Question for Catholics

[redbeardiam]

(05-19-2012 07:58 PM)greg Wrote:  Laura - I responded to your PM but then when I got ready to send it, discovered that I was on your ignore list. So although I was planning on staying out of this thread for anymore posts, will post what I was going to say in my PM back to you in the thread.

I don't usually stir up the SFL catholics very much, but feel compelled occassionally, because so very much of their practices have nothing to do with the scriptures, and even worse, go against the very plain teachings of the scripture. I'm ok with tradition as long as it is not against the plain teaching from the scripture.

I believe that enough of the gospel is shared in most catholic churches so someone could come to know Christ, if not I would really hammer them.

What so saddens me is that folks settle for a sick "religion" when God wants us to be in a "relationship." It's like settling for hamburger, when there is steak to be had.

Greg signing out, probably won't be back, pls study the scriptures to see what the Lord has to say about your "religion."

Oh hey look, he branched out from attacking the calvinists and the gays.

[myotch]

"The only ones who are right with God are me and thee. I'm just not so sure about thee."

Greg is a veteran police officer, retired from the force. That's why his cowardice in throwing around invectives and saying he won't be back to read the responses confuses me. I reached out to him in PM and gave him opportunity to share Scripture with me, while I gave him some starting discussion and passages referring to the primacy of Peter. I got more of the same vague and hot criticism he throws around in this thread. (greg, the invitation to an in-depth, two way conversation in PM is still open.)

Scripture is what led me to Catholicism. KJV scripture and NIV scripture really inspired some hard questions, which no knowledgable Protestant could satisfactorily answer, but the authority of the Church, the Magisterium, and the patience and grace of those who could provide answers really put things in perspective.

Since he won't be back, it still might do some good to address some of his points.

Quote:Peter was not the first Pope, or anything resembling a pope! That is simply ridiculous, this is tradition at its absolute worst, there is nothing historical or biblical to support such a claim.

Technically, he might be right about Peter not being a "Pope", because the term of endearment simply did not exist. However, Peter was the leader of the 11 other Apostles for the Jerusalem Church - that is clear from Acts, and his leadership was an issue of Jesus' will - the Keys to the Kingdom and the changing of the name from Simon (to hear) to Peter (rock), as well as the "feed my sheep" discourse.

Quote:There is nothing in history to demonstrate any "succession" of "leaders" in the catholic church or any other church.

Well, there is the historical figure Linus. Succession of "leaders" can clearly be seen in Acts when the 11 cast lots to determine God's will for the succession to Judas's place. They used Scripture to justify it, as well. Acts 1:20, last part says "May another take his office", which is a reference to a Psalms passage.

I'm not arguing that the Catholic way to interpret these verses is the only way. I'm arguing against the position there is nothing in Scripture or in history to suggest a succession in leadership.

Quote:The bible, the final authority in such matters...

If the Bible is the final authority on such matters, surely the Bible would have proclaimed as much, no? On issues of faith and morals, it would rather seem likely that the Church was given authority, through God's will and the Holy Spirit. "Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".

Quote:...specifically condemns any sort of these practices or traditions.

Not with what has been posted so far. It would probably help if chapter and verse of any condemnation were submitted.

Quote:In fact from baby baptism...

A practice from the earliest church, and might even be alluded to in Acts, where whole households were baptized. "Believer's Baptism Only" is a minority Christian concept.

Quote:...last rites...prayers for the dead...

Maybe not in your Bible. Prayer for the dead was practiced in the Old Testament, and can be seen in the books of Maccabees. Surely one wouldn't suggest giving spiritual comfort to the dying is out of the question, spiritually speaking.

Quote:...transubstantiation...

Again, technically right, as transubstantiation is a much more modern word than the language of Scripture. However, the idea behind communion of flesh and blood can be seen in the John 6 discourse, which even served to confuse and alarm Jesus' own disciples.

Quote:...Mariolatry...

Where veneration of Mary crosses the line into idolatry, I am inclined to agree. I would be in disagreement with most Protestants over what that line would be, however. Asking Mary to pray for us is not, in my estimation, idolatry.

Quote:...repetitive prayers...

Vain repetition, yes. Meditative repetition, not addressed. Saying the same mealtime prayer - common practice.

Quote:...worship of relics/cross...

No more singing "the Old Rugged Cross"?

Veneration of objects is not de facto worship. I've kissed a cross and holy objects, and my mind was more on the Creator, and perhaps why these objects were important, rather than the objects themselves.

Quote:...doctrine of purgatory...

Catholics and Protestants believe in a purgatory. Catholic understanding is that it is a place for the believer. Protestant understanding is that it is a process for the believer. Catholic understanding is that it is before Judgement. Protestant understanding is that it is during or after Judgment.

Quote:...celibacy of the priesthood...

Paul believed in it. It was not mandatory at the time. In a few instances,it is not mandatory now. But if a priest would make such a vow, then he should keep it, no?

Quote:...the Rosary...

What would Scripture say against a tool for meditative prayer?

Quote:...infallibility of the church...

The Church doesn't claim to be infallible. Given the number of issues in the 20th Century that the Church has apologized for, I don't think anyone in Church hierarchy believes in church infallibility at all.

Quote:...Mary proclaimed Mother of the church...

I'm not sure where she is proclaimed the Mother of the Church, and if she is, then it's an obvious reference to Mary as Jesus' mother. I do see in Scripture where she was referred to as "mother" to someone who wasn't her son.

[bean]

I can't believe the bigotry. Wait a minute. Yeah, I can believe the bigotry now that I think about it.

[greg]

SFL catholics - I'm am really attempting to stay out of your way. I admit I threw alittle jazz your way, trying to keep you honest and simply to make you think for yourselves, and to study God's word. I have recd about 4 PM's, all of which I appreciate regarding my postings, and I wish to address particularly Myotch, he has a fairly imaginative mind about what transpired in those PM exchanges.

First, I have never said I wouldn't be back to "read" any responses, that's pure fiction, if the PM's can be reproduced here I challenge him to do so, and you can read for yourself. Now in characterizing some of the rest of his PM, it seemed to me that Myotch was offering to "teach" me something about catholicism, and it is obvious that it would be necessary for me to teach him, and I offered as much, if he had any questions, I would be happy to answer for him. He and Ricardo think we have the catholic church to thank for our canon of scripture!!! Demonstrating again their lack of understanding on this pertinent topic. The catholic canon is still wrong!! With non-inspired books, tks but no tks on your offer to school me in catholicism.

Please all catholics study those scriptures, when they disagree with your church's tradition toss out the religion and keep true to God's word. I think it highly appropriate to close with some "real" scripture, again folks, this is what I go by.

"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may LEARN from us the meaning of the saying, 'DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN.' then you will not take PRIDE in one man over against another." 1 Corinthians 4:6

so simple, hard for the catholics though!

[myotch]

Thank you for trying to keep us honest. As I'm sure you ascribe to the Golden Rule as written in Scripture, you will no doubt appreciate the attempt to keep you honest as well.

Myotch Wrote:Hey, just saw that you posted on the Questions for Catholics thread, and thought a personal response might be better than a public one.

As a Catholic, I don't mind so much if someone, even another Christian, is anti-Catholic. I used to be, and virulently so. I know from you are coming from.

If you and I could have a private discussion - not to try to change your mind, btw - I could probably give you a better Biblical understanding of why Catholics think the way they do. The Primacy of Peter is an excellent place to start.

A good starting point for that discussion is when Peter's name was changed from Simon.

If you want to have this discussion, just reply. If not, keep in mind there are many people with different expressions of the Christian faith, and some threads are politely going to address questions other people are normally going to have, and not every thread has to be contentious.

greg Wrote:Mytoch - No conversation is necessary to "explain" anything at all to me about catholicism, the bible has mountains to say about this dead-end religion. If you were wanting to "learn" something about catholicism, or if you have any questions feel free to ask.

I just feel like an injection of reality to good catholic folks is necessary occassionally. I personally believe that enough of the "gospel" is given in catholicism for folks to get saved, so I recognize that, that's why I don't call them a cult like the JW's or Mormons.

Jesus must weep when he sees how foolishly men "attempt" to worship Hiim, when he left his instructions so clearly in the scriptures, not just the catholics, btw.

myotch Wrote:I didn't want to "explain" things. A discussion is a two way street (as opposed to throwing an inflammatory post in a thread).

I am curious as to what the Bible says about Catholicism; I would find it sadly ironic that the Scriptures condemn the organization that first recognized the Canon of Scripture.

It was a focus on Scripture that brought me closer to the Catholic faith, by the way - planted the seed years before I could even think of darkening the lobby of a Catholic Church. No Protestant could adequately explain certain Scriptures in a satisfying way.

Anyway, if you want to complain about Catholicism, please feel free to PM me, and not post on the board, especially in a discussion where it simply doesn't belong. I am committed to engaging you if you ever want to PM.

Again, the primacy of Peter is a good place to start.

So, why do you think Jesus changed Peter's name and not, say, John's or Thomas's? Was Peter's role in the book of Acts different than the other Apostles in the early church?

Let us reason together.

greg Wrote:You are already wrong about the "church" being the first to recognize the canon.

You have bought into the "catholic' foolishness. Peter is a wicked sinner, like me and you, why was his name changed? why was Paul's?
Abraham/Abram, Sarah/Sarai, Israel/Jacob - there are all kinds of name changes in the bible, Peter's is but one in a long line of many, but it has nothing to do with him being a pope, that is the result of men dreaming.

--------
--------

As for the 1st Corinthians verse you quoted, it would be nice if you used the verse in context.

Quote:"Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may LEARN from us the meaning of the saying, 'DO NOT GO BEYOND WHAT IS WRITTEN.' then you will not take PRIDE in one man over against another." 1 Corinthians 4:6

so simple, hard for the catholics though!

Quote:1 Corinthians 4:1-7
1 This, then, is how you ought to regard us: as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed.
2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
6 Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.
7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?

You, Greg, would have us believe your cherry-picked verse is a Christian command of not basing one's spirituality on anything except the Bible. This is odd, as this Scripture passage did not carry the weight of canon at the time of receipt, much less at the time it was written. It did have the weight of the authority of Paul, however.

Closer look at the context of the passage shows that Paul and Apollos had followers who were, evidently, being puffed up with pride over whom to follow. Paul makes it clear that it was the authority of the leadership who was entrusted with the mysteries of the faith, and he cautioned the followers not to judge authority or each other.

Likewise, I don't judge a Baptist for being Baptist, a Methodist for being Methodist. I can just as easily fellowship with a Baptist, or a Charismatic, or a Lutheran, and not be puffed up with pride because I consider the Pope or my Bishop to have spiritual authority over me. My fellowship with Protestants can and often do, out of necessity, stay within the realm of "what is written".

Likewise, my fellowship with fellow Catholics does not go "beyond what is written", as we agree the authority of the Church and her hierarchy and Bishops were spelled out in Scripture.

[RobMille]

It seems to me that a Believer Safe Space forum with a thread titled "Question for Catholics" wouldn't have so much anti-Catholicism "answers"

[myotch]

it's just greg being cute.

[Ricardo]

If Catholics interpreted 1Cor11:30 literally, then all non-Catholic believers should be sick or dead.

If Protestants interpreted 1Cor11:30 literally, there should not be a single healthy Catholic.

Can't we all get along?

Not that I want to derail this thread... BUT...

Greg how did you decide on a specific canon? How did you decide to eliminate the Maccabees?

[myotch]

The Canon was(and still is) open, the canon was open until it was recognized in the 1500's, or the Catholic Church compiled and recognized the canon in the late 300's/early 400's.

I think those are the three main choices. A fourth choice could be that the canon was made by God and God alone, but that does nothing to help us understand which canon Greg could be talking about.

If the canon of early Christianity is wrong, then our Christian faith for a majority of it's existence could not have conceivably included Sola Scriptura.

Ricardo, for what it's worth, Catholics don't believe that taking communion unworthily necessitates immediate physical death, but rather an eventual judgement on the soul. Protestants more or less and in varying degrees don't believe in the cup and bread, worthily or unworthily taken, having any effect on salvation or physical health because it is symbolic.

[Ricardo]

(05-20-2012 11:39 AM)myotch Wrote:  Ricardo, for what it's worth, Catholics don't believe that ...

I know.

Part of what we are trying to do as recovering fundamentalists is finding a healthier approach at reading the bibles. Considering so many of us started off believing in KJVO, we've come a long way, baby!

But every now and then our Fundamentalist nature kicks in, again. While most of us here no longer believe that the KJV is THE ONE AND ONLY Word of God, many of us are still looking for its replacement...

As in: If the KJV is not THE inerrant and infallible word of God, there must be another version that is.

Some of us, dare I say many of us are still at this stage. Partly because of our Protestant inclinations. We continue spouting "SOLA SCRIPTURA" without realizing that what is written, selected and approved in a canon depends 100% on a specific church tradition.

As Greg has correctly mentioned, the New World version was edited expressly to support the JW's view of things.

But what Greg, and for the most part, the rest of us ignore is that -when push comes to shove- every version out there has been put together to support one doctrine or another.

Greg, does your bible version have the doxology ending of the Lord's prayer? Because all new protestant bibles have finally agreed with the catholic biblical experts.

So which was "The word of God." the one with, or the one without?

Yes, you are threatened because I openly pick and choose what parts of the bible to use. The difference would appear to be that you would prefer the man behind the Bible Society curtain to be the one deciding for you. (Or is it deciding "for God?"