Catholic bullshit and defenses for it

[edgeworthy]

... or do you just want to use me as a punching bag for all the problems you have with the Reformation?

There is, to put it mildly, a quite Biblical lack of Self-awareness on that one!

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

but since most Protestants will vehemently say that Catholics are heretics already (also lol worthy)

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While there is a fringe that believes that Catholics are heretics the vast majority of Protestants I've interacted with see Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity. A form that is incorrect in many ways but a valid path to heaven nonetheless. I have seen far more instances of Catholics who believe that Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Though I can only speak for American Protestantism I have no idea if things are different in other parts of the world.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While there is a fringe that believes that Catholics are heretics the vast majority of Protestants I've interacted with see Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity. A form that is incorrect in many ways but a valid path to heaven nonetheless. I have seen far more instances of Catholics who believe that Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Though I can only speak for American Protestantism I have no idea if things are different in other parts of the world.

Eh, that's fair. Might be my own selection bias.

 

[Stargazer]

Ah, I didn't mean to mischaracterize, that's how I understood your replies. In that case, returning to the start of this line of thought



I have a few questions then:

1. In Revelation John was worshiping the angel, was he praying to it, praising it, or offering thanksgiving? Was it his feeling that the angel was higher than himself that counted as the worship?
2. Let's say I'm saying the Our Father every hour in my head- is this prayer? Is this worship?
3. If you're unsure if internal actions like this are actually prayer, then am I right in assuming that the inverse (like ogling someone) are definitely sins?

Thank you for trying to engage in good faith. I hope I'm not mischaracterizing anything you're saying.

1. I would say it would be categorized as praise, expressing awe directed at the angel for what he just saw, and in doing so was improperly recognizing the angel as higher than himself (hence the admonishment from the angel that he was just a fellow servant of Christ like John was). That was inappropriate for John to do to someone other than God.

2. Ehh. Again, I don't know if reciting something in your thoughts with no external expression can be properly referred to as "prayer" or worship. I would strongly suggest some external expression if you desire to pray to God and worship him.

3. You are right, but that's because we have specific teaching in Scripture on that - Matthew 5:21-30.

To your request for examples in Scripture of silent prayer:

Is that sufficient to accept silent prayer as valid worship?

The question isn't so much about "accepting silent prayer as valid worship" as it is "accepting internal thoughts with no outward expression as a valid form of prayer".

In the case of Hannah, there was still some outward expression through her silently mouthing her prayers.

The other verses indicate that God knows our thoughts and knows our needs even if we can't properly express them, but they're not really examples of inward thoughts in themselves being considered prayer, in the absence of any external expression.

How do you know this- that revelations about new, unrevealed truths are not occurring?

Are you disputing that such revelations are no longer occurring?

That's what you said. "The apostles did have a unique authority to interpret the Scriptures (meaning the Old Testament), shown in the writing of the New Testament."

That is in fact what I said. You seem to be reading it as if I said "the apostles only had authority to interpret the Old Testament", to the exclusion of authority to interpret things like the teachings they received from Jesus and the miracles they witnessed. And I'm not saying that.

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While there is a fringe that believes that Catholics are heretics the vast majority of Protestants I've interacted with see Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity. A form that is incorrect in many ways but a valid path to heaven nonetheless. I have seen far more instances of Catholics who believe that Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Though I can only speak for American Protestantism I have no idea if things are different in other parts of the world.

*Raises hand* The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel that cannot save anyone from God's eternal judgement for sins.

 

[King Arts]

I've seen no evidence that this is true. While there is a fringe that believes that Catholics are heretics the vast majority of Protestants I've interacted with see Catholicism as a legitimate form of Christianity. A form that is incorrect in many ways but a valid path to heaven nonetheless. I have seen far more instances of Catholics who believe that Catholicism is the only valid form of Christianity. Though I can only speak for American Protestantism I have no idea if things are different in other parts of the world.

I've literally met people who asked if I was Christian or Catholic. Which is lol worthy in many ways. First Catholics are Christian(for the most part) Also I'm not Catholic though my Church is closer to the Catholics than other denominations well the traditional Catholics at least.

 

[King Arts]

*Raises hand* The Roman Catholic Church preaches a false gospel that cannot save anyone from God's eternal judgement for sins.

Lol. Let me guess it's because you think they don't believe in faith alone?

 

[Stargazer]

Lol. Let me guess it's because you think they don't believe in faith alone?

Because no amount of alms giving, penance, partaking of the mass, baptism, indulgence, and whatever other things the Catholic Church says you must do will ever merit your entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[King Arts]

Because no amount of alms giving, penance, partaking of the mass, baptism, indulgence, and whatever other things the Catholic Church says you must do will ever merit your entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

 

[posh-goofiness]

Thank you for trying to engage in good faith. I hope I'm not mischaracterizing anything you're saying.

Of course. We'll get literally nowhere if we do argue in bad faith. I don't think you have mischaracterized anything I've said so far.

2. Ehh. Again, I don't know if reciting something in your thoughts with no external expression can be properly referred to as "prayer" or worship. I would strongly suggest some external expression if you desire to pray to God and worship him.

So, this seems to me like I could, for example, recite the Hail Mary every hour in my head and you'd say that's safe and not worship and also not prayer. Obviously, for a Catholic, we would consider it valid prayer but not worship.

1. I would say it would be categorized as praise, expressing awe directed at the angel for what he just saw, and in doing so was improperly recognizing the angel as higher than himself (hence the admonishment from the angel that he was just a fellow servant of Christ like John was). That was inappropriate for John to do to someone other than God.

I feel we just looped back around on this then. It was what was going on mentally "expressing awe" that really discriminates whether this was a sin of idol worship by this standard.

The question isn't so much about "accepting silent prayer as valid worship" as it is "accepting internal thoughts with no outward expression as a valid form of prayer".

In the case of Hannah, there was still some outward expression through her silently mouthing her prayers.

The other verses indicate that God knows our thoughts and knows our needs even if we can't properly express them, but they're not really examples of inward thoughts in themselves being considered prayer, in the absence of any external expression.

Sure, but then it logically follows that God knows and is listening to those internal thoughts as if they are prayers. It's not like he ignores them because we aren't externally expressing anything. What about a bound and gagged captive? Are their prayers for deliverance not invalid? God surely answers their prayers, so it would seem that silent prayers would necessarily be valid prayers.

Are you disputing that such revelations are no longer occurring?

Yes. Personal revelation still occurs. At least for a Catholic that means that clergy's personal revelations, after rigorous examination by the Church and then the Pope, can be elevated to the level of what, I think you called "divine revelation". Obviously, I think they're the same thing. For a very basic example, the Masons are servants of the enemy but that was revealed through revelation to the Pope. It's not like "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is particularly dangerous for the soul on its face. We needed to be told.

That is in fact what I said. You seem to be reading it as if I said "the apostles only had authority to interpret the Old Testament", to the exclusion of authority to interpret things like the teachings they received from Jesus and the miracles they witnessed. And I'm not saying that.

Ah, then I can drop that line of argument. Apologies for the misinterpretation.

3. You are right, but that's because we have specific teaching in Scripture on that - Matthew 5:21-30.

Putting this at the end because now I'm curious and it's a different line of discussion. Revelation says that the prayers of the faithful are offered up to god in a golden incense bowl. Do you think 23-24 are a double meaning- both the altar in the Temple and the offerings in Heaven?

 

[Stargazer]

So, this seems to me like I could, for example, recite the Hail Mary every hour in my head and you'd say that's safe and not worship and also not prayer. Obviously, for a Catholic, we would consider it valid prayer but not worship.

I mean, sure, you could recite the Hail Mary in your thoughts with no outward expression, and technically speaking that would be "safe". But I'm not sure why anyone would do that intentionally without some kind of outward expression.

feel we just looped back around on this then. It was what was going on mentally "expressing awe" that really discriminates whether this was a sin of idol worship by this standard.

It's not about "mentally" expressing awe. That's a contradiction in terms; thoughts are not expressions. Falling before the angel and worshipping was how John was expressing awe, and that was wrong for him to do to someone other than God.

Sure, but then it logically follows that God knows and is listening to those internal thoughts as if they are prayers. It's not like he ignores them because we aren't externally expressing anything. What about a bound and gagged captive? Are their prayers for deliverance not invalid? God surely answers their prayers, so it would seem that silent prayers would necessarily be valid prayers.

"As if they are prayers". No, I don't think that follows. As for a bound and gagged captive, such a person could, and would, still try to mouth their prayers against the gag and still be expressing prayer in that way. Again, the question is not just about "silent prayer", but if internal thoughts that are not expressed in any way externally (and an expression is by definition something that occurs externally) can be considered "prayer" in the first place.

Yes. Personal revelation still occurs. At least for a Catholic that means that clergy's personal revelations, after rigorous examination by the Church and then the Pope, can be elevated to the level of what, I think you called "divine revelation". Obviously, I think they're the same thing. For a very basic example, the Masons are servants of the enemy but that was revealed through revelation to the Pope. It's not like "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" is particularly dangerous for the soul on its face. We needed to be told.

I already addressed personal revelation that comes from revelation already given in Scripture. I was referring to new revelation - revelation of truths that were not previously given in Scripture, and cannot be known solely through study of Scripture. That's the kind of revelation I'm saying is no longer in operation. Are you challenging that such new revelation is not in operation? Do you believe that God is, today, divinely giving new revelation of previously unknown truths?

Or to put it another way - this revelation that the Masons are servants of the enemy that you're referring to. Is that something that could not have been ascertained as truth only from reading Scripture, and was the pope's announcement of it true for the same reasons that Scripture is true? In effect, could it be written down as new Scripture, with the same authority as divine revelation?

Putting this at the end because now I'm curious and it's a different line of discussion. Revelation says that the prayers of the faithful are offered up to god in a golden incense bowl. Do you think 23-24 are a double meaning- both the altar in the Temple and the offerings in Heaven?

I mean it could, though as a rule I would be hesitant about jumping from Jesus' moral teaching in Matthew to the symbolism in John's vision. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion, though.

 

[posh-goofiness]

I already addressed personal revelation that comes from revelation already given in Scripture. I was referring to new revelation - revelation of truths that were not previously given in Scripture, and cannot be known solely through study of Scripture. That's the kind of revelation I'm saying is no longer in operation. Are you challenging that such new revelation is not in operation? Do you believe that God is, today, divinely giving new revelation of previously unknown truths?

Just to clarify something here. When I say "personal revelation" I mean revelations granted to a person via the Holy Spirit- divinely inspired revelation not personal interpretation of existing Scripture or commentary. So yes, I do deny such new revelation isn't happening. Unrevealed truths are given via personal revelation all the time.

I don't think there's anything proscribing secret societies in Scripture. Let alone a secret society with such specific goals as the masons. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, genuinely unaware of anything that does. As far as "true for the same reasons that Scripture is true", I think so. Like I mentioned about personal revelation, I believe it's revealed by the Holy Spirit. Whether we have license to, for example, start a new book about the current era and consider it canon is definitely outside a layman's authority to determine though- I would need to ask a priest about this because while I think so, that doesn't mean jack shit in terms of adding to Scripture. Even then, a priest certainly wouldn't be able to add to Scripture but they definitely could answer whether it's possible.

I mean, sure, you could recite the Hail Mary in your thoughts with no outward expression, and technically speaking that would be "safe". But I'm not sure why anyone would do that intentionally without some kind of outward expression.

As I stated, it's valid prayer to a Catholic, that would be why you'd do that.

It's not about "mentally" expressing awe. That's a contradiction in terms; thoughts are not expressions. Falling before the angel and worshipping was how John was expressing awe, and that was wrong for him to do to someone other than God.

Huh, fair enough. At the very least, I think I understand your reasoning here even if I disagree with it.

"As if they are prayers". No, I don't think that follows. As for a bound and gagged captive, such a person could, and would, still try to mouth their prayers against the gag and still be expressing prayer in that way. Again, the question is not just about "silent prayer", but if internal thoughts that are not expressed in any way externally (and an expression is by definition something that occurs externally) can be considered "prayer" in the first place.

Why does it not follow? God knows exactly what you're saying in your mind. He knows what you're feeling. He will answer those thoughts and feelings. That seems clear cut to me.

I mean it could, though as a rule I would be hearing hesitant about jumping from Jesus' moral teaching in Matthew to the symbolism in John's vision. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this discussion, though.

It's not. Was just something that struck me as I was reading the verses you referenced.

 

[Stargazer]

Just to clarify something here. When I say "personal revelation" I mean revelations granted to a person via the Holy Spirit- divinely inspired revelation not personal interpretation of existing Scripture or commentary. So yes, I do deny such new revelation isn't happening. Unrevealed truths are given via personal revelation all the time.

Isn't this contrary to the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? That is, the Church has been given one deposit of faith, and there is no ongoing divine revelation after that deposit. The RCC claims this deposit included both sacred Scripture and the tradition handed down from the apostles, but there is no new revelation being added to that. Any dogma the RCC declares as "Dei Fide" they claim to have been part of that deposit of faith.

As I stated, it's valid prayer to a Catholic, that would be why you'd do that.

But why not make some external expression while you're doing it?

Why does it not follow? God knows exactly what you're saying in your mind. He knows what you're feeling. He will answer those thoughts and feelings. That seems clear cut to me.

Because none of that means that internal thoughts without external expression fits the definition of prayer. God knows my needs without me having to even think about them - that doesn't somehow mean my total inaction and lack of thought counts as prayer.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Isn't this contrary to the official doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church? That is, the Church has been given one deposit of faith, and there is no ongoing divine revelation after that deposit. The RCC claims this deposit included both sacred Scripture and the tradition handed down from the apostles, but there is no new revelation being added to that. Any dogma the RCC declares as "Dei Fide" they claim to have been part of that deposit of faith.

Huh, this might be a hole in my knowledge- like I said way that the start of this, I haven't done the RCIA or anything like that just finished the Baltimore Catechism. So after some quick searching public revelation is indeed closed, private revelations still happen. Since Tradition is is also part of the deposit, there is a certain amount of change allowed in the teachings of the church. Private revelation carries no obligation for the whole Church to believe so I was incorrect about the Pope's private revelations being the source of changing doctrine that's something else. Any particular private revelation that gets spread within the Church may be of use to the wider Church but it solely applies to regulating human action and not adoption into the faith. So, you definitely can't add anything to Scripture anymore. Which means going back to your original question: "In effect, could it be written down as new Scripture, with the same authority as divine revelation?"
Could it be written down as new Scripture- nope. With the same authority as divine revelation- yes. The Church can regulate behavior using justification from personal revelation.
Source: Discernment of Private Revelations & Apparitions | EWTN

Going back to the root of this:

No one today has the authority to interpret Scripture in the same manner that the apostles did. Anyone claiming to have that kind of authority would by extension be claiming to receive ongoing revelation in the same way the apostles did.

I will have to concede that no one can add to Scripture today. This does not resolve the previous (relative to this quote) post's assertion though.

Now, as for attempting to justify an authority subordinate to Scripture (because that is the proper Catholic teaching), I would say that the apostles were given the specific task to spread the faith and, pursuant to that task, how it should be interpreted. Additionally, since they were mortal they were given the power to ordain others to special positions in the Church to spread, keep, and continue interpreting the faith. That line of ordained clergy continues to this day in the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

Consequently, it is a simple exercise of reason to determine that the subordinate authority to Scripture is those specially appointed to teach and keep it. As I wrote earlier, I find it highly doubtful that any Protestant will accept this so it's just not something I bother to bring up normally.

My incorrect understanding (and concession) doesn't really resolve this here. Even if there's no one that can add to Scripture today that doesn't mean that clergy aren't given a special position to interpret Scripture and enjoin members of the Church to act in certain ways or interpret Scripture in certain ways. That's still clearly within the bounds of human authority.

Because none of that means that internal thoughts without external expression fits the definition of prayer. God knows my needs without me having to even think about them - that doesn't somehow mean my total inaction and lack of thought counts as prayer.

It may not meet a definition in so far as we use language to define things but it's results are exactly equal to prayer. Petition made, God hears, God responds. It's the same thing.

But why not make some external expression while you're doing it?

Could be for any number of reasons: don't want to be taken as a crazy person in a public place, your doing a walking meditation and you're really out of shape, you're startled, freeze, and only speak in your mind. Doesn't really matter why just that it could be.

 

[Stargazer]

Huh, this might be a hole in my knowledge- like I said way that the start of this, I haven't done the RCIA or anything like that just finished the Baltimore Catechism. So after some quick searching public revelation is indeed closed, private revelations still happen. Since Tradition is is also part of the deposit, there is a certain amount of change allowed in the teachings of the church. Private revelation carries no obligation for the whole Church to believe so I was incorrect about the Pope's private revelations being the source of changing doctrine that's something else. Any particular private revelation that gets spread within the Church may be of use to the wider Church but it solely applies to regulating human action and not adoption into the faith. So, you definitely can't add anything to Scripture anymore. Which means going back to your original question: "In effect, could it be written down as new Scripture, with the same authority as divine revelation?"
Could it be written down as new Scripture- nope. With the same authority as divine revelation- yes. The Church can regulate behavior using justification from personal revelation.
Source: Discernment of Private Revelations & Apparitions | EWTN

Going back to the root of this:

I will have to concede that no one can add to Scripture today. This does not resolve the previous (relative to this quote) post's assertion though.

My incorrect understanding (and concession) doesn't really resolve this here. Even if there's no one that can add to Scripture today that doesn't mean that clergy aren't given a special position to interpret Scripture and enjoin members of the Church to act in certain ways or interpret Scripture in certain ways. That's still clearly within the bounds of human authority.

My understanding is also that Catholics would avoid the term "change" with regard to teachings of the church. The Roman Catholic Church holds that all its doctrines that it teaches as dogmatic are the true and constant teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ, being taught since its founding. I think that's a false claim, but my understanding is that's the position of the RCC.

Anyways, back to the point about divine revelation. We agree then that public revelation has ceased to operate. My point stands then - the apostles' authority to interpret Scripture, and other things, in a way that Christians were obligated to submit to, came from the fact that they were receiving public revelation from God in making those interpretations. If that public revelation has ceased - and we seem to agree that it has - that authority of interpretation can't have been passed from the apostles to their successors. Those successors aren't receiving public revelation that would be necessary to have that authority.

So then, Christians are not obligated to submit to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, in interpreting Scripture.

It may not meet a definition in so far as we use language to define things but it's results are exactly equal to prayer. Petition made, God hears, God responds. It's the same thing.

If the thoughts go without expression, then it can't be said that petition has been made.

Could be for any number of reasons: don't want to be taken as a crazy person in a public place, your doing a walking meditation and you're really out of shape, you're startled, freeze, and only speak in your mind. Doesn't really matter why just that it could be.

I'm not really convinced that it could be, under any Scriptural understanding of how prayer is to be performed.