8 Arguements In Rebuttal To Elements Of Catholic Theology

[aceweaver]

Hi everyone, well I wrote an article called 8 arguements. Read it and tell me what you think, thanks here is the link freakmag.com/Gospel_Mag/8_Arguements.html

 

[Reepicheep]

Concerning Point Three in your list, aceweaver. “The idea that he is sinless”…That is a misconception. We do not think the Pope is sinless.
Nor do we think he’s incapable of making mistakes. The doctrince of Infalliblity has a much narrower meaning than that.

 

[jiml8966]

Concerning point number 8…Indulgences are NOT forgiveness of sins at all. They are works of mercy/prayer that can alleviate the temporal punishment due to sins ALREADY forgiven. Meaning after you have been forgiven your sins you are still bound to some retribution to God (ie. if a child messes up his room, his mother will forgive him but he still has to clean up the room). Indulgences allow you to perform these prayers/acts to show God how willing you are to pray to help with that.

 

[neophyte]

Usually when someone writes an article they expand on the issues, but no matter, we can tell that you have a lot of misconceptions about what the Catholic Church teaches.

You might want to visit the Catholic Answers library and study a bit, better yet get and use a Catechism.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

aceweaver:

Hi everyone, well I wrote an article called 8 arguements. Read it and tell me what you think, thanks here is the link

##I would love to rebut all eight - except for number eight, which I couldn’t read because the HTML seem to be in a mess - but I’ll settle for this one (for the time being anyway):

III. The perception of the Pope as being infallible as if he were not just a mere man. The idea that he is sinless in some way like Jesus was. The misunderstanding in history of the fallibility of previous Popes and their obvious humanity.

• He is a mere man - we knows this already. We pray for him: not to him. In case you had heard otherwise
• Infallibility is not freedom from sin - it’s protection from being deceived: as applied to the Pope, it means that, under certain circumstances, which are described in the document which contains the act of definition of the dogma of Papal Infallibility, the Pope is Divinely protected from binding the Church to believe what is untrue. This comes from God - not from the Pope.
• He no more has to be impeccable than the Apostles had to be impeccable when they preached. The Spirit is the same, and the same Christ is preached - the time of the Church’s life, and so, the human minister of God’s grace, is different.

[continued…]

 

[RyanL]

VIII. Martin Luther said it in his 95 Theses in argument to the Catholic Church at Wittenburg Germany in 1517. That is the churches forgiveness of sins for money or external acts or repetition. The original cause of the Protestant Reformation to begin with. That is Indulgences as they are called.

You go, Greer!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[continued & ended]

• The Pope is protected in this way only when this assistance is needed
• Infallibility is for doctrine - not for when the Pope is acting otherwise than as Supreme Teacher in the Church: Church law is not protected, neither is the Pope’s selection of bishops, nor his political interventions, nor a host of other things; nor a lot of doctrine, but only some. Popes can & do (& have) make (and made) errors of judgement.
• The Pope is not alone in being infallible.
• The teaching office in the Church, is basically an exercise of the teaching authority of Christ.
• Infallibility is not something for us to boast about - it is an exercise of God’s grace in the Church. So there is nothing to boast about. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

II. The Pagan reliance upon saints as mediators between God and man. The rising of dead men and women to god-like status on earth. The reliance on images of dead people to further the reverence for man and not God.

It can decay into paganism - as can any practice among Christians: the peculiarly Catholic temptations to paganism are merely more obvious than some.​

But to invoke the Saints is not pagan - they see God face to face, we do not: yet they are part of the same Church as we are.

Nor do we regard them as gods - as recreated according to the likeness of Christ, and “transformed from one degree of glory into another by the Holy Spirit”, the Sanctifier, yes; but they are not gods, nor God. That is why we don’t sacrifice to them - sacrifice is reserved for God.

Those who love the Saints are attracted to them because the Holy Spirit of Christ Who sanctified Him, is present in them. It is the Holy Spirit Who is the attracting power in them to draw us to them; and that is one way of being attracted to Christ; because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and the Saints have no other holiness than Christ’s. There is none but His available; all graces come from Him, therefore we can look to no one else. The Saints are not His rivals: they are evidences of His saving power; we honour them, so as to honour Him, for the love in them is His Love, and His Life, is theirs, and ours - for He is our Life & theirs. So it is impossible that His Holiness, should not bear fruit in them.

As for images - I hope we can tell the difference between a painting of a holy person on a holy card, and the person. ##

 

[Scott_Waddell]

You might want to change the title spelling from “8 Arguements” to “8 Arguments”.

1. Christ is the sole mediator–of justice. This does not exclude other kinds of mediation like actual graces. When you pray for someone and that prayer is answered, you are a mediator.
2. Assumes that saintly intercession is pagan without supporting argument.
3. Completely misunderstands infallibility as noted by others.
4. I assume this is a reference to “Bible-Alone”. A concept found not in Scripture, but rather in a man Martin Luther.
5. There are married priests in Catholicism (primarily in non-Latin rites.)
6. Again, Bible-alone is a man-made tradtion that is not even implicit in Scripture.
7. Is a false dichotomy.
8. Even if we acknowledge abuse of indulgences, it does not follow that indulgences in and of themselves are wrong.

Scott

 

[YADA]

I. The non-Christian reliance upon Mary the mother of Jesus. The concept that we can pray to and seek direction from Mary as a mediator between God and man. The Bible says there is one mediator between God and man, that is Jesus.

Catholics do not believe that Mary is a medaitor between God and man in the way that Jesus is the One Meadiator anymore than you would think I was a mediator if you asked me to pray for you. Mary is the best example of the Christian and as such deserves our respect. Mary also, as one of the followers of Christ a person of prayer. We are commanded to pray for each other and with each other. If I can ask you to pray for me then I can ask any Christian, even Mary. As for seeking direction we are called to be examples and witnesses to the world. In that regard Mary provides the perfect example by her fiat “Let it be done to me, according to Your Word”

II. The Pagan reliance upon saints as mediators between God and man. The rising of dead men and women to god-like status on earth. The reliance on images of dead people to further the reverence for man and not God.

As I said we can pray for each other and ask other believers to pray for us. We can look to the example of faithful Christians.

III. The perception of the Pope as being infallible as if he were not just a mere man. The idea that he is sinless in some way like Jesus was. The misunderstanding in history of the fallibility of previous Popes and their obvious humanity.

Catholics do not believe that the Pope is sinless or even perfect. As others have already posted.

IV. The lack of willingness to obey God’s word found in the Bible as compared to mans fallible word.

We do follow God’s word as found in both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament. It is a falacy to believe that the Catholics do not floow Scripture. We have the New Testament only because of the Catholic Church. It was Martin Luther that wanted to remove texts from the New Testament and added words to change meanings. If Martin Luther would have had his way the New Testament would be without the Book of Revelation and First Timothy. It clearly would not have resembled the 27 Books we have.

V. The unwillingness to recognize the Priests need and allowance in scripture to be married as the Bible states many of the disciples were. (1 Cor. 7-9, 9-5)

People (let alone priests) do not ***need ***married. The Church does have some married priests and this is a Church discipline not a scriptural prohibition. It is up to the Curch to decide on matters of discipline. Why would marriage be required when only ***some ***disciples were.

VI. The reliance on tradition which man has built upon for hundreds of years as opposed to the fixed nature of God’s word as separated from traditions made by man.

We rely on Tradition and Scripture (the revealed Word of God) and the Teaching Authority of the Church. Without all three you have nothing “Fixed” the Church existed, thus beginning the Tradition. Tradition and the Church gave us the New Testament Scripures. You cannot rely on Sola Scriptura, first it is not biblical (no where in Scripture can you find that you must rely on scripture alone. However, we are instructed, in scripture, to rely on the word of God and the Traditions that have been handed down to us)

VII. The inability to recognize the Body of Christ that exists and breathes apart from a rigid governmental structure that is visible in buildings and patronages.

We, flesh and blood Christians, are the Church. The Church is a “People of God.” Yes, we have buildings, within which we worship, and an organizational structure that operates in the world. We worship the Body of Christ and recognoze the Body of Christ in the world around us. What gives you the right to judge our ability to see and respond to our Lord, Jesus, the redeemer of the World?

VIII. Martin Luther said it in his 95 Theses in argument to the Catholic Church at Wittenburg Germany in 1517. That is the churches forgiveness of sins for money or external acts or repetition. The original cause of the Protestant Reformation to begin with. That is Indulgences as they are called.

Martin Luther was correct to call for and end to the abuses with indulgenses that some people committed. It was the abuse of indulgenses that was wrong. They are often misunderstood. Indulgenses in and of themselves do not and did not forgive sins. They did not save people from damnation. Others have already addressed this so I won’t go into detail.

Pax Christe

 

[ElizabethJoy]

Oh, please be careful. I read through your eight arguments and it seems to me that you are making such mistakes as I did until very recently.

I agree that you should get a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to find out what it really teaches.

You are bearing false witness and of course, it is your choice as to whether you will do this in ignorance or in full knowing. Either way, it is wrong - a sin.

Please listen to me when I say that there is nothing like the shock of finding that everything you believe about the church is false. There is no sting of shame like the one that comes from realizing that you have passed along ignorant falsehoods as facts - that you may have even turned people away from the truth - Jesus Christ and His teachings.

I read my posts to usenet from years ago and I cringe in terrible embarrassment for that foolish, silly woman. Oh dear Lord, how could I have ever said such things? To see yourself in all your ignorance and arrogance is extremely humiliating.

And there is so much pain in this regret - I didn’t raise my children in the Sacraments which Christ Himself gave us to strengthen and to bless us. I never had the benefits that He wished and willed for us, so I denied them to my children and therefore my grandchildren, too. You cannot even conceive of the sorrow for this failure on my part.

You have been deceived, as was I. But, you don’t have to remain deceived.

My ignorance is archived forever on the internet - yours doesn’t have to be.

I spent my whole life searching but not finding - because everything in my life had taught me that the Catholic Church was not even worth looking into. You don’t have to do that, either.

God bless you and keep you and lead you to truth,

 

[jimmy]

aceweaver:

Hi everyone, well I wrote an article called 8 arguements. Read it and tell me what you think, thanks here is the link freakmag.com/Gospel_Mag/8_Arguements.html

Point 1, regarding prayer to Mary. Yes she can be a mediator, just like Paul was a mediator when he prayed for the people(he mentions it several times). Just like you can be a mediator for me, Mary can be a mediator for me. The difference is that Mary is in heaven and she is more just than us and consequently her prayers are greater than ours(look at James 5).

Point 2, I guess you are calling God idolatrous because he forced the Israelites to build the ark with angels on the top.

Point 3, no one has ever said the pope is sinless. That is a misconception of the teaching.

Point 4, who do you think wrote the bible and canonized the scriptures and distributed them? It was the Catholic Church. There was one Church in the first millenium, and it was Catholic. They said what books go in the bible and they said what did not. There is not one place in the bible where it goes against Catholic teaching.

Point 5, The bible does not say that preists need to be married. Paul merely allows for a preist to marry once. Howcome protestants have no preists? A preist offers sacrifice, there is no sacrifice in protestantism.

Point 6, Paul says “hold fast to the traditions handed down to you, whether by word of mouth or by epistle.” Paul said the Church is the “pillar and ground of truth”, not scripture. Christ said, if there is a problem take it to the Church, He did not say take it to the scriptures. In Acts 15 they held the council of Jerusalem, they made a decision based on what they were told by Christ, not what was written in scripture.

Point 7, that is because the body of Christ is found in the Catholic Church where the heirarchy is that Christ established. As I said before, Christ said to take problems to the Church in Matt.18. He is talking about a physical thing that can be seen and can be aproached. Paul mentions the Church being the pillar and ground of truth, he is speaking about a phyisical and seeable thing.* Further, Ignatius, who was a disciple of John the apostle, tells the people of his time to do nothing without the bishops and to treat the bishops as you would treat Christ.[look at any of his letters] He is constantly talking about union and doing nothing without the consent of the bishop. Irenaeus in the second century traces the first 13 bishops of Rome from Peter and Paul. He says that all churches should agree with this church [Rome] due to its pre-eminent authority."[Ad Haerisies book 3 chapter 3] The bishops have always been apointed by a laying on of hands by three or more bishops as it is enforced by the council of Nicea. Therefore there is a handing on of authority. Christ gave authority to the apostles to bind and to loose and the apostles gave authority to bishops and it has continued to the present. The problem with protestantism is that they lost their mission. They have no authority to preach because they have been sent by no one other than themselves and maybe family and friends. They may say they have been sent by God, but you must prove that if you are preaching against the Church which Christ established.

Point 8, indulgences are not to be payed for, that was a great abuse and was condemned at the council of Trent. Still, Christ said, if there is a problem take it to the Church.

If you are saying that the Church has erred, you are basically saying either that God erred or that God allowed it to err. The problem with that is that Christ said that His Church would never err in Matt.16. The Church can not err, otherwise everything becomes relitivistic like protestantism is. You never know what is the true interpretation of scripture, so there will be no agreement. Look at all the interpretations there are due to the reformation. Luther brought disease to the Church.*

 

[Hibernian]

Dear aceweaver. I would remove your 8 comlaints, primarily for 2 reasons. The first is you have 8 serious misconceptions regarding Catholic theology. You can have complaints, but at least be closer to the truth. The second reason is spelling and grammar. You should send your work to a friend to proof-read first.
I also suggest you start reading Catholic books along with Catholic bible commentaries, I bet your opinion will change greatly within 1-2 years. Learn about Catholicism from Catholics, not anti-Catholics. You will find the truth.
I challenge you to do this. And if you find our version of Christs gospel and church are not more biblical, hisotorical and logical than what you currently believe, then you will have gained more knowledge than you currently have.
Simple test, try it.

God Bless.

Z

 

[edmondhall]

Please listen to me when I say that there is nothing like the shock of finding that everything you believe about the church is false

I’m a convert from an evangelical background and I will fully second this sentiment. Be careful aceweaver–your intentions are no doubt good but, before you keep moving in this direction you need to sit down and learn what the Church teaches. Read the catechism. That’s what I did 6 years ago and, well, “there’s nothing like the shock…”

 

[ekim61]

aceweaver:

Hi everyone, well I wrote an article called 8 arguements. Read it and tell me what you think, thanks here is the link freakmag.com/Gospel_Mag/8_Arguements.html

You have absolutely no idea what the Catholic church teaches.

 

[RobbyS]

jiml8966:

Concerning point number 8…Indulgences are NOT forgiveness of sins at all. They are works of mercy/prayer that can alleviate the temporal punishment due to sins ALREADY forgiven. Meaning after you have been forgiven your sins you are still bound to some retribution to God (ie. if a child messes up his room, his mother will forgive him but he still has to clean up the room). Indulgences allow you to perform these prayers/acts to show God how willing you are to pray to help with that.

When I was a kid, it was explained that each sin left an effect.
Hurl a nasty word at you wife and she is hurt. You may be contrite, and she forgives you, but justice demands more.

 

[Zooey]

Well, I have to say: Not a single one of your points is based on what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Not one.
There are many profound problems with what you have written, the biggest of which is, as I say, that you clearly do not have a clue as to what Catholicism truly is.
I speak as your friendly neighborhood Methodist here. Yes, that’s right, I am not Catholic, & I know that none of the things you are saying is true. They are the obvious product of listening to antiCatholic sources that are more interested in being critics, than in telling the truth.
This is a good place to start out finding out what Catholics really believe. The most important one, I will hand you right now: Catholics are Christian people. If we are to follow our Lord’s behest, we must learn to love & understand one another, not tell lies & commit frauds upon one another.
God bless.

 

[Kristina_P]

I say this with respect and love: Why do you post this here, as it is obvious you have read none of the apologetics documents on this site? Do you honestly think that we poor, ignorant Catholics have never heard these things before? You lack even a foundational understanding of the Church’s teaching in these matters. I urge you to go to the library section of www.catholic.com, where every single one of your objections is addressed in great detail. Also, should you wish anyone to take you seriously in the future, please correct your spelling of the word “argument.”

 

[bear06]

Do you ever notice when threads like this get started they’re basically just “hit and run” threads? It doesn’t seem like the author really wants to know what we think, as he/she stated. It’s basically a read it so you know what I think. You’d think he/she might have just checked out the rest of the CA sight to know what we’d think. Too bad he/she probably doesn’t really want to have a conversation about it.

 

[Kristina_P]

bear06:

Do you ever notice when threads like this get started they’re basically just “hit and run” threads? It doesn’t seem like the author really wants to know what we think, as he/she stated. It’s basically a read it so you know what I think. You’d think he/she might have just checked out the rest of the CA sight to know what we’d think. Too bad he/she probably doesn’t really want to have a conversation about it.

Yeah, there’s a somewhat amusing hit-and-run over on the Jack Chick thread. I answered it anyway, just in case…