Ask a Traditional Catholic

[Metis]

Amen! Catholics love that verse.

However, how does that apply to the person who hears from God in prayer? Is it your assumption that God would say something to me privately that is opposed to the gospel found in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture? If so, why?

Considering how many Catholic mystics have received instruction in prayer/visions which in essence contain new teachings and traditions with no basis in scripture or tradition I would say so. Take Catherine Laboure (or however you spell that surname). Just pulled the miraculous medal and talk about all the merits of wearing one out of nowhere.

It's funny how these events always seem to happen at a point of crisis for the Vatican. Catholicism dying in France? Nun sees the virgin offering rewards for people who wear a special medal available only for the RCC. Laity baffled by idea that Mary was born without sin? (if she was, surely her mother was too, and her mother etc...If she wasn't, why did Jesus have to have an immaculate conception? Surely you can see the problem with this), little girl suddenly gets a confirmation that the Vatican is right.

You might take that as proof the RC is right, but I just see that as creating "evidence" to back up new claims with no proof. At the very least it's proof that new doctrines pop out of thin air all the time with no basis in tradition or scripture.

[Randy Carson]

It's called discernment. I would consider:

1. What I know of God from scripture
2. What I know of God from tradition
3. What I know of God from personal experience
4. What I know of God from the experiences of others (canonized saints, biographies and autobiographies of other Christians, and personal friends)
5. What I may hear from the Holy Spirit regarding the experience that is related to me.

Finally, I may decide to withhold any judgment until I see some evident fruit.

The interesting thing is that most religions do something just like this to determine if experiences from god are real or of the devil etc.  The thing is that they use different scripture, traditions, personal experiences, and their own visions.  And they would dismiss your experiences just as you would dismiss theirs.  

Some of these people's scripture overlaps with yours such as the Jews, Muslims, JWs, and Mormons.  Some of them don't share any scripture with you at all, though they have tons of scripture, like the Hindus.  Others have an entirely oral tradition such as the Navajos, Zuni, and Hopi.  Not surprisingly Navajos tend to have experiences of gods that match the Navajo faith, Mormons have experiences that match the Mormon faith, and Hindus have experiences that match the Hindu faith.  

Interestingly, it is on this very basis that the Jews rejected both Jesus and Paul.  The messages of Jesus and Paul did not match Jewish traditions and experiences, or scripture. And it's on this basis that Paul first rejected Jesus.  

The fact that whole traditions of people can follow your system and come to completely different results is because it is a faith confirming rather than truth seeking system.  What you are discerning is whether it feels like good Catholic doctrine or not.  And all the Hindi is doing is determining whether it is good Hindi doctrine.  Rationally, there's nothing to choose between you and no reason not to think both of you are deluded.

And why not, Jenny?

The Christian scientist uses the same steps in the scientific method that the Hindu scientist uses.

[Randy Carson]

Amen! Catholics love that verse.

However, how does that apply to the person who hears from God in prayer? Is it your assumption that God would say something to me privately that is opposed to the gospel found in Sacred Tradition or Sacred Scripture? If so, why?

Considering how many Catholic mystics have received instruction in prayer/visions which in essence contain new teachings and traditions with no basis in scripture or tradition I would say so. Take Catherine Laboure (or however you spell that surname). Just pulled the miraculous medal and talk about all the merits of wearing one out of nowhere.

It's funny how these events always seem to happen at a point of crisis for the Vatican. Catholicism dying in France? Nun sees the virgin offering rewards for people who wear a special medal available only for the RCC. Laity baffled by idea that Mary was born without sin? (if she was, surely her mother was too, and her mother etc...If she wasn't, why did Jesus have to have an immaculate conception? Surely you can see the problem with this), little girl suddenly gets a confirmation that the Vatican is right.

You might take that as proof the RC is right, but I just see that as creating "evidence" to back up new claims with no proof. At the very least it's proof that new doctrines pop out of thin air all the time with no basis in tradition or scripture.

However, Catholics are not obligated to accept private revelation - even those that are "approved".

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Considering how many Catholic mystics have received instruction in prayer/visions which in essence contain new teachings and traditions with no basis in scripture or tradition I would say so. Take Catherine Laboure (or however you spell that surname). Just pulled the miraculous medal and talk about all the merits of wearing one out of nowhere.

It's funny how these events always seem to happen at a point of crisis for the Vatican. Catholicism dying in France? Nun sees the virgin offering rewards for people who wear a special medal available only for the RCC. Laity baffled by idea that Mary was born without sin? (if she was, surely her mother was too, and her mother etc...If she wasn't, why did Jesus have to have an immaculate conception? Surely you can see the problem with this), little girl suddenly gets a confirmation that the Vatican is right.

You might take that as proof the RC is right, but I just see that as creating "evidence" to back up new claims with no proof. At the very least it's proof that new doctrines pop out of thin air all the time with no basis in tradition or scripture.

However, Catholics are not obligated to accept private revelation - even those that are "approved".

One of Jesus' ancestors was a hooker.

[Jenny A]

The interesting thing is that most religions do something just like this to determine if experiences from god are real or of the devil etc.  The thing is that they use different scripture, traditions, personal experiences, and their own visions.  And they would dismiss your experiences just as you would dismiss theirs.  

Some of these people's scripture overlaps with yours such as the Jews, Muslims, JWs, and Mormons.  Some of them don't share any scripture with you at all, though they have tons of scripture, like the Hindus.  Others have an entirely oral tradition such as the Navajos, Zuni, and Hopi.  Not surprisingly Navajos tend to have experiences of gods that match the Navajo faith, Mormons have experiences that match the Mormon faith, and Hindus have experiences that match the Hindu faith.  

Interestingly, it is on this very basis that the Jews rejected both Jesus and Paul.  The messages of Jesus and Paul did not match Jewish traditions and experiences, or scripture. And it's on this basis that Paul first rejected Jesus.  

The fact that whole traditions of people can follow your system and come to completely different results is because it is a faith confirming rather than truth seeking system.  What you are discerning is whether it feels like good Catholic doctrine or not.  And all the Hindi is doing is determining whether it is good Hindi doctrine.  Rationally, there's nothing to choose between you and no reason not to think both of you are deluded.

And why not, Jenny?

The Christian scientist uses the same steps in the scientific method that the Hindu scientist uses.

The point flew right over your head didn't it?  Let me spell it out:

When those "experiencing" god apply the same discernment method, they get wildly differing results depending on the cultural background and religion of the person applying the method.  This is because their premises are not agreed upon, and the validity of the experience (the data) is not seriously tested for possibilities other than the supernatural. Thus, the gazillion differing views about who god is, if there is only one of him, what he wants, and who speaks for him.  This is because religion is about faith and interpreting experience to match one's faith.  In other words it is not really a truth seeking method.  It is a dogmatic method and only evidence conforming to dogma is excepted.  The results are entrenched but differing (and even contradictory) belief systems.

When people from differing cultural backgrounds apply the scientific method, they generally get the same results.  When they don't, they check the method and the data for error.  Science produces the same verified results regardless of the cultural background of the scientist.  This is because science is an attempt to find out what is and how it works rather to force the evidence to conform to a particular philosophy. The results of science are often useful technology, medicine, and prediction. Rather than continued splintering scientists generally reach a consensus independent of their cultural backgrounds.

[Metis]

However, Catholics are not obligated to accept private revelation - even those that are "approved".

The Immaculate Conception's popular acceptance pretty much rides on the visions of Bernadette Soubirious at Lourdes, while it may have been proclaimed beforehand it was only after this happened the Dogma really attained popularity amongst the laity. Considering how many Pontiffs have delivered paeons about how wonderful and important Lourdes, Knock and Fatima are I think it's going to be rare Catholic who disagrees about them being legit. Indeed considering how seriously Fatima is taken at the Vatican I think one would look rather foolish if one didn't agree with it, I mean how many millions did they spend building a humoungous bassilica over the grave of two of the seers and how many times have Cardinals claimed the third secret had been fufilled (It's gay marriage this week, only a few years ago it was abortion, before that it was the USSR bringing about the end of the world.....)

Catholics can disagree with the vision in theory, but when one realises how many teachings are drawn from them and in some cases Dogmas essentially held up solely by them it becomes rather difficult to disagree with without becoming a heretic.

[Randy Carson]

However, Catholics are not obligated to accept private revelation - even those that are "approved".

The Immaculate Conception's popular acceptance pretty much rides on the visions of Bernadette Soubirious at Lourdes, while it may have been proclaimed beforehand it was only after this happened the Dogma really attained popularity amongst the laity.

Wow. That's not even close to true.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

[Metis]

The Immaculate Conception's popular acceptance pretty much rides on the visions of Bernadette Soubirious at Lourdes, while it may have been proclaimed beforehand it was only after this happened the Dogma really attained popularity amongst the laity.

Wow. That's not even close to true.

Mary – Full of Grace (kecharitomene)

When discussing the Immaculate Conception, an implicit reference may be found in the angel’s greeting to Mary. The angel Gabriel said, "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you" (Luke 1:28). The phrase "full of grace" is a translation of the Greek word kecharitomene. It therefore expresses a characteristic quality of Mary.

The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense, it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present. So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.

Additionally, the angel’s greeting, “Hail, Full of Grace” suggests that “Full of Grace” is being used as a title and not as a mere description. This is analogous to the Roman greeting, “Hail, Caesar” said to someone whose name was “Julius” and whose title was “Caesar”. The angel did not say, “Hail, Mary, full of grace”; this is part of OUR prayer in the rosary.

From this passage, we can find clear support for the Church’s teaching that Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin and was herself full of grace from the moment that she was immaculately conceived in her mother’s womb by a singular gift of God.

Where does it say in the bible in reference to Mary (or anyone actually for that matter) "born without sin". Many saints have been filled or blessed with grace, but they were all still born with original sin according to Catholic theology.

You've missed the core problem Randy, the one of which Anglicans particularly have with this Dogma. Mary was born without sin so as to not "taint" Jesus in some way, childbirth having the connentations of impurity and sin.

For Mary to be born without sin, she would have to be born under the same conditions, and her mother, and her mother....If we're all decended from Eve (which the Catholic Church actually insists is absolute infallible truth, Evolution might be a thing but Adam and Eve is too) this just doesn't work.

I don't doubt you can construe meanings out of scriptures that have gone through at very least four different translations by the time they reach you, but they don't have any foundation within tradition or the earliest readings of scripture.

I turn to the Orthodox and Copts again here who also have very strong Mariological scholarship traditions, and while they too revere Mary even they agree this one just came out of nowhere.

We could actually turn this problem into what it means for the nature of Christ, how can he be fully human when his birth and nature was so inhuman, but that would be too technical, too far off topic and quite frankly the above example demonstrates the logical inconsistencies well enough by itself.

[doomed]

Rather than respond to all the many threads that have appeared involving Catholicism, I have decided to follow an apparent trend here and set up my own thread.

I am a Traditional Catholic and member of the Society of Saint Pius X, a priestly fraternity dedicated to preserving the fullness of truth abandoned by the new heretical protestant Church based in Rome masquerading as the Catholic Faith.

The basics of our activities and history can be found here for anyone interested http://sspx.org/en/about/history

If anyone has any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them.

Your views on transexuality?

[SteelCurtain]

Your views on transexuality?

She gone.