Is it okay that the Catholic church do things that are unbiblical? How to defend it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter souldiver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Admittedly, as a Catholic I have struggled with this one. I can tell you for example that the Jewish people revered St. Michael (the archangel) in centuries B.C.

If the Church teaches that God allows Saints to hear our prayers, who am I to disagree? I will say that maybe, just maybe, not the validity of praying to Saints but some of the emphasis on it may somewhat be related to the Church being “all things to all people” (as St. Paul teaches) and the prior pagan culture of praying to many gods etc. I could be wrong - it’s just a thought. As we know the Church has absorbed and applied new (Christian) meaning to many customs including Jewish, Roman, pagan, …

But again, I’m being very careful with this, I’m not debating the ***validity ***of praying to Saints by this but rather that some of its ***emphasis/prevalence ***(e.g. All Saints Day [Halloween]) may be related to the absorption of cultures by Christianity.

For example, no one debates that the beauty of a Christmas tree (previously a pagan custom) can enhance the beauty of Christmas - right? There is nothing wrong with a Christmas tree but it’s also not required.

I have been told that praying to Saints is not required at all in personal prayer. In fact, if the only prayer a person wants to say in their personal prayer is the Our Father, then as a Catholic that is one’s own decision. It’s true that at mass there are occasional prayers to Saints and it is a requirement to believe that it’s OK to pray to them (“Communion of Saints”).
Hi!
I think that the major problem that people have is not so much tradition or antiquity but with Church Authority.

How many people jump into the bandwagon against the existing calendar? How many want to go back to those times when the calendar year contained only 10 months? (webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-roman.html) Rather than fighting for let’s go back to the Roman or let’s keep the Julian, the world at large has consistently adopted the Gregorian calendar… yes, in spite of Pope Gregory XIII being Catholic! (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_calendar)

The functionality of the Gregorian calendar is what is most important… not it’s origin or the fact that there already existed, from antiquity, a close ranking Julian calendar. Conversely, the pagan similarity/roots/practice should not be the all-consuming and totally confabulating thought in the minds of the Believers… rather, the fact that, say Dec 25 is used to Celebrate the Incarnation of the Word!

Christians fall pray to two things: a) their ignorance of Church Authority (Christ Delegate His Authority to the Church: ‘whatever you bind on earth is bound in Heaven’), and b) society’s manipulation, as with “don’t judge” and “correctness” (fallacies that have spawned divorce, birth control, abortions, etc.) as Christians ignore that they are supporting the world principles against God’s Will (‘don’t you know that friendship with the world makes enmity with God?’); rather than asking if there has been a similar practice held in antiquity by pagans, Believers should ask: “Is the Church seeking to exalt God or man?”

Remove Christmas from Christian observance on the pretense of “paganism” or “not found in Scriptures” and we aide man in removing God from our society as we, with the world, would live up to the ole adage: “out of site, out of mind!”

Remember how bad it was when public schools had prayer? …well thank, not God, that we have removed God from the public school system… a little step into that brave new world… and voilà: respect and goodness stepped in (well, in the form of violence, cruelty, apathy, the occult, culture of death… but at least no one’s sensibilities are made to suffer–free at last!). :banghead::banghead::banghead:

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Do the folks saying that tell you that you’ve got to accept Jesus Christ as your “personal Lord and Saviour”? Because that’s unbiblical. To be sure, you should accept Jesus, they are right, but nowhere in the text does it say anything about “personal Lord and saviour”
 
For those who are asking for unbiblical things by Catholics, on top my head are the Rosary,
Praying the rosary is a devotion…not a doctrine or discipline…and there is nothing “unbiblical” about meditating on twenty events from the life of Jesus while praying the prayer that He taught us (the Our Father) or quoting the angel’s words at the Annunciation (in the Hail Mary).

We can pray however we choose to do so. The rosary just happens to be an effective method of prayer, but it’s not required of anyone.
use of holy water,
Holy water is a sacramental…something that serves as a reminder…in this case, of our baptism.
monstrances
A monstrance is simply a container which holds the consecrated host.
and saints hear prayers.
Scripture tells us that they do.

The Saints Can Hear Our Prayers Proved From Scripture
  1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament
“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.
  1. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable
"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.
  1. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example
“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though. Of course, as God, Jesus did not need to speak face to face with Moses and Elijah, but because Jesus was also fully human, it makes sense that they would appear to him in a way that his human senses could understand.
  1. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example
“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)
  1. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation
“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense.
 
I think everyone is missing the point of the original post. I don’t think the writer was denying the practices that come from tradition. But just that some practices are not mentioned in the bible, (this does not necessarily make them wrong). ?? Get what I mean here.

Examples I can think of (some are old and no longer valid).
  1. 500 years of your purgatory sentence if you do (blank).
  2. Priests MUST be celibate.
  3. Suicides cannot have a funeral or be buried in consecrated ground.
  4. No cremation allowed.
  5. NFP (as in the details, not the idea that life is sacred).
  6. papal infallability… and please do not quote those 4 promises to peter. 1. I cannot get infallability out of those verses and the keys were given to all the apostles. I probably will never understand this.
  7. Marian dogma.
 
Some people seems to be confident that if the Catholic teaching is not in the Bible, then it’s immediately wrong.

It’s common that some people say that the CC has unbiblical practices. But, how do the CC properly explain that it’s okay?

From some research in Catholic internet sources, I know already that not everything needed to know about Christianity is written in the Bible, some are passed on orally and some are traditions passed on by the apostles, they can be written in other books. There is history that the New Testament is written by Catholics after the ascent of Jesus, and generations later, the real Bible books are differentiated from the fakes first by the Catholics especially the New Testament that exactly has same books in both Catholic and Protestant Bibles of today. Written material is easily faked while a group of people around the world having one belief from a lineage is not easily faked like the CC. It’s an example of the importance of Catholic lineage because nobody else can confirm the authenticity of the real scriptures from an intelligent source. The clergy has succession of being chosen as keepers of Christianity beginning from Jesus and the apostles so It also gave them authority to give new teachings just like Biblical apostles do because they are the new apostles(is this right?). That’s my explanation for now, I hope Catholics here can help me.
A truly insightful post. Thank you.🙂

You’re correct in what you posted; so here are a few more points for consideration.
It is, IMO [personal], important to understand that biblically and historically there is no absolute need, or on God’s part, [and therefore for humanity], or even a desire for ANY faith-belief other than what He taught and entrusted directly and exclusively to His RCC; who alone is charged with, and able to share the FULLNESS of Christ One true Faith.
While it is not possible to p(name removed by moderator)oint a single cause that has led to the multiplicity of Protestant-faith-beliefs and churches ***; there is a prevalent one; namely not being enabled [right understanding is Holy Spirit controlled], to grasp the critical significance of SINGULAR-TENSE words, chosen by the HS Inspired NT bible authors, who as you rightly point out were [are] Catholics.

*** Which BTW, puts the common definitions for TRUTH at severe risk. “Truth can only be singular per defined issue.” It CAN BE nothing other than this, by definition and logical fact. A “fact” they by their actions, deny.

Mt. 10:1-8; Mt 16:15-19; John 17:17-20, Acts 20:28 {Douay Bible], Mt. 28:18-20 & Eph. 4:1-7 are examples of this. Here is a site for easy reference: …. drbo.org/
I have many times issued a challenge to our Protestant Brethren along this line of inquiry: Please show us just one example IN THE BIBLE, OT & NT, where God; Yahweh or Jesus, even one time tolerated, accepted, permitted, desired, or even overlooked, ANY competition faith beliefs.

Then from that platform to explain in the bible, justification for their differing sets of faith-beliefs; founded on the fact that it is an absolute-impossibility to separate ANY church from the Faith-beliefs of THAT church.

Here then is a second question:

Can WE accept this definition for God? “GOD IS ALL GOOD THINGS PERFECTED.”
If God is “Good” [He can be nothing other]

Then how is it possible that He GOD, who can do ONLY good [or JUST] things, have waited for more than 1,000 YEARS for Wycliffe, Henty VIII, Luther, Calvin or Mr. Smith to make known to humanity HIS path to salvation? …. This is about 900 years after the Bible had been fully authored.

These points add to your fine summary.

God Bless you,
Patrick
 
I think everyone is missing the point of the original post. I don’t think the writer was denying the practices that come from tradition. But just that some practices are not mentioned in the bible, (this does not necessarily make them wrong). ?? Get what I mean here.

Examples I can think of (some are old and no longer valid).
  1. 500 years of your purgatory sentence if you do (blank).
  2. Priests MUST be celibate.
  3. Suicides cannot have a funeral or be buried in consecrated ground.
  4. No cremation allowed.
  5. NFP (as in the details, not the idea that life is sacred).
  6. papal infallability… and please do not quote those 4 promises to peter. 1. I cannot get infallability out of those verses and the keys were given to all the apostles. I probably will never understand this.
  7. Marian dogma.
Re: Your 7 examples are ALL poor:
  1. You have misunderstood. The old time given, viz; years, months, days meant the AMOUNT OF TIME DOING PENANCE ON EARTH. IOW, the amount of indulgence that would have been given based on that length of time doing penance on earth. The Church NEVER assigned this time to Purgatory.
  2. Priestly celibacy has ALWAYS been a Church discipline and not a doctrine/dogma. IOW, in the Eastern Catholic Church Priests CAN be married.
  3. Church discipline once again. It is not true now in any event.
  4. Church discipline once again.
  5. NFP is biblical.
  6. Biblical again.
  7. Biblical yet again.
Note: Many times the basis (which is Biblical) is not EXPLICITLY STATED. But based on the Church’s reading and interpretation, it is Implied. This may seem unsatisfactory to a non-believer, but to a Catholic, in the tradition of the Early Church Fathers, “it it weren’t for the Church, I wouldn’t believe the Scriptures.” (St. Augustine.)
 
Weird.

I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church because of the Bible

I trust that the Bible is actually scripture due to the authority Christ gave to the Church He established.

If I didn’t accept the authority of the Church, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is anything other than a good book on morals and the history of the Jewish people.
 
Some people seems to be confident that if the Catholic teaching is not in the Bible, then it’s immediately wrong.

It’s common that some people say that the CC has unbiblical practices. But, how do the CC properly explain that it’s okay?
It’s okay to believe something that isn’t explicitly in the Bible for the same reason it is okay to say that the letter of James, or the Revelation of John, or the letters of Peter are really the inspired Word of God. The list of the books that are considered to be the Canon of Scripture is “unbiblical”. Why was it okay for the Church to Canonize the Scriptures? IT was okay because the Church was granted authority by God to do so.
The reason it’s okay to believe something that isn’t explicitly in the Bible is because not all of the Christian faith is contained in the Bible.
 
I think everyone is missing the point of the original post. I don’t think the writer was denying the practices that come from tradition. But just that some practices are not mentioned in the bible, (this does not necessarily make them wrong). ?? Get what I mean here.

Examples I can think of (some are old and no longer valid).
  1. 500 years of your purgatory sentence if you do (blank).
  2. Priests MUST be celibate.
  3. Suicides cannot have a funeral or be buried in consecrated ground.
  4. No cremation allowed.
  5. NFP (as in the details, not the idea that life is sacred).
  6. papal infallability… and please do not quote those 4 promises to peter. 1. I cannot get infallability out of those verses and the keys were given to all the apostles. I probably will never understand this.
  7. Marian dogma.
Hi!
…ever heard of “delegation?”

…“what you tie/loosen” does not only mean Sacramental forgiveness of sin…

…and as for understanding Scriptures… where did you read that Jesus gave twelve keys to twelve Disciples?

…do you see how reading and knowing is not the same?

…do you know/understand what “infallibility” means?

…so when Jesus talks about an unforgivable sin, what do you understand by that?

…and when He refuses to pray for the world?

…what of the Apostles’ talk about the sin for which we must not pray?

…who determined that the Apostolic Writing were Scriptures… was that an infallible statement?

…where did you get the come one come all & bring your own rules into the Priesthood contract/call?

Maran atha!

Angel
 
Weird.

I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church because of the Bible

I trust that the Bible is actually scripture due to the authority Christ gave to the Church He established.

If I didn’t accept the authority of the Church, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is anything other than a good book on morals and the history of the Jewish people.
Which puts you in very good company…as in St. Augustine of Hippo who said,
"I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."
Against the letter of Mani, 5,6, 397 A.D.
 
Weird.

I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church because of the Bible

I trust that the Bible is actually scripture due to the authority Christ gave to the Church He established.

If I didn’t accept the authority of the Church, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is anything other than a good book on morals and the history of the Jewish people.
VERY well said. 👍
 
Weird.

I do not accept the authority of the Catholic Church because of the Bible

I trust that the Bible is actually scripture due to the authority Christ gave to the Church He established.

If I didn’t accept the authority of the Church, I would have no reason to believe the Bible is anything other than a good book on morals and the history of the Jewish people.
How do you know Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church? Surely not from the Bible, otherwise this would be an example of circular reasoning.

“I believe the Bible because I accept the authority of the Catholic Church and I accept the Church’s authority because it has been established by Jesus Christ. It says so in the Bible.”
 
How do you know Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church? Surely not from the Bible, otherwise this would be an example of circular reasoning.

“I believe the Bible because I accept the authority of the Catholic Church and I accept the Church’s authority because it has been established by Jesus Christ. It says so in the Bible.”
How do you know anything about anything?
Someone you trust told you.
When it comes down to it, you believe in people and judge the validity and authority of information by the integrity of those who have transmitted it to you.
 
How do you know anything about anything?
Someone you trust told you.
When it comes down to it, you believe in people and judge the validity and authority of information by the integrity of those who have transmitted it to you.
I want to add a nuance: not all things I know have been told to me by others. There are things people discover for themselves.

But you’re right: I believe a lot of things scientists say, even though I’m often unable to check their findings. I’m terrible at maths for one thing. But scientists live in a highly competitive environment where people can get famous by proving other people wrong. I don’t see the same kind of competitiveness among theologians. Even among scientists (in the broad sense of the word) there are scientists I trust less than others. Sociologists for example. I don’t trust them as much as physicists, because that particular field lacks competitiveness. Google Diederik Stapel for example. He was a big guy in the sociology field. And a complete fraud.
 
How do you know Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church? Surely not from the Bible, otherwise this would be an example of circular reasoning.

“I believe the Bible because I accept the authority of the Catholic Church and I accept the Church’s authority because it has been established by Jesus Christ. It says so in the Bible.”
Even outside the Bible, we see people attest to this authority all the way back to the late first and early second century. That the Church was born and grew with this sense of structure (which did continue to develop) is the best explanation for the evidence we have, both Biblical and non-Biblical. I would think even an atheist who is obviously skeptical of the religious claims should admit that those movement originated with the basic idea of an overseer/bishop, elders and deacons, basing their authority on appointment and lineage.
 
Even outside the Bible, we see people attest to this authority all the way back to the late first and early second century. That the Church was born and grew with this sense of structure (which did continue to develop) is the best explanation for the evidence we have, both Biblical and non-Biblical. I would think even an atheist who is obviously skeptical of the religious claims should admit that those movement originated with the basic idea of an overseer/bishop, elders and deacons, basing their authority on appointment and lineage.
My views on early Christianity has nothing to do with my atheism. This is more about history than theology. As it happens, I do disagree with the idea that the early Church was well organized. Christianity is, at its core, about the fulfillment of a Jewish messianic prophecy. When Paul was in Greece, he was sued by the Jews of Corinth and brought before the Roman governor Gallio. Gallio dismissed the case saying that it was a dispute about words and names and told the Jews and Paul to sort it out among themselves (Acts 18:15). Early Christianity was highly schismatic and many groups within the Christian movement wrote down their own interpretations. Some of them were, as you probably know, discovered in the 20th century and they’re known as the Dead Sea scrolls.
 
How do you know Christ gave authority to the Catholic Church? Surely not from the Bible, otherwise this would be an example of circular reasoning.

“I believe the Bible because I accept the authority of the Catholic Church and I accept the Church’s authority because it has been established by Jesus Christ. It says so in the Bible.”
It is NOT circular reasoning to refer to a source of truth as the reason for thinking something from that same source is true.

I think global warming is true because I read assertions of fact and evidence made in a NASA report. So when I say…I believe what the NASA report says about global warming because the NASA report says what I (now) believe is true. there’s no circular reasoning involved.

The bible is a source of facts.
 
It is NOT circular reasoning to refer to a source of truth as the reason for thinking something from that same source is true.

I think global warming is true because I read assertions of fact and evidence made in a NASA report. So when I say…I believe what the NASA report says about global warming because the NASA report says what I (now) believe is true. there’s no circular reasoning involved.

The bible is a source of facts.
No, the argument was: “I believe the Bible because I accept the authority of the Church, because that is the Church Jesus Christ Established.” But where is the evidence that the Church is established by Jesus himself? styrgwillidar can’t say he found the evidence in the Bible, because the truth of the Bible is at the end of his conclusion. If it’s also the beginning, then it’s circular reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top