Some questions about Catholic teaching

[JRKH]

Yes.
Definition of UNTIL. : up to the time that (from Merriam Webster)

Have you ever watched a TV show where at the end the host says "Until next week I’m (says his name)?
Does this mean that after next week he will have a different name?

This doesn’t prove that she had no other children. Unless there is scriptural evidence that Mary had no other children I don’t see how you can establish it as doctrine.

Could you please show me in NT Scripture where it says that all doctrine must be explicitly found in Scripture?

What I am saying is: why would he restate the fact that James is a disciple by referring to him as one and as a brother?

Could you explain why Jesus gave Mary to John instead of his “Brother”?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

It needs to because Catholics teach that we must confess to a priest to have our sins forgiven. If it’s not in the Bible, why should it be doctrine?

Actually it IS in the bible…
John 20…
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23** If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.**”

So tell me - How shall the Apostle (or the priest) forgive or retain if he does not know your sins?
In order for him to complete the task given him by Christ, we must tell him (confess) our sins…

So you see - Confession is quite Biblical…

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Just because it wasn’t compiled until 405 AD doesn’t mean the texts did not exist…

Yes - the texts did indeed exist…But so did a great number of spurious texts and it was getting more and more difficult to clearly distinguish the good from the bad…and this was having a negative effect on unity within the Church. Hence the need for a clearly defined Canon…
However that canon was never intended to replace the Church as authority - as the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth.

Translation is not creation and the Sacraments are not older than the Bible, excluding baptism and communion.

Not true…Holy Orders has been in place from the very beginning - instituted by Christ through the laying on of hands.
Marriage likewise has been a sacrament from the beginning.

Peace
James

 

[angel_crooks]

It is the essence that is transformed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It’s called transubstantiation or something like that.

I truly believe that I receive Christ at mass every week.

 

[JRKH]

Great, but that doesn’t mean it cannot tell us something else at the same time. If Mary was indeed a perpetual virgin, don’t you think the scriptures would indicate instead that “Joseph knew her never”? They don’t give this indication anywhere.

You obviously put a great deal of stock in what Scripture does and does not say…So what do you make of this…
Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

(Emphasis mine)
The only place in all of the Gospels where “Church” is used and BOTH TIMES followed by the exact same authority. The Authority to “Bind” or “Loose” - “Whatever”.
Do you believe Scripture?
Do you believe Christ?

You argue that “until” should be taken at face value and that (perhaps) Mary was not a perpetual Virgin. Fair enough…But are you also willing to take the above at face value?
This is really key to answering the rest of your questions.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Jesus did not care for the teachings of the Pharisees, yet they had a long history. There are also some very intelligent atheists, but we certainly don’t follow their theological teachings. What you are essentially bringing this to is that the Christian denomination with the greatest intelligence has the correct interpretation.

It is true that jesus did not care for the Pharisees teaching and yet look at what he told the disciples in Mt 23:2-3
“all that they tell you, do and observe” because “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat”. (Matthew 23:2-3)
He did not say to pay attention to intelligent “Gentiles” or “Romans” or whoever…but He did give credit to those who were in lawful religious authority over the Jews at that time.

Then - as I have pointed out in my post above - He gave HIS authority to the Church to Bind and Loose, That Church came into being at Pentecost…and exercises the Authority it was granted…
Do you believe this?? If you do not, then can you say that you believe Christ?

Jesus never gave anyone infallible authority over the interpretation of scripture. In fact, the opposite is true: Matthew 20:25-28.

Mt 20:25-28 does not address Scripture.
But Mt 18-15-18 DOES give the Church the authority to interpret Scripture and that authority is exercised in Acts 15 when they set aside the majority of the Mosaic Law as it applied to Gentile converts.

Peace
James

 

[Ailina]

No, it does not imply that. Certainly from the statement one can make such a conclusion, but in no way, shape or form did that statement imply that Joseph “knew” Mary after. The point of that statement was that Jesus is not the son of Joseph in a biological sense. Mary did not concieve because she had sex with Joseph. That was the point. It did not make any pressumptions or assumptions about after. It is not what the passage is addressing.

If I said, “to this day it has never flooded inside my house,” does that mean that tomorrow it will flood in my house?

I was wondering about this after reading this morning’s gospel (Matt 1 18:25), where it says “He had no relations with her until she bore a son,”.

That implies that he did have relations with her after Jesus was born.

The other part that confuses me was yesterday’s gospel, reciting all the ancestors of Joseph. If he wasn’t Jesus’ physical father, how does it work that Jesus was descended from that line?

 

[ahs]

Seekerofanswers,

If you don’t feel up to opening a separate thread for each issue you’d like to inquire about, I recommend a book by David Currie called Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic.
amazon.com/Born-Fundamentalist-Again-Catholic/dp/089870569X

If you don’t have thin-skin and want a more pointed explanation, then Karl Keating’s “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” is also wonderful.
amazon.com/Catholicism-Fundamentalism-Attack-Romanism-Christians/dp/0898701775

Other than these, you should really open a separate thread for each topic. Otherwise you get caught up chasing too many different rabbits down tooma ny different holes and you might not hear the answers being given due to all the potential distraction of different topics.

 

[ahs]

I was wondering about this after reading this morning’s gospel (Matt 1 18:25), where it says “He had no relations with her until she bore a son,”.

That implies that he did have relations with her after Jesus was born.

The other part that confuses me was yesterday’s gospel, reciting all the ancestors of Joseph. If he wasn’t Jesus’ physical father, how does it work that Jesus was descended from that line?

As has been explained a number of times in thei very thread, no, it does not imply such. We also know from Scripture that no one knows where Moses’ (Noah’s?..someone in the OT) tomb is “until this day”…which does not imply that we suddenly know where his tomb is.

Read LilyM’s post above, and then go back through the thread and read all the replies. There is no such implication with those words.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Thank you for your response, I really needed a point-by-point counter, not that the links provided were unhelpful.

The Church does not require us to bow or pray before a statue. This is very important in recognizing the idea of idolatry.

Certainly not, the problem is that it doesn’t command us not to bow before a statue. Take note that Scripture says bow or worship, it does not have to be both. Catholics and even Catholic Popes bow to statues of Mary or Jesus. Even though they are not required to and are not praying to them, this is a violation of Scripture. If God had only wanted to tell us not to have idols, that’s all we would have received from Him in this commandment. But no, God was very specific in telling us not to worship or bow to any graven thing.

Related to the definition you provided above on the meaning of graven…Are you saying that you would have no problem with a person “bowing and praying to” a painting?

Praying to anything but God violates Exodus 20:3. It violates 1 Timothy 2:5-6 as well: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”

1. Technically - we don’t pray TO a statue, we pray before (as in - in front of) a statue. The Church would denounce praying to a statue.

I know very well that Catholics don’t pray to statues. The problem is, God commanded us not to pray to them or bow to them, and Catholics do bow to them. Example:
http://www.thechristianwebsite.com/images/idolatry-mary_worship.jpg

You have undertaken a very great task to read the Bible - I am assuming from front to back - but I might suggest that you jump ahead just a bit to Acts chapter 15. There you will find an account of the Church dealing with issues related to OT Law. In it they set-aside most of it as it relates to Gentile Christians.
Now I’m not saying that this also sets aside the ten commandments…But you are approaching a part of Bible that sets out a great many “Laws” and it might be good for you to have a good understanding of how the NT Church’s authority - given by Christ operates in relation to the OT.
In fact, I always advise people to get to know the NT (except Revelation) before they tackle the OT.

I will consider this, thanks for the advice.

 

[bzkoss236]

Thank you for your response, I really needed a point-by-point counter, not that the links provided were unhelpful.

Certainly not, the problem is that it doesn’t command us not to bow before a statue. Take note that Scripture says bow or worship, it does not have to be both. Catholics and even Catholic Popes bow to statues of Mary or Jesus. Even though they are not required to and are not praying to them, this is a violation of Scripture. If God had only wanted to tell us not to have idols, that’s all we would have received from Him in this commandment. But no, God was very specific in telling us not to worship or bow to any graven thing.

Praying to anything but God violates Exodus 20:3. It violates 1 Timothy 2:5-6 as well: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”

I know very well that Catholics don’t pray to statues. The problem is, God commanded us not to pray to them or bow to them, and Catholics do bow to them. Example:
http://www.thechristianwebsite.com/images/idolatry-mary_worship.jpg

I will consider this, thanks for the advice.

I will just say this then, we don’t bow down to statues. We do bow down in front of them, because they remind us of who we are bowing to, and that is the person they represent. And praying does not equate to worship. The term “to pray” means “petition” or “to ask of”. Think of Old English sayings of “I pray thee tell”, which means “I ask of you to tell me”. When we “pray” to Saints, we ask for their intersession, just as you would ask a friend or family member to pray for you. Asking a friend to pray to God for you, is praying to them to pray to God for you. However, misconceptions have led people to equate prayer with worship, which worship is due to God alone.

Also remember, that when we petition the Saints to pray for us, they too have to go through Jesus, because Jesus is the mediator between God and Man.

 

[adrift]

Thank you for your response, I really needed a point-by-point counter, not that the links provided were unhelpful.

Certainly not, the problem is that it doesn’t command us not to bow before a statue. Take note that Scripture says bow or worship, it does not have to be both. Catholics and even Catholic Popes bow to statues of Mary or Jesus. Even though they are not required to and are not praying to them, this is a violation of Scripture. If God had only wanted to tell us not to have idols, that’s all we would have received from Him in this commandment. But no, God was very specific in telling us not to worship or bow to any graven thing.

Praying to anything but God violates Exodus 20:3. It violates 1 Timothy 2:5-6 as well: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”

You are taking scripture out of context.
I repeat my previous post
I am sure you will agree with me that there is no numbering of the commandments. In fact, if you look at them you could make a lot more than ten. So why ten? Because scripture says there are ten not commandments but words. What was meant by this was a set of thoughts.
The commandments are found in two places.
Exodus
You shall have no other gods before me.
4 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me

Deuteronomy
You shall have no other gods before me.“‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

It is clear that what the Word(commandment) is saying that you shall not worship anyone but God.
I honestly have never seen anyone bow to a statue. The statues I have seen are not carved but molded. They are not made out of wood but plaster.
Your picture does not show someone bowing to a statue but in prayer. I note that you got it from a site that is anti-catholic.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Have you ever watched a TV show where at the end the host says "Until next week I’m (says his name)?
Does this mean that after next week he will have a different name?

I’m pretty sure that saying “until next week” is similar to saying “until we meet again”. The first phrase and the second phrase are separated: “Until next week, I’m (says his name)”. If he or she said it as a single statement, yes, it would mean that after next week he or she will have a different name.

Could you please show me in NT Scripture where it says that all doctrine must be explicitly found in Scripture?

Mark 7:1-15. Anything that is not of God’s Word is inherently a commandment of men. The Pharisees taught that their teachings were divinely inspired, just as the RCC does. Jesus condemned them, however, for adding to God’s commandments.

Could you explain why Jesus gave Mary to John instead of his “Brother”?

This is a good point, however, the fact that we don’t know doesn’t rule out the idea that Jesus had brothers.

Note the disciple. He may have been the only close enough (I’m talking about literal distance here) to give this commandment to.

 

[seekerofanswers]

As some one else mentioned, you should only have one topic per thread. That is a forum rule.
I would suggest that you do a search for your topics. They have been addressed many times. Probably will continue to be.

Will do, like I said, at this point I am simply replying. I understand the rule now.

You also have Mary saying she knows not man which indicates a vow of virginity. .

Luke 1:34 does not indicate a vow of virginity. If she had said, “I will know not a man”, that is a vow of virginity.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Actually it IS in the bible…
John 20…
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23** If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.**”

So tell me - How shall the Apostle (or the priest) forgive or retain if he does not know your sins?
In order for him to complete the task given him by Christ, we must tell him (confess) our sins…

So you see - Confession is quite Biblical…

Peace
James

Just because the Apostles were given the ability to forgive sin doesn’t mean that one must confess their sins to an Apostle. Jesus never said that. Plus, as I quoted in my original post, there is biblical evidence of confession being given to multiple witnesses or to “each other”. I see nothing wrong with this biblical confession. I believe that some protestant denominations practice a confession before witnesses before being baptized. They are obviously not opposed to confession, just the mandatory nature of the Catholic confession to priests. I am not critiquing confession in general, only the idea that confession must be to a priest.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Not true…Holy Orders has been in place from the very beginning - instituted by Christ through the laying on of hands.

Scriptural evidence?

Marriage likewise has been a sacrament from the beginning.

You’re right, I omitted that one.

 

[seekerofanswers]

You obviously put a great deal of stock in what Scripture does and does not say…So what do you make of this…

Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 "I also say to you that you are Kepha (Rock), and upon this Kepha I will build My church (Singular); and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church (Singular); and if he refuses to listen even to the church let him be as a tax collector. 18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.
​

I think the second of these gives good context to what Jesus is saying, and when I read it, it seemed very clear to me what He meant. Jesus is describing the act of “winning someone to Christ”. He follows this with “whatever you bind on Earth”. Jesus is telling his disciples that, as believers in Christ, they have the ability and the responsibility to win people to Christ. If they are unable to win a certain individual, he or she is let loose onto the earth.

The only place in all of the Gospels where “Church” is used and BOTH TIMES followed by the exact same authority. The Authority to “Bind” or “Loose” - “Whatever”.
Do you believe Scripture?
Do you believe Christ?

You argue that “until” should be taken at face value and that (perhaps) Mary was not a perpetual Virgin. Fair enough…But are you also willing to take the above at face value?

First, I am not arguing that Mary was not a perpetual virgin, I am simply arguing that there isn’t Scriptural evidence for it, so it shouldn’t be doctrine. Second, I believe that you are the one not taking the above at face value. You add the idea that Jesus is granting the disciples authority. It is clear however, that He is not, because He connects it to a description of the disciples trying to win people to Him.​

 

[JRKH]

Thank you for your response, I really needed a point-by-point counter, not that the links provided were unhelpful.

Well I’m not very good, but I’m glad my responses were of some help.

Certainly not, the problem is that it doesn’t command us not to bow before a statue. Take note that Scripture says bow or worship, it does not have to be both. Catholics and even Catholic Popes bow to statues of Mary or Jesus. Even though they are not required to and are not praying to them, this is a violation of Scripture. If God had only wanted to tell us not to have idols, that’s all we would have received from Him in this commandment. But no, God was very specific in telling us not to worship or bow to any graven thing.

I know very well that Catholics don’t pray to statues. The problem is, God commanded us not to pray to them or bow to them, and Catholics do bow to them.

As Jesus and the Apostles were walking along one sabbath, the Apostles were hungry and began pulling and eating the heads of grain - a clear violation of the Sabbath Law and the Pharisees called him on it.
Note Jesus response…“The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” He was telling the Pharisees that intent is more important than letter. This is a theme that is repeated a several times in Jesus teaching…For instance he accuses the Pharisees of “straining the gnat and swallowing the camel”.
Now tenacity is an admirable quality, but your tenacity here - in the the face of so many sound arguments and references to Church teaching - begins to feel a bit like this Pharisaic tenacity - of getting hung up on a single word…and losing sight of the intent of the Law.

You agree that we do not pray to the statue, nor do we worship them…You recognize that when we bow before a statue we are saluting, not the statue, but the very real Spirit that the statue represents. Yet you cling tenaciously to this one word “bow” as if on this single word hangs our entire salvation…

I pray you, please accept my words above with the love with which I send them.

Praying to anything but God violates Exodus 20:3. It violates 1 Timothy 2:5-6 as well: “For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.”

you demonstrate here a common misunderstanding of the word “pray”. You equate it with worship…Yet it means to ask - to petition - to speak with. I used it at the end of my response above in a very pointed way to illustrate a usage that was quite common just 50 or so years ago. Someone might ask, “Pray tell me…”, or “please tell me…”
So - If as you say, to “pray” to anyone other than God is a violation of Scripture, then we must stop asking our neighbor to pray for us - No prayer chains - no facebook requests for prayers and CAF needs to close down the forum dedicated to prayer intentions.

Obviously this is not what you mean…Yet this is how ridiculous such lines of thinking can become.

When we petition Mary or another Saint in heaven, we are doing the same thing as when we ask our neighbor to pray with or for us. This does not violate Scripture, because it does not usurp or dilute or defer from God anything that is due only to Him.

Well my friend…I don’t know what else to tell you. As I said in a couple of earlier posts you are probably not going to be able to fully resolve this issue until you resolve the deeper issue of ekklesial authority. Which is partly why I am suggesting that you go to the NT before you become so embroiled in the OT.
Settle in your mind the matter of authority…and the rest will more easily fall into place. Either you will recognize, accept and trust the Christ granted, Christ centered and Biblical authority of the Church - or you will reject that authority and leave the Church to wander among the protestant denominations - where you will likely find just as many problems with understanding Scripture as you are struggling with now…
I don’t say that to try to “frighten” you, but rather as simple council from one who has been there…it took me 35 years to find my way back home.

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

It is the essence that is transformed from bread and wine to the body and blood of Jesus Christ.

It’s called transubstantiation or something like that.

I truly believe that I receive Christ at mass every week.

From CCC 1376: "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. "

The RCC does not teach that the “essence” is turned into the body and blood of Jesus, it teaches that it’s “substance” is literally changed. If the Church does not teach that the Eucharist is literally Jesus’ body and blood, then they must agree with Zwingli.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Also remember, that when we petition the Saints to pray for us, they too have to go through Jesus, because Jesus is the mediator between God and Man.

In that case we have two mediators. First a saint, and then Jesus. Scripture says that there is one mediator.