Catholic Church has changed its moral teaching, I'd ask for just one example of such a change, please.

You also said: It makes changes to fit in with other nations and societies whenever it deems it is necessary. I saw that on the missionfield.

A response: Could you please give me, again, just one example of a *doctrinal* change being made as the Church seeks to "fit in with other nations and societies"? Again, just one example of such a "change" would be interesting to look into.

You also said: I see here in Canada as Catholic priests work hand in hand with the native people blessing the water of a lake nearby hereby. The priest prays and the chief prays to his god. The water of the lake is now blessed by both gods, and supposedly has supernatural healing powers.

A response: Again, you're bringing numerous topics up. If you'd like me to respond to only one thing, I'd be more than happy to do so. However, as long as you raise different topics, in the interest of truth-seeking, I'll take the time to respond, no matter the sacrifice. In the case of a priest blessing the water of a lake, do you object on Biblical or rational grounds for a priest doing such a thing? If so, why? Secondly, the fact that a "chief" or other indigenous elder prays to his "god" hasn't a thing to do with what the Catholic priest is doing. For the Catholic priest believes in Christ and prays to the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, the native chief prays to some sort of "Great Spirit." Catholic evangelists have had to work alongside the native groups across the world as they've attempted to convert the Nations. The fact that a Catholic priest or a community of evangelists patiently stands by while a chief prays to his traditional deity isn't a mark against the Catholics, is it? If so, why? Finally, the water of the lake is not "blessed by both gods" and Catholics know that. Why? Because there is one God. If that one God blessed the lake, it's indeed blessed. Further, as far as supernatural healing powers go, I am concerned with actual doctrines of the Church. I am talking about things a person could read in the Catechism. If your point is simply to say that there are superstitious, syncretist communities around the world, well, I won't argue against that claim. I'll agree. These superstitious matters, though, where they appear, far from representing Church doctrines, are things the Church strives to address and prevent from spreading.

You continued: Thousands of people come here, deceived into thinking that wading into the waters of this lake will heal them. Do they really get healed? I doubt it?

A response: Again, in judging these crowds of people, some maybe desperate, some maybe superstitious, some maybe ignorant, some maybe well-informed, you're not speaking directly to Catholic doctrine.

You continued: Back to the topic.
Here is an article:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/catholic-church-vatican-bishops-birth-control

A response: It's interesting that you phrased your comment in that manner, as if "contraception came to be banned." Your phrasing implies it was once accepted and then only later came to be banned. In truth, it was held to be immoral universally among Christians. One by one the "Mainline denominations" have compromised Christian moral principles and accepted it. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church holds fast to the truths of Christ, however. It's interesting, also, that you appeal to, of all people, an outspoken opponent of Catholic teaching and an aggressive proponent of abortion. Is this author really a trustworthy source?

You closed with this: It goes through some history how contraception came to be banned today. If the Pope changed it then it was a change in doctrine, not that its position hadn't been changed before. Nothing is new.

A response: The article was quite worthless, really. It presented nothing revelatory or in the least insightful for those of us who know what it is we believe and why we believe it. Faithful Christians strive to learn the faith from those who uphold it authentically, not those who devote their lives to tearing it down. Finally, you've repeated your assertion once again, namely, that the Church's position has changed before. Once again, if this alleged doctrinal change has occurred as frequently as you maintain, it should be quite easy for you to present to me just one case of a change in Church doctrine. For example, you could share with me something like "The Church once taught X" (and provide citations) and follow that up with another statement such as "Then the Church came to teach not-X" (and provide citations).

Thanks again, DHK, for your response.

In Him,

Herbert VanderLugt

 

This is your assertion: Meanwhile, the Catholic Church holds fast to the truths of Christ, but it is false. It is false because the Bible is silent on this subject and doesn't speak for or against contraception. It would only speak against that form of contraception which would lead to abortion, or more specifically would abort the baby. One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.
Did you know that the father of Orville and Wilber Wright was a bishop? I read that their father declared one day that it was not the business of man to fly. God had given such abilities to birds and not man. (That is my paraphrase and not a quote). Ironically, it was the Wright brothers that went on and invented the first "flying machine." Is it still against the will of God as their father declared? It isn't in the Bible, you know.
And neither is contraception.

 

The Catechism specifically says:

Thus the current pope has gone against his own teaching.
http://www.kofc.org/un/en/catechism/index.html#

 

DHK, I see that you wrote something else about contraception. I will address it as soon as possible. For now, consider the following.

You wrote: This is your assertion: Meanwhile, the Catholic Church holds fast to the truths of Christ, but it is false.

A response: My claim (that the Church is the Institution which is holding to Christian Moral Principles while the rest of the Christian world goes astray) is a response to your assertion. You’ve stated numerous times that the Church has changed her doctrine. Again, if my claim is false, it should be quite easy for you to demonstrate its falsity. If you could please provide one instance of such change, with citations, this matter could be settled.


You also wrote: It is false because the Bible is silent on this subject and doesn't speak for or against contraception.


A response: Again, the Bible is silent on a number of topics of grave moral importance. For example, in vitro fertilization, human cloning, the use of hallucinogenic drugs for recreational purposes, and a number of other issues are not addressed in the Bible. Another thing that’s not in the Bible is a statement such as this one “In order for a doctrine to be deemed authentic among Christians, it must be explicitly outlined within the pages of the Bible.” So it is your attempt to apply an unBiblical principle to Catholic teaching which has you in a bind. What does the Bible say about the Church's authority, though? Well, if you take the time to read my original responses to you, you will see that I have at least begun to address these questions…


You continued: It (The Bible) would only speak against that form of contraception which would lead to abortion, or more specifically would abort the baby.


A response: Could you please cite the Scriptures (Chapter and verse) which “speak against that form of contraception which would lead to abortion, or more specifically would abort the baby”? Also, most forms of hormonal birth control would be proscribed under this definition due to their potential to act as abortifacients. Are you suggesting that the Bible, then, condemns the use of the “Pill”? And if not, why not?


You continued: One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.


A response: Could you please show me (Chapter and verse) where the Bible says anything remotely like this statement: “One cannot be against that which the Bible is silent about.”?


You continued: Did you know that the father of Orville and Wilber Wright was a bishop? I read that their father declared one day that it was not the business of man to fly. God had given such abilities to birds and not man. (That is my paraphrase and not a quote). Ironically, it was the Wright brothers that went on and invented the first "flying machine." Is it still against the will of God as their father declared?


A response: First of all, any random comment made by a bishop isn’t to be understood as dogmatic teaching. Further, the Wright Brothers’ Father was not a Catholic Bishop. He was part of a small Protestant denomination. Even if he were a Catholic Bishop and said something like you recounted, though, it wouldn’t represent definitive Catholic teaching. That’s not how the Magisterium of the Catholic Church works. Before one can criticize a position, one should at least begin to understand it. You are obviously an intelligent person. But at the same time, it seems to me that you’re somewhat mistaken concerning the nature and operation of the teaching office of both individual bishops, the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishops in union with the Pope, as well.


You closed with the following: It isn't in the Bible, you know. And neither is contraception


A response: I am confused by what you seem to be saying. Just a few lines back you said that the Bible speaks to a “form of contraception which would lead to abortion, or more specifically would abort the baby.” Now you’re saying that contraception isn’t in the Bible. Which one is it? Also, consider the case of Onan. Onan committed an act which represented a deliberate attempt on his part to frustrate the possible conception of a child. In other words, Onan participated in a form of contraception. Notice, though, that his act was not an act which would “lead to abortion.” Rather, his act was one which would prevent conception itself. How did God respond to Onan? The Scriptures tell us that Onan’s act was wicked. And God slew Onan because of it (Genesis 38). It seems, then, that the Scriptural data concerning contraception is somewhat broader than you indicated.


Thanks again,


In Him,


Herbert

 

DHK,

You wrote: The Catechism specifically says:

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).


A response: I know what the Catechism says. I also know what Pope Francis said in his recent interview. I acknowledged, above, and was very honest about the confusion that came about as a result of his remarks. Still, however, his remarks are just that “remarks.” They do not represent binding teaching upon Catholics. Just because Pope Francis is the Bishop of Rome doesn’t mean that anything he says in an interview is to be affirmed as de fide teaching of the Church. As I said above, a number of writers, canon lawyers, and moral theologians have spoken up concerning the interview. I am linking a few articles below which will hopefully provide a little bit of insight into the situation. Again, I am acknowledging the fact that things may “seem” one way. But at the very worst, Pope Francis could have said something that flatly contradicted standing doctrine. Yet his mere utterance of such a thing wouldn’t *change* the Church’s teaching. It would, rather, reveal the fact that the Pope himself was confused on a matter of morality. And indeed, it would not be the first time for such a thing to occur. The fact of modern communication presents challenges to the modern bishop, for passing remarks may find themselves "tweeted." The contexts of various comments, remarks, and conversations isn't relayed to a hungry media audience in good faith. Rather, the media wish to foment, distort, and manipulate many situations, and particularly those related to the Catholic Church. The teaching of the Church, so well-stated in the Catechism, though, remains sound regardless of who happens to be the Bishop of Rome at a given time in history and what his remarks may or may not be in a passing foreign interview.

1. https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/02/25/francis-contraception-and-the-zika-virus/

1. http://www.catholicworldreport.com/...lesser_evil_and_conflict_of_commandments.aspx

1. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pope-francis-and-contraception-a-troubling-scenario

You continued: Thus the current pope has gone against his own teaching.


A response: Again, the fact that Pope Francis’s remarks seem to indicate one thing (which is out of alignment with Catholic teaching) shouldn’t be confused with a demonstration of a *change* in Catholic doctrine. As I said above, at worst, Pope Francis could have really messed up and proposed something which is indeed contradictory to Church teaching. If that proves to be the case, it would still not represent that *change* which you have alleged is so commonplace in the Church. At this point, without further clarification, I don’t think it’s reasonable to jump to any conclusions. The remarks he made in the fleeting interview have been translated, and were spoken extemporaneously (that is, they were not prepared). It is not reasonable, for those reasons among others, to simply presume by its account, that it represents a contradiction in Church doctrine, much less its change. So although I think your reference to the Catechism contrasted with the Pope's recent remarks concerning Zika virus represented your attempt to demonstrate the instance of doctrinal change I've been asking for, this information fails to satisfy my request for a number of reasons. So my request remains: "If you could please provide one instance of such (doctrinal) change, with citations, this matter could be settled."


In Him,


Herbert

 

Hello Herbert, hope you don't mind me butting in, but I did have a question for you that is somewhat related to your response.

The issue surrounds the view of the Catholic Church historically, as to whether it is pre-millennial or not. My understanding is that the Amillennial view rose to popularity as a result of Reformers wanting to separate themselves from the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

So my question is first, would you mind presenting, from Catholic Doctrine which is acknowledged by the Catholic Church, the view that is taught.

Secondly, could you present how your view aligns with their teaching.


God bless.

 

To bait and kill rats on a farm a cup of grain mixed with just a little bit of arsenic will kill them.
The RCC has a whole lot of arsenic in it and only some truth. It is difficult to defend error as truth.
Much of that will come later perhaps.

I think I made my point that the Pope made the RCC quite uncomfortable when he advocated the use of contraceptives when the Catechism forbids it. I will leave it there. I think it will be more profitable to pursue doctrine than history. I can do either, but doctrine is more profitable.

That is true. It is true because in the realm of morality it is neither moral or immoral.
There are other aspects to marriage. It might be selfish for a couple to never have children, but then we can't condemn for we don't know the circumstances.
However, for the RCC to condemn the practice and a family ends up with too many children that they can handle on a financial basis is a sin on the church's behalf.

The Bible is not completely silent on these issues. It gives us principles to abide by.
It does say: "Thou shalt not murder." I am sure you are familiar with the Ten Commandments.
It also says that believers ought to "have the mind of Christ."
It says "the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and that it belongs to God. It does not belong to oneself. It is not there for one's own recreation, to do whatever a person wants to do. (1Cor.6:19,20)
--From these passages we know that destroying one's mind and body is absolutely wrong, and that is what happens when using hallucinogenic drugs. It is also against the law. (Romans 13:1-5). The Bible has much to say about this topic.
--Concerning in vitro fertilization, it is a method of fertilization, and there are obvious biblical guidelines to follow there as well. I don't want to get explicit here as this is a family forum.
--As for cloning I believe it is still against the law. There are your answers.

There is no "Church," especially not the RCC. It is an unbiblical monstrosity of an organization composed of businessmen not chosen or led by the Holy Spirit, who have no idea what it means to be born again. That being said: Jesus said "Except a man be born again you cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
When a person has no idea or the wrong idea what the new birth is how can they ever expect to go to heaven. The RCC has been teaching this poison on this subject for centuries leading people to hell. Should I feel any sympathy for it? Never!

Abortion: "Thou shalt not kill."
The pill simply does not permit conception to take place. There is nothing "to kill," since life begins at conception.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

In their age some of the Protestant leaders were called Bishops. Perhaps I should have said church leader. The point is still the same. He declared he knew the will of God. The Bible is as silent on airplanes as it is on contraception. That was the point. It didn't have anything to do with bishops.

Obviously. That was my point of the above illustration. Not "bishops."

No, he did not. God severely judged him because he directly rebelled against God's command to Onan. That verse is not about contraceptives or any other similar thing. Don't take it out of context. It is about rebellion against God, and that is all.

Onan's act was wicked because he rebelled against God, and that is all.

 

Darrell C.,

Greetings. I am absolutely happy to have you chime in. I do appreciate your questions. I don't think it would make a lot of sense for me to produce a response here when there are a number of links I could share with you which would speak to your questions more clearly than I likely could. Here are two:

1. http://www.cuf.org/2004/03/apocalypse-not-now-the-church-the-millennium-and-the-rapture/
2. http://jimmyakin.com/2004/04/endtime_theorie.html

As far as my views are concerned, as a Catholic "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God."

If you wonder how a Baptist could come to such a place, I'd be happy to continue sharing my journey and the questions which have presented themselves along the way...

Thanks again for chiming in, Darrell!

In Him,

Herbert VanderLugt

 

Hey thanks, Herbert, but, it is not really the same to provide a link and to share one's own understanding which is what that individual shares with the world.

And just so you know, almost out of time so jumped right to this point in hopes you might get back to me before I go, and then I will return to your post and take a look at the links.

If you could, I would appreciate a statement from your personal views in matters Eschatological. One issue would be both yours and the Catholic Church position as to an interpretive approach to, for example, the Book of Revelation. As you know, many of our Reformed Brethren take in large part a view that basically views the Book to be representative of a number of things, rather than taking a literal interpretation. So my question would be how the Catholic Church views Revelation historically, and whether that has changed since her early history.

I ask because I was surprised to learn that there was actually some disagreement between Protestant/Reformed and the Catholic Church, when, in the field, most of the Catholics I have spoken to take nearly an identical approach to Revelation.

Hence my interest, and I was impressed with your courtesy in your responses, so thought I would take advantage of what I see as an opportunity to engage in some good discussion.

Okay, going back to take a look at the links, lol.


God bless.

 

The article states...

Issue: Revelation 20 speaks of Satan being bound and Christ reigning with His saints for a thousand years (a millennium). Many Protestants understand this 1,000-year reign literally and believe that it will occur on earth in the future. They also cite 1 Thessalonians 4:17 and try to make an historical connection between something called “the rapture”—when Christians are “taken up”—and this millennium. What does the Church teach regarding millennialism and the rapture?

...but I have found that it seems a majority of those who consider themselves "Protestant actually endorse an amillennial view.

It goes on to say (and the above is the only link I will provide)...

The Church has traditionally taught one commonly known as “amillennialism,”


As mentioned before, and I can't remember where I actually read the teaching (I think I may have it saved so will look), which is why I asked you (being lazy, lol), the amillennial view, though not new through the Reformation, was not the position of the Catholic Church, thus adopted by the Reformers in their attempt to further separate themselves from the Catholic Church. I will try to find the actual statement of the official position the Church takes.


It goes on to say...


This position is also scripturally problematic because the Bible does not depict a 1,000-year period between Christ’s Second Coming and the Final Judgment


Do you take that position? I am sure you are familiar with the debate concerning Revelation twenty, and oddly enough, it is with Protestant/Reformed which argue the position this site states is the position of the Catholic Church.

I was looking for something from authoritative Church Doctrine, and hoping you could pull it up.

I'll take a quick gander at the other link now.


God bless.

 

So far...I like this guy, lol.

He writes (see above for link)...


A reader writes:


Is there an official position of the Church regarding the temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem?


No, there is not.


If not, what is your opinion?


My opinion is that it will be. St. Paul writes:


Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God (2 Thess 2:3-4).


Here Paul seems to be speaking about a future event, and he refers to "the temple of God" (which, to a Jew of Paul’s kind, would only mean the Jerusalem temple). Yet since the temple is currently in ruins, this suggests that it will be rebuilt before the end.


Agree with that completely.

This guy is great, check this out...

The reader continues:


The article on Catholic.com about "The Antichrist" seems to suggest that it’s a given.


Yeah, that’s because I’m the author of that tract.

The remainder of the article is as good:



Also, could you recommend a good Catholic interpretation (book or website) of the Book of Revelations? I need de-programming from my previous pre-trib exegesis.


Understood. Like so many former Evangelicals, it took me a while to learn to see Bible prophecy through non-dispensationalist eyes, though I did that before becoming Catholic.


I wish that I had a good Catholic book to recommend to you on the subject, but I don’t. There aren’t any ones (a) that are in print, and (b) that I am aware of, and (c) that would be likely to give you what you are looking for. So let me recommend some articles:


What is interesting is that apart from a recognition that a Temple wil be rebuilt, this guy could not really be distinguished from what many Protestant/Reformed would say.

Now what surprises me is that when asked if there is a good Catholic interpretation (book or website), specifically with the intent on "de-programming" from a rejected view to a view which...and note this carefully Herbert...they don't even know yet...

...we have to ask how this in any way could be viewed as a sound approach to discipleship.

Both treat the Knowledge of God as though it can be acquired as simply as presented above.

So this turned into a focus (in the links) on something I see as an error in all groups. I actually had a friend who decided one day he was going to become a Calvinist, and that's what he did. He embraced the System before he even knew what it taught. That seems to be what is happening in this interview, and we see no correction from the "teacher" here.

Your thoughts?


God bless.

 

Darrell,

Gotcha. Okay, thanks. I see where you're coming from now. I will get back to you. I have had the luxury this evening of some free time. Usually, I would not be able to find the time for something like this so easily. My family was out all evening. I was "left behind" with the dog... It will likely take me a few days to get back to you (and the other conversation I am participating in). But rest assured, I appreciate you and will certainly get back with my personal take on the important matters you've asked about.

In Him,

Herbert

 

Please be careful not to post links to other Catholic sites that promote the Catholic faith. It is against the rules here. As Darrell mentioned he is here to debate you. The administration, however, will look at it as either propagating or even proselytizing for the RCC.
The Catechism is fine. It is good reference material.

 

If anyone still doubted the evilness of Roman Catholicism he only has to read this thread with able representatives on both RC and Protestant sides.

 

Always appreciate a good discussion, Herbert. I won't be staying on this forum much longer, just popped in for a bit until I can find another forum to visit, and this is a pretty good one to visit. Usually stays pretty busy.

I will try to find the documentation of the official Catholic position concerning the Millennial Kingdom and the view they historically took.


God bless.

 

Could you point out the "evilness" you refer to?


God bless.

 

It permeates everything claimed by the Catholic and for its shear wickedness is indiscernible for them.

Whatever is touched by Catholicism is turned into evil.

 

There is no evil in the world going on today not directly traceable back to Roman Catholicism -- 'papaldom' -- call it whatever it's "anti-Christ" now more than ever before.

 

How about Islam?


God bless.