Sign In

RicOlie_2

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
6-Jun-2013
Last activity
7-Dec-2018
Posts
5892
Web Site
N/A

Post History

Post
#1220316
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

Ric, I might be interested in discussing what doctrine I hold to vs. what you, or Warb, or _ender or whoemever else holds to. But I am not interested in having to continually defend why Protestant belief is not inferior to Catholicism. Whether whichever position is more sound might be up for debate, but that still doesn’t invite disdain or condescension.

Again, apologies if I come across in any way as being disdainful or condescending. I simply have strong beliefs, but that doesn’t mean I think you’re stupid or ignorant or anything. I simply love a good debate and mainly out of curiosity am trying to understand why you don’t find the Catholic position convincing.

Post
#1220314
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time.

Not really. The gospels were written much later than he was supposed to have lived. Definitely long enough later that there’s no reason to believe they are quoting him verbatim. And there’s definitely no historical documentation that would point towards those documents being credible. I’m not sure what historical figures you’re talking about so I can’t attest to that.

I’m referring to most historical figures who weren’t kings or something similar. I can’t think of a lot of good examples because there simply aren’t many non-Biblical people from the first century or so who are well known. But Pontius Pilate is only known, aside from one partial inscription, from the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 75-95), and Philo (died c. 50). This isn’t much different from Jesus, who is attested in the Epistles of Paul (c. 50-60), the gospels (c. 70-100), Josephus (c. 93), and Tacitus (c. 115). There is a fringe theory that Jesus did not exist, but it seems to stem more from an implicit desire to disprove Christianity than from genuinely wanting to reconstruct history.

There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego

There are images that look like certain things appearing in everything. I just googled around a found examples of chicken nuggets shaped like Abe Lincoln. What about the “face on Mars”?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cydonia_(region_of_Mars)

Doesn’t anyone believe in coincidence anymore? If we’re taking all of these as literal divine interventions just because they look like something or because someone claimed it happened, then you have to accept all other similar claims made by other religious people or even nonreligious people or you’d be intellectually dishonest. My brother claims to have seen a ghost in our childhood apartment. Was that apartment haunted? What makes him less credible than eye-witnesses to other such apparitions?

Images looking like certain things certainly doesn’t apply to the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe on the Tilma of Juan Diego, unless you’re referring to details in the eyes, etc. As for the Shroud of Turin, this certainly doesn’t hold true (see here for a detailed forensic examination of the shroud). The carbon dating to the 14th century is more convincing. I had thought that had been explained away, but I guess the argument that thousands of people fingering the shroud contaminated it may not hold water after all.

I suspect most so-called visions and apparitions are fake (which is why the Church doesn’t typically approve them), but I am willing to accept that some ghost sightings could potentially have a supernatural nature. I also think it’s possible to imagine things or to hallucinate.

the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano…

How could you possibly say that a priest 1300 years ago claiming to have found flesh in his eucharist is a scientifically inexplicable miracle? I guess if we had any reason to believe that it actually happened, it’d be a scientifically inexplicable miracle. But there are people every day that claim to have meetings with aliens, or Elvis. Do you believe them? I have a theory about the miracle of Lanciano: the guy lied. Or at best was totally mistaken.

It was scientifically analyzed by Dr. Odoardo Linoli and found to have not decayed despite not containing preservatives or being in a hermeneutically sealed container, and, like in other Eucharistic miracles, the blood type is AB, among other things. Now, the text of the study is unfortunately not freely available, so I can’t personally attest to its validity. But I certainly can’t dismiss it off-hand.

The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Where’d God come from? Why doesn’t he need an origin, but the universe does? And I don’t “believe” in anything. That’s something you’ve attributed to me. I don’t know how the universe came into being. Haven’t claimed to, don’t plan on it. Not to mention, even if I granted that a god was a necessity, that grants no credibility to any particular religion.

God doesn’t need an origin because he is being itself, and is immaterial. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, I made a presumption which I thought was fair, but clearly wasn’t.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption.

I have higher expectations for God’s representatives on earth and there are plenty of irreligious people that have been just as great as Catholics that have tried to live out their faith. And it’s definitely not true that it’s no more corrupt than any other organization in history. What, is the Women’s Christian Temperance Union as corrupt? What about SETI? Or the Free Masons? How are you gauging the level of corruption?

Are any of these plentiful irreligious people as great as the saints? While it may well be my own fault that I can’t think of any, none come to mind. I suppose I wasn’t very clear when talking about corruption, so my claim isn’t very meaningful. When I think of corruption, I’m thinking in more religious terms, where it can refer to any sort of immorality. In fact, what I should have said is “individual Catholics are no more likely to be living immoral lives than anyone else, and in fact those who actually attempt to live out their faith are far less likely to be doing so,” or “corruption in the Catholic Church is not disproportionate to the amount of wealth and prestige it has enjoyed.”

The truth of the matter is that there is no other comparable institution on earth. You mention the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, but that was never a potential means of power as becoming a clergyman in the Catholic Church once was. The same applies to Freemasonry. SETI does not have any bearing on one’s personal life. Any number of other organizations have either been relatively short-lived, do not require any moral commitments from their members, do not offer opportunities for power and wealth (this comes with size and prestige).

Post
#1220089
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

There’s no concrete evidence for the existence of God or Jesus Christ. I know it’s based on faith, but there’s also clear evidence of Church corruption on a grand scale that would point towards it not being a particularly holy institution.

No concrete evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ? What about the gospels, Josephus, Tacitus, etc.? Jesus’ existence is just as well attested as many other historical figures of the time. There are also scientifically inexplicable miracles, still visible in the Shroud of Turin, the Tilma of Juan Diego, the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano… The universe has no explicable origin without God. Matter doesn’t just spontaneously generate itself. Not to mention the unliklihood of life simply coming to be through a chemical reaction of some kind. The fact that you believe these things occurred is itself an example of faith without concrete evidence.

Church corruption was no greater than any other organization in history. It should have been far less, of course. However, if you were to look only at those Catholics who have actually tried to live out their faith, I suspect you will see very little corruption. The Church doesn’t magically make people holy. Virtue requires personal effort, whether or not you’re Catholic. Finally, the Church has often been likened to a hospital. You expect to find sick people in a hospital, but that doesn’t discredit the hospital.

Post
#1220072
Topic
Religion
Time

flametitan said:

RicOlie_2 said:
his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”

Dumb question from a non-christian: I realize that most Christians do not literally eat his flesh and blood (as I do not believe Jesus was trying to condone cannibalism, especially not of himself), and that really it refers to a sacred wine and I think bread (If I recall, though I might not have the specifics right.) However, why were those two food items chosen? Is there a Bible passage where he explains them to be allegories for his flesh and blood? If not, why those items (Though I maybe get the wine, as it might also be an extension of the whole, “turning water into wine,” thing.)

It’s a great question actually, and it has to do mainly with Jewish traditions. For one, “Eucharist” means “thanksgiving” and there is a connection with thanksgiving offerings (Todah) of the Old Testament, which consisted of bread, wine, and I believe meat. There is also the connection with the Passover (which is when the gospels record Jesus’ celebrated the first Eucharist/last supper), where unleavened bread, wine, and roast lamb were eaten. The question of course arises, why didn’t he use lamb instead of bread? I can’t give a definitive answer there, but I can give some hypotheses (see also this article and its comment section): unlike lamb, wine and bread do not exist in nature and are produced by humans using products of nature, perhaps symbolizing a cooperation between God and man; the Eucharist replaced “bloody” sacrifices (the Eucharist is a sacrifice that re-presents (makes present again) Jesus’ crucifixion, which was the ultimate “bloody” sacrifice), and thus meat wouldn’t be suitable because it would require the shedding of blood; and bread is more universal than meat, and especially compared to lamb. Jesus also speaks of himself as the “bread of life” come down from heaven in his discourse of John 6. There, he connects this notion with the Eucharist: “whoever does not eat [the Greek word used is a more graphic word for eating, like gnawing or chewing[ my flesh and drink my blood has no life within him.”

Post
#1220070
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

The idea that any church has more to offer seems weird to me. What does that have to do with truth? Who cares if a religion offers more? Shouldn’t all you care about is whether there’s sufficient evidence to justify a belief in it? At least protestants don’t offer nearly two millennia of failure to help the poor while their religious leader lives in a solid gold palace. Not that protestants don’t have their share of con-artists taking money for personal gain, but it’s on a smaller scale.

What evidence are you referring to? Failure of individuals to live up to a religion’s doctrine doesn’t constitute evidence against that religion, unless that itself runs contrary to the tenets of said religion.

It’s also noteworthy that those whom the Church upholds as examples to follow did in fact help the poor. Sts. Martin of Tours, Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa of Calcutta, and Nicholas all come to mind. Note that there are very few popes from the Middle Ages and Renaissance that the Church honours as saints. It isn’t as if we think they were all good popes. Many were corrupt and immoral, and some were rebuked by saints such as Catherine of Siena or Bernard of Clairvaux.

Post
#1220046
Topic
Religion
Time

ChainsawAsh said:

Stepping in to mention that the Protestant church I grew up in (Episcopalian), we absolutely had the Eucharist every service. Hell, the only differences I ever noticed between my church and my uncle’s Catholic church was the extra bit at the end of the Lord’s Prayer, deemphasis of confession, and the ability of priests to marry and have children. Everything else seemed pretty much identical.

I can certainly accept that some denominations are closer to Catholicism than others. Arguably though, Episcopalianism/Anglicanism isn’t even Protestant, but more akin to Orthodoxy, which separated from Catholicism over primarily political issues, with doctrinal differences becoming more prominent later on.

Post
#1220044
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich.

I’m not sure which denominations (if any) don’t have Communion, but mine certainly does. Whether it is bread and wine or unleavened cracker and grape juice, or if it uses intinction (dipping the bread into the wine) or not, or having individual breads/crackers and cups, is irrelevant. It’s the symbol that is important.

What I was referring to is the Catholic belief in transubstantiation. It’s not just a symbol. It is the physical presence of Christ himself, as testified to in Scripture (John 6, the Last Supper narratives) and the Fathers of the Church (including St. Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr in the early-mid 1st century). Yet only the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have retained this belief.

And no, I don’t turn to or reference the saints in prayer. I pray to my Father, my Savior, and the Spirit. Jesus intercedes for me, and the Spirit empowers me. I don’t need additional intercessors. And, for another thing, God is omniscient; the saints are not, so I’m not sure how that works given the number of people here who simultaneously pray constantly.

I was referring more to the example and the writings of the saints than their intercession, to be clear. The saints may not be omniscient, but they are also in heaven, which means that they are not necessarily bound by time in the same way we are on earth.

if we boil down the Christian faith to what we all have in common, we’re not left with a whole lot of substance.

What we’re left with is: We are imperfect, and sinful, and God is absolutely pure and holy. But God loves you. He loves you so much that He sacrificed His own child—His own self, on a Roman cross, as the penalty to redeem you from your our own sin and selfishness. We don’t deserve it, but it is given to us freely and all we need to do is accept His sacrifice and His forgiveness. Then the Spirit gives us power; and the Scripture, given power, is made clear as the Spirit reveals it to us. By that power, we are called to become more like Him, and to share the good news of His sacrifice to the world.

And that is really what is important.

If only we had that much in common. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, do not believe that Jesus was truly God’s son. Armstrongists don’t believe in a divine Holy Spirit. Various Christians throughout history have rejected these beliefs as well. Scripture varies between Christians. Some early Christians rejected much of the New Testament as we know it. Different Orthodox Churches also have variations in their New Testament. The Scriptures do not seem to be made clear across denominations, as there are so many interpretations of it.

I agree with you that what you listed as core Christian doctrine is more important than, say, whether or not contraception is moral, or whether or not Jesus had two wills and two natures, or whether bishops are distinct from priests in more ways than just jurdically. I don’t think you can say that it’s the only thing that’s important though. Jesus gave many specific instructions and teachings, as did the apostles, that not all Christians accept today. Why would he bother to teach these things if they were simply not important?

Post
#1220019
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I don’t really understand the “love for the Catholic faith” as opposed to just “the Christian faith”. To my mind, the whole point is to love God and love your neighbor, since the whole law and prophets hang on those two commandments. Doctrinal disagreements, in my opinion, are fairly minor in the grand scheme. To me, the different denominations are essentially separate parts of the Body of Christ. None is less important even if one does not understand the use of another (1 Corinthians 12).

Frankly I don’t think God cares if you’re Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, Assembly of God or Seventh-Day Adventist. I happen to be Baptist, and there are certain doctrinal beliefs and activities (or lack thereof) that come along with that, but it doesn’t make my faith less meaningful or my life less useful to Him.

Also, I’m not really overly concerned with the “official” stance of the (Catholic) Church to a certain degree. If the “official” view was that God actually literally created everything, from the space-time continuum itself to human life on this planet, in 6 days—that is, only 144 hours—when to begin with a 24-hour day would have no meaning before our planet existed, then I don’t agree with that. I agree that he could if He wanted to, but I don’t believe that He did. And I enjoy learning about what our science has revealed that speaks to the wonder of His handiwork.

God is still teaching me about Himself, and I’m learning more about myself and about His creation. He’s just at a different place with me than He is with someone else.

It’s clear from the Bible that doctrine was important to the early Church. Take the dispute about circumcision, for instance. Jesus himself spoke strongly about various doctrinal issues that many Protestants disagree with (e.g. his condemnation of divorce, his statement that “unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life within you”). He also prayed “that they may be one as we are one,” so clearly unity was important to Jesus. And to extend that line of thought, because Jesus is God, and Jesus cares about the unity of Christians, God does in fact care about what we believe because if we all believe different things, we aren’t unified.

Not to mention that most Protestant denominations just don’t have that much to offer in comparison to the Catholic Church. They don’t have the Eucharist (or most of the other sacraments), the tradition, the depth of theology, the saints, or any number of the things that set the Church apart and make it so incredibly rich. Different denominations have incompatible beliefs regarding salvation. The fact is that we can’t all be right, and if we boil down the Christian faith to what we all have in common, we’re not left with a whole lot of substance.

As a side note, the Church has no official stance on how quickly the earth was created. I would say most Catholics accept the scientific data in this regard.

Post
#1219374
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

Okay, so obviously it has changed. They weren’t supposed to be sold, then they were, and now they aren’t. And clergy is a misleading word to use. Even the pope himself was involved in scamming people out of their money for indulgences. I’m tired of this refusal to even acknowledge things that are documented fact. I don’t get how you could say that “nothing’s changed there,” when the practice has been different depending on who is in charge. It’d be like if I said that black people (or black men anyway) in the southern United States were able to vote ever since Reconstruction because of the 15th Amendment. Nothing’s changed there, now we just have the Voting Rights Act. It’s really misleading because yes, legally blacks were allowed to vote, but it was common practice and basically the law of the land in racist southern states to deny them their right to vote. So no, it actually has changed.

My point is that the teaching of the Church hasn’t changed. The abuses have. There is an important distinction to be made between the teaching authority of the Church and the people who belong to it. When someone says “the Church teaches…” they are referring to the former. When someone says “the Church permitted abuses such as…” they are referring to the latter (i.e. Church officials). In other words, it’s a dichotomy between doctrine and policy, the former of which is unchangeable, the latter of which can. Policy itself is divided into official Church policy (e.g. the contents of Canon Law) and individual policy (e.g. how Church officials handle sexual abuse cases). It is only in the latter that abuses arise, and they have no bearing on what the Church actually teaches, and can in fact run directly contrary to Church doctrine.

TL;DR: The teachings of the Church haven’t changed. Policy, whether unofficial and individual or official and codified, has.

Post
#1219205
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

But you have to admit the Catholic Church has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. If it were still the same as it was, Pope Francis would endorse burning me at the stake.

Yes and no. The teachings of the Church haven’t changed,

Indulgences?

Nothing’s changed there. You can still get them and they were never supposed to be sold in the first place. That’s why it was so upsetting to Luther. Indulgences basically involve going to confession, receiving the Eucharist, praying for the pope, and usually doing some other pious act. The abuse was when clergy started selling them. In these cases, they weren’t even valid, so it was basically a case of clergymen taking advantage of the laity, who thought they were actually receiving some sort of spiritual benefits. It’s unfortunate that the Church didn’t really crack down on it until the Protestant Reformation was well under way.

Post
#1219201
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

Just keep in mind we feel strongly in what we believe as well.

Of course. Which is why I’m debating you. 😉

I appreciate your willingless to engage in discussion. You’re a great guy, so please don’t think I’m attacking you personally, even if I seem to be passionately tearing apart your arguments. I’m just trying to get a sense of why you believe what you do despite whatever arguments there are against it.

Post
#1219196
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

But you have to admit the Catholic Church has changed a lot since the Middle Ages. If it were still the same as it was, Pope Francis would endorse burning me at the stake.

Yes and no. The teachings of the Church haven’t changed, although new understandings have developed. The attitudes of people have changed. Different doctrines have been emphasized due to cultural influences. However, if you look at the saints, they are actually quite similar in the way they think and act no matter what the time period is. The Catholic Church calls for us to pursue an ideal. The ideal doesn’t change, but the ways people fail to achieve it do.

Post
#1219194
Topic
Religion
Time

Possessed said:

The church has definitely not always been catholic. It used to not have an organization hierchy, which the Bible actually warns against having. Does NOT say priests should be celibate, encourages the opposite. Says call no man father, and I don’t even need to go any further on that one. Baptism for people of sound mind who understand the weight of the decision they are making (ie not babies). I don’t even want to continue listing all the things catholics do different than the Bible as I’m sure you have a way to word yourself out of them, but claiming the church has always been catholic when the catholic church very clearly is very different than the early churches spoke of in the Bible is just silly.

You just ignored everything I said. I don’t remember you being like that. I remember you being quite pleasant to chat with in the past. Now we’re just talking past each other.

Post
#1219193
Topic
Religion
Time

suspiciouscoffee said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Question: do you believe Protestants can go to heaven?

Of course. Unless they commit a mortal sin and die without repentance. Just like Catholics.

Post
#1219192
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

In reference to murder, that was always immoral if you care about what Jesus Christ supposedly said. He condemned the death penalty clear as day when stopping the adulterous woman from being stoned.

Yeah, bad wording on my part. Murder is always wrong. The death penalty is arguably not always murder, however, though it’s rarely, rarely justifiable nowadays (and usually wasn’t in the past either).

Post
#1219191
Topic
Religion
Time

chyron8472 said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

-.-

By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

 
I don’t really appreciate this attitude you seem to have about Protestant belief. As though the Body of Christ is weakened by opinion that is not the “official” view of the Catholic Church. I do not have to subscribe to the position that the elements of Communion actually literally become His body and blood. I also do not lend any weight to baptism of those who are too young to make the decision for themselves, albeit baptism itself is not a requirement for salvation. And I am not required to confess to a priest. Jesus Christ Himself is the Great High Priest (Hebrews 4), and He intercedes for me.

JEDIT: 2 Timothy 3 says “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” So relying heavily on Scripture does have a sound basis.

Ephesians 2 says “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” So while James 2 does say “Faith without works is dead”, those works are fruit borne from one’s relationship with Christ. They are not required for salvation, because that undermines the sacrifice Christ paid for us. There is no amount of works we can possibly achieve that makes us worthy of salvation.

As for baptism not being a requirement, the thief on the cross was not baptized, and yet he was saved.

So you see, your assertion that Protestant doctrine has no basis is highly uninformed.
/JEDIT

 
I really don’t like the disdain you’re showing here. My relationship with my Savior does not suffer because my church does not doctrinally agree wholly with Catholicism.

Apologies if I’m coming across as disdainful. That’s the trouble with Internet debating. A lot comes across in your words that you don’t intend to.

No, I’m not disdainful, nor do I think badly of you guys in any way. I simply feel strongly about what I believe and am trying to figure out why you guys believe what you do and why you think it’s justified. I’m in love with the Catholic faith and I think it’s important, which is why I want to share, though it might come across as aggressive.

I’m itching to respond to the points you brought up in your edit, but I also don’t want to antagonize you. However, if you’re willing to debate a bit, let me know.

Post
#1219186
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Scripture existed before the Pope. When someone asks you for proof of the Pope’s authority, what do you do? You show him scripture.

My beliefs aren’t based on historical justification, they are based on faith.

Most of Scripture (the Old Testament) existed before the first pope, but the entire New Testament was written during or after the life of the first pope, St. Peter. Other books of the New Testament were written during or after the reigns of Pope St. Linus, Pope St. Anacletus, and Pope St. Clement I. (As a side note: the Scriptural argument for papal authority doesn’t come entirely from the fact that it’s Scripture. It also comes from the fact that Christ himself said that Peter would be the rock upon which the Church would be built. Meaning that the institution of the papacy occurred before Jesus’ ascension.)

More importantly, however, the canon of Scripture wasn’t defined until the 300s in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Catholic Church determined which books are in your Bible. So if you reject the authority of the Catholic Church, you are basically saying that there is no basis for you having the Bible that you do. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says what books should be in it. There is nowhere in the Bible where it says that the Bible is the only source of authority. Your faith is based on the authority of the Bible, which can only be justified if you accept the authority of the Catholic Church at the time the canon of the Bible was established.

Post
#1219182
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:
I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

History supports the concept that people are capable of great stupidity and great brutality, and the Catholic Church has participated in that just as much as everyone else has. When Facebook starts taking strides to eliminate fake news by murdering or jailing people then I will deem that an accurate analogy. Obviously they weren’t protecting anyone’s right to the truth by ensuring that those people didn’t have a right to comprehend the truth unless they learned Latin. I honestly thought, until now, that everyone including the most devout Catholics could agree that the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyingly corrupt and immoral but I guess that’s not the case.

I wasn’t talking about murdering and jailing people, and if that’s what you meant by “tyrannically banned,” it wasn’t clear to me. I certainly agree that that was usually immoral.

You’re really fixated with this whole Latin thing, aren’t you? The fact that Latin was the lingua franca of Europe does not mean that the Catholic Church was deliberately trying to conceal the truth from those who were uneducated. Is that what Newton and Linnaeus and Copernicus did when they all wrote in Latin? What did they have to hide? You’re ignoring the fact that because everything was in Latin, Europe was more unified in the medieval era due to the facility of communication. It was easier to exchange ideas. You could be educated anywhere in Europe in the same language. It was unfortunate that most people weren’t educated, but the societal structures weren’t in place to allow for it. If everything had been in the vernacular, it wouldn’t have made a huge difference because people wouldn’t have had the opportunity to learn to read anyway.

Saying that “the Catholic of the olden days was horrifyngly corrupt and immoral” is making quite the blanket statement. There have been good and bad Catholics of every time and place. Many so-called Catholics nowadays are horrifyingly corrupt and immoral. Many Catholics in the Middle Ages were wonderful, loving people. Not much has changed except the ways in which people are immoral or virtuous.

Post
#1218468
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

“They will prohibit marriage and require abstinence from certain foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” - 1 Timothy 4, and it’s in reference to false teachers. The Catholic church also prohibits marriage for priests and nuns.

So you interpret “prohibit marriage” as meaning “requiring celibacy among certain people”? That’s a bit of a stretch. The passage is almost certainly referring to those in the Church who wanted to ban marriage altogethr because they thought the second coming was going to happen within their lifetime and thus thought marriage was pointless (according to some heresies, marriage was considered immoral).

The same deal with requiring abstinence from certain foods. The Church doesn’t do that. It has historically required abstinence on Fridays, but that’s not the same as outright banning certain foods, and it has nothing to do with us believing that meat is not to be received with thanksgiving and is somehow unclean. Quite the opposite in fact. Meat is something very good, and therefore a sacrifice to give up, which is the whole point. It’s something extra done to commemorate Christ’s Passion, and is a sacrifice precisely because it’s a normal part of people’s diet the rest of the time. Plus the point was that you would give up meat and give the money you saved to the poor.

Thanks for finding the relevant Scripture passages for me though.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

In mass, the Bible was read in Latin for centuries.

And then in his homily, the priest would typically read a translation of the readings to the people before speaking about them. Your point?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

I think people can decide for themselves what books are “for their own good”. I’m sure you’d be less apologetic if Catholic doctrines were tyrannically banned.

History does not seem to support the concept that people are capable of correctly judging the truth on their own all the time. I think things that are true should be promulgated, and things that are untrue should be suppressed. Or do you think that Facebook taking strides to eliminate fake news is “tyrannical”? People have a right to the truth, and the Church’s intent was to protect that right.

Post
#1218466
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”
-John Henry Cardinal Newman

Somehow I doubt that.

Historically speaking, the Church has always been pretty Catholic, and the Protestant Reformation was revisionist, not based on any solid historical grounds. Sola scriptura is an entirely Protestant invention, for instance, and has no basis in either history or Scripture. There is no historical justification for much Protestant doctrine.

Post
#1218357
Topic
Religion
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

RicOlie_2 said:

  1. I can’t recall what Scripture passage speaks about not restricting diet at certain times, but I suspect that’s simply Protestant apologists reading something out of context or the like. I also can’t find the one on each church being its own governing authority. I highly doubt it’s worded like that, or I would have noticed it one of the several times I’ve read the Bible.

That’s because you’ve apparently never read 1 Timothy, or Acts for that matter.

I just quickly read through 1 Timothy (which I’ve read at least four times before), and I don’t see anything like what Possessed said. I’ve also read Acts four or five times and am really not sure what you’re referring to. If you’re referencing Peter’s vision, it simply removes dietary restrictions, it doesn’t say that one cannot ever place restrictions on diet. In fact, St. Paul writes that people should avoid meat sacrificed to idols if it is a cause of scandal to others.

  1. I have always been encouraged to read the Bible, as are most Catholics today. There are a number of historical reasons why this was not always the case:
    a. Most people couldn’t read.

That has nothing to do with forbidding people to read the Bible. They wouldn’t even allow people who could read to read it to people that couldn’t read in a language they could understand.

Interesting. Do you have evidence to back this up?

b. Most copies of the Bible were in Latin, and people couldn’t read Latin anyway.

That was the problem.

Do you realize how expensive and rare books were? There was basically no point in translating into the vernacular because most people who could afford books were educated enough to read Latin anyway.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

I find it kind of disturbing that you can’t just acknowledge that the Catholic Church of the Middle and Dark Ages was incredibly tyrannical. This last point reeks of “Well, it was banned for people’s own good.” Not to mention that it’s widely accepted by pretty much all historians that the Vulgate was a very inaccurate translation.

It was banned for people’s own good. When someone’s salvation is at stake, it’s important that they don’t fall into error and reject the Church. That’s not itself tyranny, although tyrannical people may have enforced it. It was a means of protecting the truth. Ideally, people should just have been catechized better, but that wasn’t always practicable. The Vulgate may unfortunately have been an inaccurate translation, but at least it didn’t contain doctrinal errors.

Post
#1218351
Topic
Religion
Time

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Warbler said:

RicOlie_2 said:

we interpret it differently than Protestants (or rather, Protestants interpret it differently than us),

Why are making the distinction?

The Catholic Church existed before Protestantism, so the Catholic interpretation is older.

I still don’t see the reason to make a distinction between saying “we interpret it differently than Protestants” and “Protestants interpret it differently than us”. It is the same thing. Protestants and Catholics interpret the scripture differently.

There’s a subtle semantic difference, but let’s not get caught up over it.

c. Various translations into the vernacular were banned, but this was because they were bad translations, not because people were only allowed to read the Bible in Latin.

Tyndall would like a word with you on that subject.

Tyndale’s translation was in fact ideological. Among other things, he sought to undermine the clergy and translated the Greek word ekklesia with “congregation” rather than “church,” essentially undermining the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church. Basically he was imposing his own ideas on what Scripture was saying, and the Catholic Church did not want him to mislead people. It was wrong to execute him, but in the Church’s view, souls were at stake.

Well I am not expert on the accuracy of Tyndale’s translation. But from what I know, I think it was more than just the Catholic church objecting to bad translation, it was objecting to translating the Bible from Latin into English and other languages. I am pretty sure there was Catholic opposition to the KJV.

That’s not quite accurate. The èarliest Catholic English translation of the Bible (or at least the first major one), the Douay-Rheims, predates the KJV (the New Testament is a few decades older and the Old Testament was published shortly before it). In fact, the Douay-Rheims influenced the KJV, although Anglican England banned the original Douay-Rheims (Bible-banning wasn’t just one sided!). So it’s a myth that the Church was opposed to vernacular translations. The Vulgate, after all, was originally just that: a translation from Hebrew and Greek into the more common language, Latin.