The Catholic Church teaches

[Jazzy]

Do you 100% agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches? (If not, why not)

 

[Josiah]

Positive....

1. I am very appreciative for how early Christianity formed the orthodoxy we all embrace today. I don't accept the claims of the RCC for it itself for its founding (there's zero history to support it) BUT I do accept that the RCC and EOC's equally have "roots" in the early church - the Roman Church and before that, the Christian movement going back to Jesus and the Apostles. And while I completely reject the claims of the RCC itself for itself as to its founding, I DO accepting that the RCC and EOC's together have "roots" to the beginning - the the Roman Church (the first denomination created by the Romans) and to the Christian movement before that, going back to Jesus and the Apostles. AND this means that herein we find the establishment of what we embrace as Christian orthodoxy today. A LOT of things we all embrace today go back to this - the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ and SO MUCH more (indeed, even our New Testament) were developed by this RCC/EOC's and before. Sometimes by the Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-800 AD) but also by simple consensus - gathered at times around the teachings of important Early Church Fathers and sometimes simply by Christianity teaching one view rather than another. False ideas got identified and eventually condemned.... true ideas got identified and promoted. In truth, we are all FAR more indebted to the RCC/EOC than we perhaps realize and admit. I once told my Catholic pastor that I agreed with probably 95% of the Catholic Catechism... and in truth, MANY Protestants do.


2. I LOVE the very pro-life, pro-family emphasis..... I admire the boldness of the RCC in standing up for morality.... And I admire how it stands up - boldly - for what it holds as true doctrine. In contrast to FAR too much of Protestantism, it is not "wishy-washy" and relativistic. It is bold and clear in both doctrine and morality. You know EXACTLY where the denomination stands (even if perhaps not most Catholics or even priests). And I admire that greatly.


It must be noted too that I still agree with probably 95% of Catholicism. There are a FEW things I'm not totally on board with, but in most cases, these disagreements are not "deal breakers" (the Marian dogmas, for example) but there ARE a handful that are: things that mandated I leave that denomination. The Dogma of the Church, the Docilic Submission of members, the Infallibility of the Roman Pontiff.... less so, Purgatory (I'm okay with the idea, just all the dogma around it) and Transubstantiation (a classic case of saying WAY too much actually , but ithe truth).


Negative...


1. The Dogma of the Church.

While the RCC retains a faint sense of the Church of Christ - the one, holy, catholic community of all believers - in truth, this is ENTIRELY buried by the dogmatic insistence of it itself that it itself IS the Church (at least in fullness). There is an OBSESSION with it itself by it itself - as a geopolitical, economic, earthly, institutional/denominational entity with the HQ in Rome. This whole dogma gets very radical. The RCC even speaks of itself as JESUS on earth. When IT speaks, Jesus Himself is speaking. I found this really very, very extreme focus on self and the claims of self for self to be quite unbiblical, unhistorical and frankly troubling... but all of Catholicism hinges on this: in a real sense, Catholicism stands or falls on this series of claims of it itself for it itself - and it is often central to its message. At times, it seems as if the RCC talks about itself more than God ("Catholic" this, "Catholic" that) and promoted itself more than Christ. While I have nothing against denominations per se... and regard the RCC as one of the best denominations.... I find its claims not only unacceptable but divisive, unbiblical, unhistorical and troubling. With SO much good in Catholicism, it seemed at times to get lost in the obsession of itself with itself.


2. Epistemology.

The Catholic Catechism #87 says this, "Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles, 'He who hears you hears me," the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their [Catholic] pastors give them in different forms." Understand, this is the cornerstone of Catholicism. This is the reason for the Doctrine of the Church that it has... the reason for all the claims that when IT (alone) speaks ergo Jesus is, the reason for the INFALLIBILITY of their Pope, and the reason for their enormous repudiation of Sola Scriptura. There is a radical rejection of accountability of itself and a bold demand that all just swallow whatever is said, "with docility." This is DRILLED into Catholics from birth. See CCC 85, 95... this is the cornerstone of the denomination. In part, I think this is simply a mindset of the middle ages but it is SO stressed. Yes, one my ask QUESTIONS but not hold the RCC accountable. And the issue is never "because it's TRUE but because the RCC teachings it." I find this troubling.... And odd. The RCC is clearly correct about SO much.... and all its teachings are VERY well thought out (even where I disagree), I have a LOT of respect for Catholic scholarship. So WHY this extreme need to evade all accountability? I KNOW why the cults need it, but why the RCC ? BTW, many think Luther was excommunicated NOT because he said Jesus is the Savior (as the RCC claimed) but because he said the individual RC Denomination could err, thus undermining this point. This very revealing quote is from the "Handbook of the Catholic Church" page 137, "When someone asks where the Catholic finds the substance of his belief, the answer is this: From the living teaching Authority. This Authority consists of the Pope and the bishops under him at the time." Nothing about Jesus or God or Scripture or even Tradition.... and lest one confuse this with the Church, nope - this is a denomination. The very foundational doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope of the RCC Itself flows out of this same epistemology.


3. Justification:

Both Luther and the RCC insisted THIS was the "deal breaker" of the Reformation, the issue that caused the RCC to split itself. [Frankly, I question that - but that was the mutual belief at the time] A case can be made that TECHNICALLY, OFFICIALLY the RCC and Luther were very close if not identical on this point... but IN REALITY, IN PRACTICE, they were nearly opposites. Luther was a monergist - Jesus is the Savior, Jesus does the saving, justification (in the narrow sense of our changed relationship with God, the dawning of spiritual life) is SOLELY the work of God (albeit in a mysterious way, usually involving means), Jesus is the Savior, the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of spiritual Life (as we confess in the Creed). AFTER this life-giving, AFTER this justification... then we grow, we have a synergistic/cooperative growth in love and morality as we become more Christ-like BUT the justification, the life-giving, the dawning is purely the act of God. But in Catholicism, this was very messy, very muddy... and very synergistic - even Pelagian (a heresy condemned by Catholicism but sadly often perpetuated by Catholicism). "Grace" got redefined as the "power God supplies so we can save ourselves." Jesus became not the Savior but the one who makes salvation possible, the one who opened the door to heaven (so we can walk through it), the possibiliy-maker, the helper. But He saves no one.

IMO, part of the "problem" is that we're addressing different issues: For Protestants, this is all about initial justification (justification in the narrow sense), we insist on keeping justification and sanctification very separate (in part to avoid pelagianism and to protect that Jesus is the Savior) whereas in Catholicism, all of soteriology is grouped together - as one big issue. IMO, officially anyway, we likely are not as far apart as historically seen (and some modern Catholics and Protestants - including some Lutherans hold to this). BUT in practice, we're very different - on THE most important issue there is . I heard Catholic teachers state, "God helps those who help themselves." "Jesus saves no one but makes it possible for everyone to be saved." "Jesus opened the gate to heaven but you got to get yourself through it." So the Savior is self.

To me, either way.... the RCC simply being muddy about all this OR the RCC is critically wrong on THE most important issue in all Christianity... either way, it's a strong negative.



.

 

[Messy]

Do you 100% agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches? (If not, why not)

No.
I don't agree with praying to Mary or any other of the saints. I don't agree with everything the pope says and that they even have a pope.

 

[Castle Church]

I don't agree with everything the pope says

To be fair, neither do most Catholics and they are not obliged to agree with everything he says.

 

[Castle Church]

No, I do not agree with everything the Church teaches. But it would be a lie if I did not also note that there is still a great draw for me there.

 

[Albion]

No, I do not agree with everything the Church teaches. But it would be a lie if I did not also note that there is still a great draw for me there.

Now you've done it and got our curiosity aroused!

Whatever could it be that is such a great draw? I promise not to say anything negative in reply, no matter what the answer is!

 

[Castle Church]

Now you've done it and got our curiosity aroused!

Whatever could it be that is such a great draw? I promise not to say anything negative in reply, no matter what the answer is!

To be honest, I am not entirely sure as to the whole. But in part it is the conviction that the RCC is right, the thorough explanations and investigation into the faith and belief, the liturgy and history. Honestly, there is a real sense of a weight being lifted after reconciliation/confession, it is hard to describe if you have not done it.

 

[Albion]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure as to the whole. But in part it is the conviction that the RCC is right, the thorough explanations and investigation into the faith and belief, the liturgy and history. Honestly, there is a real sense of a weight being lifted after reconciliation/confession, it is hard to describe if you have not done it.

Is it that due more to the absolution than to the confessing, would you say?

 

[Josiah]

Of course, Lutherans and Anglicans also have private/personal confession/absolution.


.

 

[Castle Church]

Is it that due more to the absolution than to the confessing, would you say?

Probably both in reality. The absolution makes it feel more "real" while the confessing is healing in another way.

Of course, Lutherans and Anglicans also have private/personal confession/absolution.


.

Sure, but theologically different and very limited in scope and actual practice. Having to make an appointment for private confession/absolution is a hurdle not generally necessary in a RCC church. I've never known a Lutheran pastor that kept regular confession/reconciliation times. I have even been explained to by the pastor why it is not necessary in the Lutheran church, which I already knew, as a way to discourage it at that parish.

 

[Albion]

Probably both in reality. The absolution makes it feel more "real" while the confessing is healing in another way.

Right.

Josiah said:

Of course, Lutherans and Anglicans also have private/personal confession/absolution.

Sure, but theologically different and very limited in scope and actual practice.

I'm not sure that that's the case with the Anglicans involved, but it only would apply to what we call "Anglo-Catholic" parishes. In the majority of Anglican churches, the confession of sins is part of the liturgy and is recited by all, following which the priest pronounces the absolution.

I've never known a Lutheran pastor that kept regular confession/reconciliation times. I have even been explained to by the pastor why it is not necessary in the Lutheran church, which I already knew, as a way to discourage it at that parish.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Do you 100% agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches? (If not, why not)

You're asking folk who have demonstrated that they do not grasp what the Catholic Church teaches so you're going to get answers that reflect only what the responders imagine that the Catholic Church teaches.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No.
I don't agree with praying to Mary or any other of the saints. I don't agree with everything the pope says and that they even have a pope.

I like Blessed Mary; she is lovely as a prayer partner.

 

[MoreCoffee]

To be fair, neither do most Catholics and they are not obliged to agree with everything he says.

Shhhhh.... you're not supposed to state the obvious flaw in the "explanations" of "Catholic teaching" that our learned contributors make!!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Now you've done it and got our curiosity aroused!

Whatever could it be that is such a great draw? I promise not to say anything negative in reply, no matter what the answer is!

Why is it that your closing statement looks a tad tricky?

 

[Castle Church]

I'm not sure that that's the case with the Anglicans involved, but it only would apply to what we call "Anglo-Catholic" parishes. In the majority of Anglican churches, the confession of sins is part of the liturgy and is recited by all, following which the priest pronounces the absolution.

Valid point, my only experience with Anglicanism is limited to a couple of TEC churches. That said, the drift towards liberalism in many Anglican churches is concerning to me and one impediment that can't be ignored.

 

[Messy]

I like Blessed Mary; she is lovely as a prayer partner.

She was. I thought they got a break when they get to heaven. She has done enough.

Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day’s journey. 13 And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James. 14 These all continued with one [d]accord in prayer [e]and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all [a]with one accord in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them [b]divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Hey mother Mary spoke in tongues!

We don't need anyone who is now in heaven to help us pray. The Holy Spirit helps you to pray if you don't know what to pray.


Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Romans 8:26 NKJV

Romans 8:26 (NKJV) - Likewise the Spirit also helps in o | YouVersion

Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

bible.com

 

[Castle Church]

We don't need anyone who is now in heaven to help us pray. The Holy Spirit helps you to pray if you don't know what to pray.

To be fair, we don't need anyone here on Earth either, but we ask and they do pray for us. Scripture tells us to do that as well, to pray with one another and for one another. Being as only the believer's body dies, but the soul lives on, we are a community of the living, not the dead. Now, whether the living in Heaven can hear us and pray for us like the living on Earth is another matter entirely. Asking a believer in Heaven to pray for us does not negate praying for ourselves and with the Holy Spirit, it is not one or the other.

 

[Albion]

Valid point, my only experience with Anglicanism is limited to a couple of TEC churches.

Understandable...but still unfortunate. I would like you to have also had the experience of visiting one of the Anglican churches that adhere to the historic beliefs and practices of the English church.

That said, the drift towards liberalism in many Anglican churches is concerning to me and one impediment that can't be ignored.

Which, I'm sorry to say, is affecting just about every Christian denomination or 'family of faith' these days, unless we're including some cults that are hardly recognizable as being Christian communities.

 

[Messy]

To be fair, we don't need anyone here on Earth either, but we ask and they do pray for us. Scripture tells us to do that as well, to pray with one another and for one another. Being as only the believer's body dies, but the soul lives on, we are a community of the living, not the dead. Now, whether the living in Heaven can hear us and pray for us like the living on Earth is another matter entirely. Asking a believer in Heaven to pray for us does not negate praying for ourselves and with the Holy Spirit, it is not one or the other.

If I want someone in heaven to know something I ask God to tell them or let an angel tell them or whoever who's there, because the only One I am in direct contact with is God. Only when someone is about to die they can see family members come get them or talk to them. I know they say you should not pray for the dead, but my guinea pig died, so I prayed: God can You show him where Skippy is, not the bush kangaroo, but the other guinea pig, cause there's millions of them and they all look alike and then I read that they only have a short memory, but this is the most important thing in the world to bother God with. Lol and I seriously believe He'll do that or already did.