Questions about validity of some catholic practices

  • Thread starter Thread starter to_seek
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

to_seek

Guest
Ive been in and around some sites for a while putting my little bit in here and there. Now I would like to ask some questions of my own that bother me as I contemplate returning to RC myself. [First regarding one true church discussions -I cannot find any scriptural or historical evidence that when Jesus was teaching and preaching to the Apostles,He referred to setting up such a complicated belief system for future followers to follow. He clearly understood the people of His time and generally spoke using parables that they understood. Would He not have set up the Church to believe the exact same things He taught to the Apostles in a simple clear fashion.? Is it not true that perhaps when He spoke the famous line often quoted here" upon this rock I will build my church"He meant the universal Christian Church to which all catholics and protestants would belong as one[/RIGHT] [Regarding liturgy etc, again I can only see the succession of Popes and Councils over the centuries bringing in all sorts of new beliefs according to their interpretation. If one keeps to reading His Word alone, no mention is made of purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments. The only two clear instructions were to baptize those who come to believe and break bread together “in memory of Me”" which is what we understand in most churches as Holy Communion.[I have more questions but I think these are the first issues I keep stumbling over. I welcome genuine (name removed by moderator)ut here. To seek.
 
Well, one thing to remember is that historically, many things that were defined by the Church were responses to heresy. So things like the Nicene Creed were formulated in response to people who were teaching things that the Church understood to be untrue. Clearing the problem up meant not only repudiating the incorrect doctrine, but supplying the correct one.

So that is a big part of the reason for the development of Christian doctrine in the Church.

Now, some non-Catholic Christians do think that the Catholic Church began to go beyond this practice, and has defined too many things as necessary for belief. Purgatory, indulgences, or transubstantiation (as distinct from the Real Presence) are examples. Obviously Catholics disagree about this.
 
I would suggest the following CD’s have answered these and perhaps most of your questions.

Scott Hahn - former Episcopalian - offered the position of an Evangelical College at 26 due to his knowledge and teaching ability in the faith. He turned down the position of Dean because at that time in his life, his study of scripture - to which you are challenging - led him to know the Catholic Church is the One True Church. Go to www.salvationhistory.com and get his conversion CD

Steve Ray - former Baptist - wrote the book CROSSING THE TIBER after his life long study led him to know the truth of the catholic faith. Get his conversion CD.

Peter Kreeft - former Baptist now Professor at Boston College, you can get his CD “7 reasons why everyone should be Catholic”, I believe on this web site.

Between the above three individuals, who all took the same course you are on, they can provide very clear and concise answers.
 
Correction:

Dr. Scott Hahn was a Reformed Presbyterian…he was also militant in his anti-Catholicism. If I remember correctly, he used to go around to Catholic Parishes during mass and place flyers on their car windows in an attempt to get them to “come to Christ” and get away from the superstition of the Catholic Church.

Just a side note there 😉
 
The Church’s beliefs have not changed. The teachings that you may consider “new” are really just the application of teachings found in scripture and Tradition to modern dilemmas.

History of the Mass:
newadvent.org/cathen/09790b.htm

These two resources may address many of your questions, but keep them coming (and be sure to search the forums!):
catholicscomehome.org/
forums.catholic-questions.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4
Actually the Church’s beliefs have changed over the years. Remember, our Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.

What is great about our Church is that it does not give itself over to frenzy. The Church has established rules to allow it to change as our knowledge and understanding of God and the world around us grows and changes, but it is a slow process.

In answer to the original questions, the Church’s teachings begin with Sacred Scripture and continue with Tradition. As has already been said, the Church has had to face untrue teachings from within and without. To answer these problems, ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Trent, Vatican I and II were convened to research and develop clear teachings for the rest of us.
 
Well, one thing to remember is that historically, many things that were defined by the Church were responses to heresy. So things like the Nicene Creed were formulated in response to people who were teaching things that the Church understood to be untrue. Clearing the problem up meant not only repudiating the incorrect doctrine, but supplying the correct one.

So that is a big part of the reason for the development of Christian doctrine in the Church.

Now, some non-Catholic Christians do think that the Catholic Church began to go beyond this practice, and has defined too many things as necessary for belief. Purgatory, indulgences, or transubstantiation (as distinct from the Real Presence) are examples. Obviously Catholics disagree about this.
Actually when the Church formulated the Nicene creed…they did not put in anything about transubstantiation or the Eucharist because nobody disagreed with it at that time.
 
Ive been in and around some sites for a while putting my little bit in here and there. Now I would like to ask some questions of my own that bother me as I contemplate returning to RC myself. [First regarding one true church discussions -I cannot find any scriptural or historical evidence that when Jesus was teaching and preaching to the Apostles,He referred to setting up such a complicated belief system for future followers to follow. He clearly understood the people of His time and generally spoke using parables that they understood. Would He not have set up the Church to believe the exact same things He taught to the Apostles in a simple clear fashion.? Is it not true that perhaps when He spoke the famous line often quoted here" upon this rock I will build my church"He meant the universal Christian Church to which all catholics and protestants would belong as one[/RIGHT] [Regarding liturgy etc, again I can only see the succession of Popes and Councils over the centuries bringing in all sorts of new beliefs according to their interpretation. If one keeps to reading His Word alone, no mention is made of purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments. The only two clear instructions were to baptize those who come to believe and break bread together “in memory of Me”" which is what we understand in most churches as Holy Communion.[I have more questions but I think these are the first issues I keep stumbling over. I welcome genuine (name removed by moderator)ut here. To seek.
You will not find the word Trinity listed in the bible either…but that doesn’t mean it does not exists.

Having come from the Protestant background (not Lutheran because to me they are seperate) I can tell you that individual interpretation of the Bible will lead you to be more mislead. Look at all the different beliefs out there…even within one demonination of Protestant. Now to me, what the Bible says to you is one thing, interpretation is another. I have come to appreciate leaving that up to the Church.

I’ll tell you since I’ve come back to the Church…it’s like I’m reading an entirely different bible…I’ve dug out my old one and it’s still the same words but yet I could almost swear that it was not the same words I read just 6 months ago…

Its not as complicated as you might think…just take a little at a time. I do appreciate having a common language among the Body of Christ at the Mass.

God Bless!
 
You will not find the word Trinity listed in the bible either…but that doesn’t mean it does not exists.

Having come from the Protestant background (not Lutheran because to me they are seperate) I can tell you that individual interpretation of the Bible will lead you to be more mislead. Look at all the different beliefs out there…even within one demonination of Protestant. Now to me, what the Bible says to you is one thing, interpretation is another. I have come to appreciate leaving that up to the Church.

I’ll tell you since I’ve come back to the Church…it’s like I’m reading an entirely different bible…I’ve dug out my old one and it’s still the same words but yet I could almost swear that it was not the same words I read just 6 months ago…

Its not as complicated as you might think…just take a little at a time. I do appreciate having a common language among the Body of Christ at the Mass.

God Bless!
I found it very helpful to have a Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would pick a subject and start reading what the Catechism said about a particular subject and then look up every scripture it had for footnotes.

I would have these questions, questions that seemed to be deal breakers to me, and it was so simply, and biblically, explained.

Although you can use an online Catechism, (my favorite is this one), I prefered a hardcopy.

God Bless,
Maria
 
I found it very helpful to have a Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would pick a subject and start reading what the Catechism said about a particular subject and then look up every scripture it had for footnotes.

I would have these questions, questions that seemed to be deal breakers to me, and it was so simply, and biblically, explained.

Although you can use an online Catechism, (my favorite is this one), I prefered a hardcopy.

God Bless,
Maria
God bless you Maria, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church… 👍
 
Actually the Church’s beliefs have changed over the years. Remember, our Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.

What is great about our Church is that it does not give itself over to frenzy. The Church has established rules to allow it to change as our knowledge and understanding of God and the world around us grows and changes, but it is a slow process.

In answer to the original questions, the Church’s teachings begin with Sacred Scripture and continue with Tradition. As has already been said, the Church has had to face untrue teachings from within and without. To answer these problems, ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Trent, Vatican I and II were convened to research and develop clear teachings for the rest of us.
The Church never taught that the earth was the center of the universe. If you can produce documents that the Church did so, please cite them. So ACTUALLY there is no change in the Church’s belief. There has been development of belief but not change.
To answer the OP not all that Jesus taught was written down. I believe that Jesus would not intend to have a divided Church and such is against His will. The Church is not stagnant it developed and grew. The Holy Spirit is with the Church and so what it became is through the will of God.
Purgatory is not mentioned by name but like the Trinity the concept is there. Jesus said that you cannot enter heaven unless you are perfect. That perfection would be impossible if we did not go through some type of cleansing. Jesus also said that we would have to pay the last penny.
 
I found it very helpful to have a Catechism of the Catholic Church. I would pick a subject and start reading what the Catechism said about a particular subject and then look up every scripture it had for footnotes.

I would have these questions, questions that seemed to be deal breakers to me, and it was so simply, and biblically, explained.

Although you can use an online Catechism, (my favorite is this one), I prefered a hardcopy.

God Bless,
Maria
Yes, the Cathechism is very helpful. It will not answer every question in an easy to understand way, but even when you can’t understand the language it at leasts points you in the right direction. The CCC is by far the best and most complete summary of what we believe as Catholics and why. I must emphasize, however, that it is a summary. That’s why it has the footnotes for scripture and for ecumenical council teachings.
 
I don’t remember what they are, but I have seen documents written by authorities in the early Church that claim the Earth is the center of the universe. HOWEVER, none of the documents were declared infallible.
 
The Church never taught that the earth was the center of the universe. If you can produce documents that the Church did so, please cite them. So ACTUALLY there is no change in the Church’s belief. There has been development of belief but not change.
So you’re saying Galileo was NOT placed under house arrest for his teachings?
 
Ive been in and around some sites for a while putting my little bit in here and there. Now I would like to ask some questions of my own that bother me as I contemplate returning to RC myself. [First regarding one true church discussions -I cannot find any scriptural or historical evidence that when Jesus was teaching and preaching to the Apostles,He referred to setting up such a complicated belief system for future followers to follow. He clearly understood the people of His time and generally spoke using parables that they understood. Would He not have set up the Church to believe the exact same things He taught to the Apostles in a simple clear fashion.?
Bluegoat explained this fairly well but I’d like to elaborate.The reason for the “complexity” is, as some have pointed out, the development of doctrine. The situation can actually be likened to The Parable of the Sower:

Mark 4:3-10, 14-20
Hear ye: Behold, the sower went out to sow. And whilst he sowed, some fell by the way side, and the birds of the air came and ate it up. And other some fell upon stony ground, where it had not much earth; and it shot up immediately, because it had no depth of earth. And when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered away. And some fell among thorns; and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And some fell upon good ground; and brought forth fruit that grew up, and increased and yielded, one thirty, another sixty, and another a hundred. And he said: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. And when he was alone, the twelve that were with him asked him the parable. . . . He that soweth, soweth the word. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown, and as soon as they have heard, immediately Satan cometh and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. And these likewise are they that are sown on the stony ground: who when they have heard the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but are only for a time: and then when tribulation and persecution ariseth for the word they are presently scandalized. And others there are who are sown among thorns: these are they that hear the word, And the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts after other things entering in choke the word, and it is made fruitless. And these are they who are sown upon the good ground, who hear the word, and receive it, and yield fruit, the one thirty, another sixty, and another a hundred.

This situation reflects the issue beautifully. Christ told a simple parable, that is how he taught. But, do to misunderstanding on the part of His followers, Christ had to elaborate to explain what the parable/doctrine means. This ties exactly into what Bluegoat has already said, that the Church had to elaborate on doctrines that were, at the time, being misunderstood and misinterpreted.
Is it not true that perhaps when He spoke the famous line often quoted here" upon this rock I will build my church"He meant the universal Christian Church to which all catholics and protestants would belong as one[/right]
I don’t buy this interpretation due simply to historical fact. For the first 1500 years of Christianities existence, there was only one Christian Church/denomination (whatever you wish to call it): the Catholic Church. Many Protestants will disagree with this, but that doesn’t really matter. You can substitute “Catholic Church” with “Baptist Church” and the argument still holds because the point is that there was only one Church and it was a visible entity, not simply the Mystical Body of Christ; of which all validly baptized persons are a part.

← continued in next post →
[/quote]
 
← continued from previous post →
[Regarding liturgy etc, again I can only see the succession of Popes and Councils over the centuries bringing in all sorts of new beliefs according to their interpretation. If one keeps to reading His Word alone, no mention is made of purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments.
Where you go wrong here — and this wrong turn destroys your argument — is that you seem to imply that we must “read His Word alone” which is, in no ambiguous terms, rejected by St. Peter:

2 Peter 1:19-20
And we have the more firm prophetical word: whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.

This verse gets used so much here on Catholic Answers, and with good reason: it is the major flaw of “Bible Alone” churches. We are not allowed to “read His Word alone”, and why? because we’ll “wrest” [2 Pt 3:16] its true meaning, we need a guide [Acts 8:28-31]. The popes and councils did not “bring in new beliefs according to their interpretation”, the doctrines they defined and define can be found in the Word of God (which equals Scripture and Tradition). If it is considered to be an interpretation, then it is to be considered the interpretation of the Apostles themselves. One more thing is wrong with this, you imply that it is impossible to get those beliefs (purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments) by just reading Scripture: this is simply not true. Many people who convert to Catholicism have heard rumors about our beliefs, etc., then start to see these doctrines pop up in various Bible passages, then they decide to convert. I’m sure there are many people on these forums who have had an experience along those lines.
The only two clear instructions were to baptize those who come to believe and break bread together “in memory of Me”" which is what we understand in most churches as Holy Communion.*

I hope I have answered your questions adequately and that they help you in your journey. You will be in my prayers!
BryanM27;6688903:
Actually the Church’s beliefs have changed over the years. Remember, our Church once taught that the Earth was the center of the universe.

What is great about our Church is that it does not give itself over to frenzy. The Church has established rules to allow it to change as our knowledge and understanding of God and the world around us grows and changes, but it is a slow process.

In answer to the original questions, the Church’s teachings begin with Sacred Scripture and continue with Tradition. As has already been said, the Church has had to face untrue teachings from within and without. To answer these problems, ecumenical councils such as Nicea, Trent, Vatican I and II were convened to research and develop clear teachings for the rest of us.
To my knowledge, the Church never defined geocentrism as a doctrine or dogma . . .
[/quote]
 
Ive been in and around some sites for a while putting my little bit in here and there. Now I would like to ask some questions of my own that bother me as I contemplate returning to RC myself. [First regarding one true church discussions -I cannot find any scriptural or historical evidence that when Jesus was teaching and preaching to the Apostles,He referred to setting up such a complicated belief system for future followers to follow. He clearly understood the people of His time and generally spoke using parables that they understood. Would He not have set up the Church to believe the exact same things He taught to the Apostles in a simple clear fashion.? Is it not true that perhaps when He spoke the famous line often quoted here" upon this rock I will build my church"He meant the universal Christian Church to which all catholics and protestants would belong as one[/RIGHT] [Regarding liturgy etc, again I can only see the succession of Popes and Councils over the centuries bringing in all sorts of new beliefs according to their interpretation. If one keeps to reading His Word alone, no mention is made of purgatory, types of sin, and sacraments. The only two clear instructions were to baptize those who come to believe and break bread together “in memory of Me”" which is what we understand in most churches as Holy Communion.[I have more questions but I think these are the first issues I keep stumbling over. I welcome genuine (name removed by moderator)ut here. To seek.
Welcome to the Forums and I hope you will find some help along the way in your journey for the truth. I’ve heard many people ask questions similar to those you are asking. Why can’t it just be “simple” like Jesus originally intended. I suppose the simple answer to the simple question is that it gets messy and complicated because people are not simple. People are messy and complicated. People get things wrong. People misinterpret. People become proud and inflexible. I think that is why you have to assume that Christ intended more than just an invisible “church” of all believers; because that would be chaos, with no realy arbiter of what is correct doctrine and what is not. I remind myself that the bible did not fall from the skky when Christ ascended to heaven. He did not tell his apostles that He was sending a bible. He sent these men the Holy Spirit. That was the beginning of the Church… and that Church continues today in an unbroken line of authority that we believe is guided by the Holy Spirit because that’s what Jesus promised.

I think there is sound biblical support for all of the Catholic sacraments, and the doctrines we believe de fide. I also think that those biblical supports are further butressed by the Tradition of the Church. I am happy to discuss these in more detail, but I suggest that you may get more out of the discussion if you start separate threads for each issue you raise.

Again, welcome and good luck.

Peace,
Robert
 
So you’re saying Galileo was NOT placed under house arrest for his teachings?
He was placed under house arrest for presenting his theories as fact and trying to discredit the Church with them. BTW, Galileo was wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe either.

Don’t get me wrong, the Church was out of line. But Galileo was too, if not to the same extent.
 
I like what Robert said about why it isn’t easy as Christ intended. I really enjoyed the movie Angels and Demons because of a couple of key quotes. Here are two that just amplify Robert’s points:

“I did not ask if you believe what man says about God (religion). I asked if you believe in God.”

“Religion is flawed, but only because men are flawed. All men, including this one.”
 
He was placed under house arrest for presenting his theories as fact and trying to discredit the Church with them. BTW, Galileo was wrong. The sun is not the center of the universe either.

Don’t get me wrong, the Church was out of line. But Galileo was too, if not to the same extent.
No argument on either side being out of line, but the Church took action because Galileo (a practicing Catholic) was teaching something that was in disagreement with what the Church had been teaching.

It started with an investigation, and ended with Galileo being placed under house arrest for “holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the sun is the center of the world and motionless and the earth moves even with diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for being in correspondence with some German mathematicians about it; for having published some letters entitiled On Sunspots, in which you explained the same doctrine as true; for interpreting Holy Scripture according to your own meaning in response to objections based on Scripture which were sometimes made to you; and whereas later we received a copy of an essay in the form of a letter, which was said to have been written by you to a former disciple of yours and which in accordance with Copernicus’s position contains various propositions against the authority and true meaning of Holy Scripture”

Just saying…

That’s the beauty of our Church, though. We grow and change just as our knowledge grows and changes. Unless someone finds the body of Jesus Christ in a tomb somewhere, we’re pretty safe in our beliefs. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top