Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

[thessalonian]

The difference in Protestantism is clear. There is no authoritative standard with regard to truth. No Catechism. Yes I know you will say the Bible but what it really turns out to be is the individual's interprutation of what the Bible says is the standard of truth. The individual determines for himself what it is that he must submit to. Thus submitting God's word to his own whims. Primarily what ends up happening is that the individual ends up interpruting scripture according to the Protestant tradition that he ends up joining. He is a sheep and thus really comes up with very little theology on his own. Of course you guys will never admit this.

Blessings

 

[A_Christian]

Without the influence of the Holy Spirit in
the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, there
is no authoritative standard.

 

[thessalonian]

Originally posted by A_Christian:
Without the influence of the Holy Spirit in
the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, there
is no authoritative standard.

You are absolutely right. How come it took you guys 500 years and 30,000 denominations to figure that out.

Perhaps you could tell me what are the set of truths that you hold that are in conflict with scirpture. If not then prove that you have the Holy Spirit and thus infallibly interprut every verse of scripture absolutely correctly (remember that I don't believe that the individual who has the Holy Spirit is guaranteed to interprut all verses correctly, but your hypothesis nessecitates it. Otherwise you cannot have true faith for none of your beliefs are based on certainty. You can only say it is my opinion that this is true based on my personal interprutation of scripture.).

[ September 17, 2003, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: thessalonian ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:
Here is what I was told:"....

Rather then trading in second hand stories, why don't you attempt to get to the source?

There are areas where the teachings of the Church are definitive and thus no room for disagreement with the Church on those teachings.

There are areas where the teachings of the Church are not definitive and thus there is room for personal belief. This personal interpretation, as you call it, is acceptable by the Church in as much as it does not conflict with the teachings of the Church.

As to your story concerning communion and abortion, that the Bishop talked with that person would tell us that there is information that you are simply lacking, not being party to that discussion. Therefore you have no basis for your conclusions.

 

[CatholicConvert]

I, too, am proufoundly distressed at the lack of discipline in the Church. We surely do not see such in the Early Church. Heretics, such as Bishop Arias, were shown the door.

It was mentioned that the Church is trying to leave these people alone so that they might "attract more bees with honey than with vinegar."

Excuse me?

These people are in a state of possible soul damning sin by their wacko beliefs and practices which are offensive to God. Is it really "luv" to just let them coast, hoping that they will "come to their senses one day." ?

THAT is not the Biblical model. The Biblical model is rebuke of the erring one, hoping that the truth of the rebuke will wake the sleeper from his deadly slumber. How is it love to allow people in your parish to blindly stumble ahead in heresy and apostasy, yet come to church on Easter and Christmas and decieve themselves into believe that everything is okay with them and God?

The only thing I can attribute this to is the fact, well documented in books, that the Church was infiltrated by Communists, Masons, and Illuminati in the last century. These people are devils pure and simple, and will inherit a devil's hell. But in the meantime, their goal and purpose is nothing less than the destruction of the Church, changing it from the place of sacramental salvation to a pagan temple of humanism. They care not a whit for the millions of souls they will damn with their pernacious doctrines. Their Novus Ordo "Mass" (mess is more like it) is a perfect example. I'm not even sure it is valid anymore.

Yes, I too intend to be the best Catholic I can be at this time in human history. That is no doubt going to mean that I will ruffle some feathers along the way. Well, so did the Early Fathers and the numerous Christians who would not bow to the demands of pagan emperors, but rather died than betray Christ.

May God grant me such a grace also.

Brother Ed

PS DHK...YOU SIR, are the master of double talk. I would watch flingin' dem stones if'n I were you!!

 

[Eladar]

As to your story concerning communion and abortion, that the Bishop talked with that person would tell us that there is information that you are simply lacking, not being party to that discussion. Therefore you have no basis for your conclusions.

I am not questioning the decision itself. I am questioning why such a decision is allowed to be made? Since when did the church allow for personal interpretation?

Further, the RCC does say that, while the teaching authority of the Church must be considered, if you have considered a matter prayerfully and your conscience says otherwise, you are duty bound to follow your conscience.

This seems to be a fundamental shift in the Church's position.

Here is a direct quote from a practicing Catholic

I don't wholly reject the Church's authority, only its absolute authority. There are always valuable things to be learned from tradition and organized religion, perhaps invaluable. But in time, all of the world's religious traditions have strayed from their founders' ideologies. In fact, most of them began to splinter and quarrel amongst themselves immediately after the death of their founding prophet. No mortal council of men, however wise, can be a substitute for truth. The closest words we have to truth are our scriptures, but ultimately even they are just tools designed to lift us toward God. I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but this does not mean that it is the highest form of truth. It is only the closest one can get to truth with words. God is the highest truth, not words, not dogma. Which is greater, Christ or the Bible? Christ is greater, and Christ is truth...so the Bible is less than perfect truth.

The Pope is a man of great faith and character whom I admire very much. But I am also my own person. If I found myself always accepting the word of another fallible human being without question, never embarking on my spiritual journey, and content to leave my salvation in hands of others...who and what would I be? A disciple of Christ, a seeker of truth? A follower of men?

My priest once told me that the older he got, the more inclined he was to follow his own heart rather than the Church.

 

[trying2understand]

Edlar, you keep saying the "Church says" but then only give us hearsay of individuals who identify themselves as Catholic.

Individual Catholics do not speak with authority for the Church.

How about an authoritative source?

 

[Eladar]

The difference in Protestantism is clear. There is no authoritative standard with regard to truth. No Catechism.

If the Catholic Church is not going to enforce its Catechism, what use is it?

Without enforcement, the Catechism is meaningless. Catholics end up in the same boat Protestants are in. Each man does what is right in his own eyes.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by WPutnam:
the Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself. If you don't believe me, then please trace the history of your particular denonimination/sect/cult in the same manner as only the Catholic Church can.

Just as easily, the Lutherans can do the same, tracing their lineage back to the Reformation, and from the point of reformation, following the Catholic lineage to day one. I don't disagree with your arguement, but I think that attempting to the exclude Christian lineage works to divide, rather than unite, the body of Christ.

And coupled to the very church Christ establishes

I don't believe that Jesus was attempting to found a denominational institution. Rather, he was establishing a new faith. We humans created organized religions to assist us in practicing that faith.

 

[CatholicConvert]

I don't wholly reject the Church's authority, only its absolute authority.

Typical humanist double speak. To reject the one is to reject the other. This guy is an idiot.

There are always valuable things to be learned from tradition and organized religion, perhaps invaluable.

"Organized religion" You know who are the people who use such words? Liberals and other assorted God-haters who have no desire to be ruled by anyone but themselves.

But in time, all of the world's religious traditions have strayed from their founders' ideologies.

Pore ol' Jesus. Couldn't even keep His promise to keep the Church. Pooooooor ol Jesus!! Like I said -- an idiot. An uncatechized idiot.

In fact, most of them began to splinter and quarrel amongst themselves immediately after the death of their founding prophet. No mortal council of men, however wise, can be a substitute for truth. The closest words we have to truth are our scriptures, but ultimately even they are just tools designed to lift us toward God.

He doesn't even believe the Bible and yet I am suppose to accept him as a "good and practicing Catholic?" C'mon, give me a physical break!!

I believe the Bible was inspired by God, but this does not mean that it is the highest form of truth. It is only the closest one can get to truth with words. God is the highest truth, not words, not dogma. Which is greater, Christ or the Bible? Christ is greater, and Christ is truth...so the Bible is less than perfect truth.

NOT what the Catholic Catechism teaches about the Word of God. "Less than perfect truth"

The Pope is a man of great faith and character whom I admire very much. But I am also my own person.

AH HA!!! There it is in a nutshell. "I" am MY OWN PERSON[/b] Does this man realize that such self centerness is devilish and filled with pride? This is typical of the kind of people infesting the Church today. They are their own pope and their own little "god". And eventually, if they git an earful of heresy, they will leave the Church (good riddance!!) and either start their own "church" or join some assembly.

My priest once told me that the older he got, the more inclined he was to follow his own heart rather than the Church.

Yer priest is a nutcase too!!!

This man is absolutely INFESTED with the fatal virus of 20th century democratic thinking. What he knows of Christianity could be put in a thimble and you would still have room for a Mack truck!!!

Brother Ed

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Eladar:

Without enforcement, the Catechism is meaningless. Catholics end up in the same boat Protestants are in. Each man does what is right in his own eyes.

Advocating thought police?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by True Blue Tuna:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
How true Eladar. The Catholics, in their beliefs, practices, and traditions are so varied from one country to another, or from one society to another. There are just as many different kinds of Catholics as there are Baptists, and perhaps even more.
DHK

So then should Baptists start kicking people out as well? I mean, if the RC Church is supposed to exercise quality control, then I assume you think Baptists should do the same thing, right?</font>[/QUOTE]As an IFB, I am concerned only with my local church, just as the Catholics are concerned with their organization. When individuals go against our constitution we follow the precepts laid down in Matthew 18, and if the brother or sister is not reconciled, or does not come to a place or repentance we do indeed practice church discipline, and the said person is disciplined out of the church.

The original question seems to be concerned that not all Catholics follow a fixed set of rules. That seemed to really annoy and scare some people; my gosh, Catholics might not all fit into the same easily defined box.

My first response is:

1. If you're not Catholic, then why are you worried about that in the first place?

I am not concerned about it per se. However, it is hypocritical for the Catholics to come and post on this board and tell us how united they all are having one catechism, and all Catholics are united in one faith under that one catehism, when in reality the opposite is true. That is what is being pointed out in this thread. Let us get to the truth of this matter.

2. If you were Catholic, you'd realize that a person "attracts more flies with honey than with vinegar", which is apparently how the RC Church has decided to deal with noncomformist members. Love them back to the Church, instead of ostracizing them and making them feel isolated.

I was a Catholic, for 20 years. And quite frankly the Catholic leadership doesn't care, not about their own parishoners, not even about their own leadership. If they don't even have the intestinal fortitude to discipline the sexual perverts in the leadership of their church, what makes you think they would have any intelligence to try bring those who have gone astray in their own parishes back into the fold. They don't even have that kind of knowledge.

And no, I'm not a Catholic - but I've gone to enough Catholic services to actually *know* what I'm talking about here.

No, but you are a Lutheran. And you know enough that there have been splits in the Lutheran church so that there can be different kinds of Lutherans and still be called Lutherans. This should not be a difficult concept for you to understand. Just as there has been splits in various Baptist movements, and yet we are all Baptists. The Catholic Church will not admit that the splits in their church makes for different kinds of Catholics. Therein lies the hypocrisy.
DHK

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
Ray Berrian,

Are you a member of the UCOC? How do you feel about them. DHK recalling your getting angry with justified about being Catholic and indicating something else in his bio, I would think you would be interested.

Yes, I am somewhat interested, though it doesn't make as much difference to me as it does to you because I can ascertain from his posts what he believes.
However I do owe you an apology. I read that post rather hastily, and it was a bit ambiguous.
I took it to say:

"Hey! Ray, are you a member of the UCC!! (i.e., slanderous remark)
rather than,

"Hey, Ray are you a member of the UCC? (just wondering)
I think you were asking the latter, and not making the former statement, now that I reflect on it.
DHK

 

[thessalonian]

" When individuals go against our constitution we follow the precepts laid down in Matthew 18, and if the brother or sister is not reconciled, or does not come to a place or repentance we do indeed practice church discipline, and the said person is disciplined out of the church. "

So are all other Churches/denominations or even other baptist denominations in your community not a part of your local Church? Are they Christian. I understand Protestant arguements for the local Church theory being biblical (though I don't accept them). I just don't recall any Bible passages talking about the local CHURCHES of .... If an IFB member has a conflict with an Southern Baptist member did the Bible give them any means to resolve it since from the Local Church perspective of Fundamentalist Christians, Matt 18 clearly does not apply and is impossible to implement even if it did? i.e. the SB certainly wouldn't agree to submit to the authority of the IFB's leadership.

Blessings

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by thessalonian:
" When individuals go against our constitution we follow the precepts laid down in Matthew 18, and if the brother or sister is not reconciled, or does not come to a place or repentance we do indeed practice church discipline, and the said person is disciplined out of the church. "

So are all other Churches/denominations or even other baptist denominations in your community not a part of your local Church? Are they Christian. I understand Protestant arguements for the local Church theory being biblical (though I don't accept them). I just don't recall any Bible passages talking about the local CHURCHES of ....

Like the local church of Corinth, of Ephesus, of Philippi, of Rome, of Galatia, of Smyrna, of Laodiscea, of the apporximately 100 local churches that Paul established on his three missionary churches. You don't recall the Scriptures talking about any of them? Every epistle in the Bible was either written to local church or a pastor of a local church, or by a pastor of a local church.

The church at Corinth tended to their own affairs. They excommunicated the man who committed incest (he had taken his brother's wife--1Cor.5). But they did not interfere with any other church's affairs, and neither do we. Each church is independent of another. We govern our own affairs, not the affairs of others. What right do we have to interfere with the affairs of other churches? Your statement hardly makes sense.

"Is any other church part my local church?" Absolutely not. Then it wouldn't be a local church wouldn't it."
But someday there will be the church of the antichrist who will have a oneworld church. I will not be a part of that, for I will be in Heaven at that time. Perhaps you're referring to that.
DHK

 

[CatholicConvert]

Just as there has been splits in various Baptist movements, and yet we are all Baptists. The Catholic Church will not admit that the splits in their church makes for different kinds of Catholics. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is all yours, sir. You have been told numerous times that there is no split in the Catholic Faith. Whether Eastern or Western, Coptic or Ruthenian, we all have the same set of beliefs regarding doctrinal issues. You cannot find that among Baptists because you have no published and official catechism, no magisterium, no councils -- nothing. It is, in effect, every man for himself. A free for all.

You just better hope you really are on the right side of it all.

 

[MikeS]

Originally posted by Eladar:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Further, the RCC does say that, while the teaching authority of the Church must be considered, if you have considered a matter prayerfully and your conscience says otherwise, you are duty bound to follow your conscience.

This seems to be a fundamental shift in the Church's position.
</font>[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I don't think so. You should read what the Catechism says about forming and following a moral concience (starting at paragraph 1776). Here is a short summary:

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path. We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. This is how moral conscience is formed.

So we are duty-bound to follow our conciences, but we are also duty-bound to see that our conciences are well-formed in accordance with reason and divine law. A Catholic believes that the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the faith and divine law. Therefore, a Catholic should act to form their own concience in accordance with the teachings of the Church. If a Catholic does not believe that the Church teaches the fullness of the faith and divine law this then that person really has no business claiming to be a Catholic.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Eladar,

Correct me if I am wrong but I think it was you who said, 'First of all, the Catholic Church is the only church who can trace her history back to Christ Himself.' {I believe this was taken from page 1 toward the bottom of the page}.

No scholarly person would believe this lie hatched from Satan's diabolical spirit. I am sure many a catechumen and novice has been taught this as child. You need to study the Greek in Matthew 16:18 and other passages about who the Bible says is the Rock. A concordance will help you find Rock.

'Roman Catholicism teaches that the Roman Catholic Church was established by Christ through Peter as the first visible head. The authority was the authority that God gave to Christ and that Christ in turn gave to the church. Non-Catholics would establish the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church in A.D. 590 with Gregory I "who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started that church on a new course.' Dr. Loraine Boettner, "Roman Catholicism" Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1962) p. 126; cf. A.M. Renwick, The Story of the Church (London: InterVarsity, 1958), p. 64. This was first read by me in Dr. Paul Enns book, "The Moody Handbook of Theology," Moody Press, Chicago, p. 529. Three major theologians agree with the above statements, plus this is my view also.

The Apostle Paul told us that an apostate church would surface soon after the apostles died. When we tuck in all the spurious doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church in a neat box, she well fits the designation.

The Apostle Paul warned the Colossian Church 2:8 that men would add to the church's revelation, the Bible, their philosophies and traditions. By your own admission you claim that your church goes back to the Apostolate. The philosophy and traditions of men clearly were not in the Protestant Church because we were not born as a church until 486 years ago.
Therefore, Paul was talking about your deliquent, apostate church, no offence intended.

Who do you think Paul meant in Colossians 2:8?

 

[thessalonian]

Ray,

Do you belong to the United Church of Christ?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:
Just as there has been splits in various Baptist movements, and yet we are all Baptists. The Catholic Church will not admit that the splits in their church makes for different kinds of Catholics. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy is all yours, sir. You have been told numerous times that there is no split in the Catholic Faith. Whether Eastern or Western, Coptic or Ruthenian, we all have the same set of beliefs regarding doctrinal issues. You cannot find that among Baptists because you have no published and official catechism, no magisterium, no councils -- nothing. It is, in effect, every man for himself. A free for all.

You just better hope you really are on the right side of it all.

I have been told "numerous times," but not truthfully. You are still in a state of denial. The Catechism is on the internet for all to see; that is true. But that doesn't mean that all follow the Catechism. You yourself pointed that out. There is a lack of discipline in even the most orthodox of Catholic Churches. That much you will have to admit.
What I am referring to is Charismatic Catholics, liberal Catholics, Catholics that are evangelical (such as Vatican II teaches), and Catholics that do not believe in evangelism, Catholics in other lands that openly worship and sacrifice to statues, a Catholic movement from within trying to make Mary a "fourth" person of the trinity (a joke), etc. Catholics are divided on several issues--doctrinal issues. Catholics are divided even more by culture when they allow their culture to dictate what they believe. This can be seen most in third world countries, where they are highly influenced by the state religion controlling the country. They assimilate superstitions of other religions into their own belief systems. They are in a word: "syncrestic."

Every Baptist church has its own statement of faith, which according to their own study of Scripture, they beleive to be true and accurate to the Scriptures. If you study them you will find very little difference between the majority of them. There is no big deal there.
DHK