This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
You don't pray to saints,
you venerate them.
Perhaps we should follow Jesus, and
let the dead bury themselves
....
Post by
240135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
154186
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Any thoughts about this:
1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32).
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),
(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).Taken from
here
.
The whole argument is based on
sola scriptura
which is not a Catholic doctrine. We believe that revelation is transmitted in two ways: Scripture and Traditon.
I know SS is not your main point, but I'll throw in a little agrument against it here.
SS is not advocated anywhere in the Bible (though possible implied in 2 Tim 3:15-17 and 1 Cor 4:6)
It is denied in 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2
Nothing in the Bible denies that revelation can come through oral tradition also
See Matt 24:35; Acts 2:42; 1 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 3:2 for further confirmation of these points
The NT wasn't compiled for quite a while, so all the early Church had to go on was oral tradition.
Scripture alone can't tell us what "Scripture" is -- so who defines what scripture is?
On you're specific verses:
Ephesians 2:19-20 -- Authority was not mentioned once
Matthew 18:15-19 -- Deals with judging, not with defining doctrine
1 Corinthians 5:1-13 -- Ditto
2 Corinthians 13:10 -- All bishops have authority over their diocese, all priests have authority over their congregations, this doesn't effect the doctrine of the papacy at all.
Titus 2:15 -- The autority to act in accordance with revelation...again, doesn't go against the papacy.
Acts 20:28-32 -- Nothing at all denying the papacy. If it really read the way he decribed it then none of the Apostles should have been listened to.
"Cure to hell" - The Church condemns no one to hell. Ever.
Galatians 1:8-9 -- This is the big one. I'll quote the Greek from verse 8 here:
ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται ὑμῖν παρ’ ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
Literal translation: "But even if
we
or angel from heaven should <proclaim-good-news> to you contrary to what
we
<proclaimed-as-good-news> to you let him be accursed."
In other words he's saying everything he's told them so far (oral and written) has been true, so if anything contradicts it, it's wrong.
No where does he say that he (and the Church) won't be saying more things.
The Catholic Church also believes Scripture is infallable (on the level of faith and morality), but a couple for the verses are suspect:
Acts 20:32 -- What this has to do with the infallability of Scripture is beyond me.
2 Timothy 3:15-17 -- The Greek here is ἱερὰ γράμματα (sacred writings), which more likely than not refers to the Old Testament. Thus these verses are merely stating that Christ has perfected the Old Testament and it can still bring us to salvation and is still useful for teaching, preaching, etc.
Matthew 5:18 -- Law =/= Scripture
While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
You'll notice that there are thousands of protestant denominations (who don't
need
a pope), while there are only a handful of Catholic schisms.
the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church
Then explain why they chose a pope to replace Peter? A good chuck of the Apostles were still around, yet they chose another pope.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Christianity is broken up into Catholicism, Protestantism, and Anglicanism.
Protestantism is the only one to use denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, etc).
So all Protestants are Christians and all Catholics are Christians, but no Protestant is a Catholic and vice versa.
actually, christianity is broken up into catholic, protestant (includes anglican), and eastern orthodox.
roman catholicism and eastern orthodoxy were established in the roman empire, but eastern orthodoxy has no pope, while catholicism does. The Protestant churches broke from the roman catholic church and rejected many of its traditions and beliefs.
It's fun to find legitimate flaws in posts by people who know more about the subject than me.
Notice the name "Orthodox
Catholic
"
They are all Catholics and thus fall under the heading "Catholic."
There is no "flaw", you're just sub-dividing Catholic.
And Anglicans are not Protestants.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
If God is omniscient, why didn't he have any clue what the snake was up to?
He did know.
It's just like when a kid is bad, the mom will ask the kid what he did even if she already knows.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Where does the whole confessing your sins to a priest thing come from? Is that really considered a necessary step for forgiveness of sins?
Only God forgives sins.
That being said...
No sin is "private." We are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ (fancy phrase for the Church), and anything one part does has some effect on the whole. Because of this, repentance and forgiveness should have some sort of outward sign. From the Catechism: "During his public life Jesus not only forgave sins, but also made plain the effect of this forgiveness: he reintegrated forgiven sinners into the community of the People of God from which sin had alienated or even excluded them. A remarkable sign of this is the fact that Jesus receives sinners at his table, a gesture that expresses in an astonishing way both God's forgiveness and the return to the bosom of the People of God."
All though the fundamentals of the sacrament remain, some things have changed over the years to help adapt to changing society. Confession originally was a completely public affair, but as time went on that became less practical and began to have negative repercussions.
Why is drinking (and getting drunk) an accepted catholic practice?
Drinking is allowed, getting drunk is not.
The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.
Post by
kattib
Well since you didnt see my question ill post it again
What are thoughts on the Jewish people (yes I am a Jew, now you know and knowing is half the battle!) Like do you think they will go to hell and stuff. (I dont of course, I still believe in the Jewish ways obviously)
Btw people who say they are completed Jews and whatever who believe in jesus being messiah are NOT Jews.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Well since you didnt see my question ill post it again
What are thoughts on the Jewish people (yes I am a Jew, now you know and knowing is half the battle!) Like do you think they will go to hell and stuff. (I dont of course, I still believe in the Jewish ways obviously)
Btw people who say they are completed Jews and whatever who believe in
J
esus being messiah are NOT Jews.
Sorry, I tend to miss posts that slip in while I'm writing mine.
The Jews are our older brothers in the faith. They are the God's chosen race too. Because of this we have (should have) a great respect for them.
This is from Vatican II:
Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God. In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh (the Jews). On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues.
...
As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.
Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.
Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.
Our current Pope said:
The average observer would probably regard the following statement as obvious: the Hebrew Bible, the “Old Testament,” unites Jews and Christians, whereas faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Redeemer divides them. It is not difficult to see, however, that this kind of division between what unites and what divides is superficial. For the primal fact is that through Christ Israel's Bible came to the non-Jews and became their Bible...For through the encounter with Jesus of Nazareth the God of Israel became the God of the Gentiles. Through him, in fact, the promise that the nations would pray to the God of Israel as the one God, that the “mountain of the Lord” would be exalted above all other mountains, has been fulfilled. Even if Israel cannot join Christians in seeing Jesus as the Son of God, it is not altogether impossible for Israel to recognize him as the servant of God who brings the light of his God to the nations. The converse is also true: even if Christians wish that Israel might one day recognize Christ as the Son of God and that the fissure that still divides them might thereby be closed, they ought to acknowledge the decree of God, who has obviously entrusted Israel with a distinctive mission in the “time of the Gentiles.”
....I think we could say that two things are essential to Israel's faith. The first is the Torah, commitment to God's will, and thus the establishment of his dominion, his kingdom, in this world. The second is the prospect of hope, the expectation of the Messiah — the expectation, indeed, the certainty, that God himself will enter into this history and create justice, which we can only approximate very imperfectly.... For Christians, Christ is the present Sinai, the living Torah that lays its obligations on us, that bindingly commands us, but that in so doing draws us into the broad space of love and its inexhaustible possibilities. In this way, Christ guarantees hope in the God who does not let history sink into a meaningless past, but rather sustains it and brings it to its goal. It likewise follows from this that the figure of Christ simultaneously unites and divides Israel and the Church: it is not in our power to overcome this division, but it keeps us together on the way to what is coming and for this reason must not become an enmity.
If you're really interested, the Church issued a document in 2002 about its relation with the Jewish Scriptures:
THE JEWISH PEOPLE AND THEIR SACRED SCRIPTURES IN THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE
Post by
MyTie
Matthew 5:18 -- Law =/= Scripture
Interesting interpertation. Did you try reading the verse right before that one.
I can't address Catholic tradition, because it is simply that, Catholic tradition. The Bible says neither for nor against it. It also says nothing about covering yourself in sour cream every tuesday, but I don't bother with worthless traditions either way. Not saying you are wrong, but when tradition gives a man the authority to dictate the will of God, without God giving that permission, well... maybe I am saying that is wrong.
Perhaps I can make my own religion based off of the commandments of God, AND my direction from God to cover yourself with sour cream every tuesday. I'll call it Catthalicism.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Matthew 5:18 -- Law =/= Scripture
Interesting interpertation. Did you try reading the verse right before that one.
The verse previous just confirms it. Both the Law and the Prophets are parts of Scripture, but they aren't one and the same.
I can't address Catholic tradition, because it is simply that, Catholic tradition. The Bible says neither for nor against it. It also says nothing about covering yourself in sour cream every tuesday, but I don't bother with worthless traditions either way. Not saying you are wrong, but when tradition gives a man the authority to
dictate
the will of God, without God giving that permission, well... maybe I am saying that is wrong.
Perhaps I can make my own religion based off of the commandments of God, AND my direction from God to cover yourself with sour cream every tuesday. I'll call it Catthalicism.
The Church doesn't dictate the will of God. "It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates."
Example:
So here we are at day 1 of the Church, all we have to go on is what the Apostles are saying Jesus said. But when I hear that Jesus said "Eat my body" I get all confused and I think we are supposed to be cannibals. I have just fallen into error. It is the Church's job to clarify and help people understand revelations so we don't fall into error.
Post by
MyTie
The Church doesn't dictate the will of God. "It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates.
This, in addition to updating God's will when it gets outdated, and reigning over the church. Referring to the doctrine of papal supremacy the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes in paragraph 882, “the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered." Paragraph 937 states, “"The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls.'”As we know...
the pope doesn't make mistakes
... but... you know...
to the victor go the spoils
.
The problem with Catholicism is that it pronounces its traditions as divine, and allows itself to make any tradition it chooses. How can anyone argue against it?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This, in addition to updating God's will when it gets outdated, and reigning over the church.
God's will doesn't get "outdated." All matters of faith and morals are unchanging. Some things may not be pronounced definitively until the need arises, but just because there was a time when they weren't pronounced doesn't mean they weren't always true.
As we know...
the pope doesn't make mistakes
... but... you know...
to the victor go the spoils
Popes are infallible in maters of faith and morals. Excommunication is neither, it is instead the Church saying "we don't recognize what this person teaches or does, so we no longer recognize him as a member of the Church."
Same holds true for the Crusades, men are greedy and sinful. However even a greedy and sinful pope cannot err in matters of faith and morals.
The problem with Catholicism is that it pronounces its traditions as divine, and allows itself to make any tradition it chooses. How can anyone argue against it?
The Church doesn't "make" Tradition. Tradition is something handed down from the Apostles.
Post by
MyTie
Popes are infallible in maters of faith and morals. Excommunication is neither, it is instead the Church saying "we don't recognize what this person teaches or does, so we no longer recognize him as a member of the Church."Ah, Popes are only infallable when they are not doing something that is fallabe. Got it. Did you know that EVERYTHING is also red*?The Church doesn't "make" Tradition. Tradition is something handed down from the Apostles.Right, and the apostles are those people appointed by the disciples. Which disciple appointed Pope Benedict? Must be kind of hard, since they are all dead.
*unless it isn't red
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Popes are infallible in maters of faith and morals. Excommunication is neither, it is instead the Church saying "we don't recognize what this person teaches or does, so we no longer recognize him as a member of the Church."Ah, Popes are only infallable when they are not doing something that is fallabe. Got it. Did you know that EVERYTHING is also red, unless of course it isn't?
If you were trying to satirize my point, it didn't work. You got it exactly right. The doctrine ALWAYS preexists the pronouncement of it, just like something is red even before you say it is.
The main problem is that not everything's as clear cut as "redness," which is why the pronouncement has to be made.
The Church doesn't "make" Tradition. Tradition is something handed down from the Apostles.Right, and the apostles are those people appointed by the disciples. Which disciple appointed Pope Benedict? Must be kind of hard, since they are all dead.
I think you're mixing up Apostle and disciple. There were 12(13) Apostles, all the rest of Christ's followers were disciples.
And, yes, every bishop can be traced back to an apostle (because only a bishop can ordain a bishop).
Post by
MyTie
The main problem is that not everything's as clear cut as "redness," which is why the pronouncement has to be made.God's word is very clear that Jesus is the head of the church. The catholic tradition is very clear that the pope is the head of the church.
(because only a bishop can ordain a bishop).Scripture please? I thought bishops were chosen 'from among you' according to certain qualifications. This is just going from memory.
Edit: After a little reading, the Catholic church only lets the pope appoint bishops... HOW many years did you go to catholic school?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The main problem is that not everything's as clear cut as "redness," which is why the pronouncement has to be made.God's word is very clear that Jesus is the head of the church. The catholic tradition is very clear that the pope is the head of the church.
The pope is the Vicar (one serving as a substitute or agent) or Christ. So, yes, the pope is the head of the Church, but only insofar as he is standing as Christ's agent.
Catholicism is one giant
logic
faith
circle, and whenever it is questioned, the answer is tradition
or Scripture
Now you're getting it.
I thought bishops were chosen 'from among you' according to certain qualifications. This is just going from memory
From among =/= by. The Church is not a democracy, it's a hierarchy (ooh, scary old-fangled word).
Post by
MyTie
I changed my post, after I realized I misread what you said. Respond to the edit please.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.