Some questions about Catholic teaching

[seekerofanswers]

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.

It’s funny that you would post that, considering the fact that I believe that God is currently leading me down the path away from Catholicism and towards the Christian Church. Thank you for the recommendations, though.

 

[JRKH]

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.

OK - tell you next time you see a host do this let me know and we will be sure to watch the program the next week to see what his/her name changes to…

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.

Yes Jesus had harsh words for the teachers of the time…Yet He upheld their authority AND the necessity for the people to obey them…
1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt 23)
Jesus gives this same command to us in Mt 18:15-18 - to “listen to the Church”. So - what say you. Shall we listen to the Church as commanded by our Lord?

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

Correct…For that we have the determination and teaching of the Spirit Guided Church. It is she who, after carefully weighing all of the factors you have brought up here - - and many more besides - - prayerfully and unerringly came to the correct understanding. Jesus had no brothers. Mary remained a Virgin. Thus is it bound on Earth - Thus it is bound in heaven (Mt 18:18)

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

It is clear that what the Word(commandment) is saying that you shall not worship anyone but God.

If this was true, God would not have been so specific. It troubles me greatly when people claim things like, “God didn’t really mean what He said, he means this!”

I honestly have never seen anyone bow to a statue.

This doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen.

The statues I have seen are not carved but molded. They are not made out of wood but plaster.

I have seen both molded and carved statues made out of both wood and plaster. Again, just because you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. The fact that bowing to a statue is not condemned by the Church is the troubling part.

Your picture does not show someone bowing to a statue but in prayer.

This makes it worse, if anything. God commanded us not to bow to a graven image, it doesn’t matter if we are praying to what it represents.

I note that you got it from a site that is anti-catholic.

Copied it from Google Images. Apparently it was hosted on an anti-catholic site. I don’t see why this is surprising.

 

[JRKH]

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.

Fair enough…Of course I’m not concerned with how other groups do confession. That is their prerogative.

However - you asked for a Scripture to support confession to a priest and this is clearly the best one.

And my original comment still stands…If the priest does not know your sins…how can he determine if they are to be forgiven or held bound?
The particulars of public or private are a matter of practice…of discipline…rules that the Church can modify just as she has done in the past.

Peace

 

[JRKH]

Scriptural evidence?

Oh come on…this is becoming tedious…

Let’s save a lot of time…

You go over HERE and anything you feel yoe need scriptural evidence for…Just look it up…

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

I’m going to try to reply to a number of your posts at once.

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.

I still hold to the fact that God specifically told us not to.

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.

I pray for people without praying “to” them. Praying for someone still involves praying solely to God.

Yes Jesus had harsh words for the teachers of the time…Yet He upheld their authority AND the necessity for the people to obey them…

1 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. (Mt 23)

Jesus gives this same command to us in Mt 18:15-18 - to “listen to the Church”. So - what say you. Shall we listen to the Church as commanded by our Lord?

It’s funny that you should reference Matthew 23, beacuse Matthew 23:1-12, and specifically Matthew 23:8, tells us not to call anyone Rabbi because our only spiritual Father is God. Jesus is saying in Matthew 23 that Christians should continue to observe the commandments of Moses, but should no longer have positions as spiritual masters. This is why, I believe, the early Christian Church regarded elders, rather than calling priests “father”.

However - you asked for a Scripture to support confession to a priest and this is clearly the best one.

That is troubling, as it clearly says nothing about requiring people to confess to priests.

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.

I am reading both at the same time.

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.

Out of curiosity, what was the “path” of protestant denominations that you wandered among.

 

[JRKH]

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.

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.

I assume that by “the second of these” you are referring to Mt 18:15-18. Going on that assumption I cannot disagree with you more strongly. This is a a clear and concise set of instructions for the visible and authoritative Church.

1. It is NOT about winning souls to Christ…for it beings “If your brother sin against you…” this means that it is directed to those already in the Church - already disciples.
2. Where it speaks of sin…No one will argue that teaching a false doctrine is a sin…so this passage applies to doctrinal questions as well as other more commonly thought of sin.
3. The procedure seeks understanding between a small group in order to prevent the loss not the gain of someone for Christ.
4. When it gets to the level of requiring intervention by the whole Church, it is deeply serious and the failure to “Listen to the Church” will find the sinner (including one holding heretical beliefs) shunned.
   It is THIS that is followed by the authority to Bind and Loose whatever…

And again - I encourage you to read Acts 15 with this passage in mind. It is a very good example of a doctrinal taken through the steps outlined in Mt 18:15-18.

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

Oh come on…this is becoming tedious…

Let’s save a lot of time…

You go over HERE and anything you feel yoe need scriptural evidence for…Just look it up…

Peace
James

I’m sorry!!! I didn’t mean to be so tedious. I have been on scripturecatholic multiple times for different things and most of the conclusions they draw from Scripture seem to be perfect examples of what they call “eisegesis”, while they criticize protestants of it.

 

[JRKH]

It’s funny that you would post that, considering the fact that** I believe that God is currently leading me down the path away from Catholicism and towards the Christian Church.** Thank you for the recommendations, though.

This is an insulting comment…the Catholic Church IS the Christian Church…In fact it is the most biblical of the Christian Churches.

The above may have been made without thinking…but I find it to be a most disturbing development in what has become an increasingly disturbing thread.

Peace
James

 

[adrift]

If this was true, God would not have been so specific. It troubles me greatly when people claim things like, “God didn’t really mean what He said, he means this!”

I don’t know how you get that God didn’t really mean what He said. The problem is you are taking it out of context. You pick out one word without the meaning behind it. The word also says

You shall not make for yourself a graven 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;

If you are going to be consistant, than as another poster pointed out

Do you seriously think that’s what it means? So, no drivers’ licenses (because they have pictures), and no cell phones (for the same reason), and no crosses (because that’s a likeness of something that was on earth)?

According to the above, you shall not make yourself ANY likeness.
You made a note:

Note: You must not bow down to them or worship them.

that was after you bolded

5 You must not bow down to them or worship them

.If I understand you than you are making a point that to bow down is a different command than that of worship.
It is really an empasis not a comand. Taking it out of context results in strange ideas

 

[seekerofanswers]

1. Where it speaks of sin…No one will argue that teaching a false doctrine is a sin…so this passage applies to doctrinal questions as well as other more commonly thought of sin.

This is a stretch. Jesus would have said, “if anyone does not believe as you do” rather than “sin” which includes far more than just belief. Jesus is saying that if someone in the Church fails to recognize their sin, this is how you attempt to get them to recognize it. If they do not, they are “loosed” into the world.

 

[seekerofanswers]

This is an insulting comment…the Catholic Church IS the Christian Church…In fact it is the most biblical of the Christian Churches.

The above may have been made without thinking…but I find it to be a most disturbing development in what has become an increasingly disturbing thread.

Peace
James

Sorry about that. I assumed you would take it as the protestant definition of “Christian Church”.

 

[adrift]

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.

This really avoids the obvious. She was betrothed. Not to be equated with an engagement as a betrothal of that time was the first part of marriage. She was the wife of Joseph but not yet living with him when the angel appeared to her. Her answer to him was how is this to be since I know not man.
There are only two conclusions that you can make

1. You must assume that she doesn’t know how babies our made.
2. She does not have sex.

Note she doesn’t say Joseph and I are going to have a baby which would be the normal reaction of a married woman.
She doesn’t say Joseph and I do not relation yet. She says with no man strange comment from a married woman.

And you say that it does not indicate a vow

 

[JRKH]

This is a stretch. Jesus would have said, “if anyone does not believe as you do” rather than “sin” which includes far more than just belief.

This is not nearly the stretch you seem to think it is…Consider the definitions of “Sin” in both Hebrew and Greek:
Sin = Chata’ (Hebrew)
to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness

Sin = Hamartano, (Greek)
To be without a share in; to miss the mark; to err, be mistaken; to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honor; to do or go wrong; to wander from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin

The Greek, Hamartano os used in Mt 18. I quick look at the above definition will show that it easily includes all of the things that you mention above. So the Gospel writer used a single word that encompassed everything necessary.

Jesus is saying that if someone in the Church fails to recognize their sin, this is how you attempt to get them to recognize it. If they do not, they are “loosed” into the world.

I’m sorry my friend but this is just laughable. If we follow the line of thinking you express above about what, “Jesus would have said”…then to make it mean what you want it to mean - Jesus here would have said “Whoever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven…” Instead of “Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven…”

Sorry my friend - this ain’t my first rodeo when it comes to this particular passage…Or for that matter the many other passages in the NT Gospels and letters that point to a visible universal authoritative Church.

And I will say this to you…Our very disagreement here is the principle reason WHY Jesus established a visible and authoritative Church. You claim to be Spirit led - I claim to be Spirit led - You pull out Scripture - I pull out Scripture _ you ay I am wrong - I say you are wrong…How do we determine which is right?
The answer is right there in Mt 18 - We “Tell it to the Church” and we “Listen to The Church” because - Jesus says that it is “The Church” which as the authority to bind and loose “Whatever”…

You asked about my protestant path…and to tell you the truth I never formally joined any other group. Each time I would look at this system or that system I kept running into the same problem…They all claimed the Bible as authority - but then they all disagreed on what it said…they all claimed spirit guidance, but their spirit only led to confusion.
Even the most fundamental principle of Protestantism - and the one you seem to be defending here - Sola Scriptura - is fundamentally flawed. They claim the bible as the complete and unerring word of God and nothing should be added or subtracted, but the first thing they did was start messing with the books of the bible pulling 7 books from the OT…Luther even wanted to pull four books out of the NT…
So while claiming the Bible as the unchangeable word of God…they set about to change it…
Then - as if that were not enough…they wanted to establish a “reformed church” more closely founded on the Bible…but the reformers themselves could not agree and never met in council - as prescribed in the Bible (acts 15) - to settle their differences. Instead each went their own way…

No - the more I looked at the various systems, the more disillusioned I became…And then - I began to get the call home - It was the Eucharist that called me…Nothing like it. The Fullness of faith - to receive Christ, body blood soul and divinity, in the Eucharist…no protestant Church has it…And brother I needed it.
After coming home to the faith i have been continually blessed in ways I cannot describe. The writings of the saints, the richness of the mass - both the OF and the EF - the devotions - the sacrament of the sick - which my wife will be receiving tomorrow - the many avenues of study (I lean toward the mystic myself)…It’s a banquet…A wedding feast.
I pray you reconsider your journey out of the Church

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

No - the more I looked at the various systems, the more disillusioned I became…And then - I began to get the call home - It was the Eucharist that called me…Nothing like it. The Fullness of faith - to receive Christ, body blood soul and divinity, in the Eucharist…no protestant Church has it…And brother I needed it.
After coming home to the faith i have been continually blessed in ways I cannot describe. The writings of the saints, the richness of the mass - both the OF and the EF - the devotions - the sacrament of the sick - which my wife will be receiving tomorrow - the many avenues of study (I lean toward the mystic myself)…It’s a banquet…A wedding feast.
I pray you reconsider your journey out of the Church

I think we both (and everyone else here) can agree that my beliefs ultimately rest on whether or not I accept the RCC as the authoritative Church that Jesus started. I have not decided to “journey out of the Church” at this point, so there isn’t anything to reconsider, but I certainly will consider what you have shown me and let the Spirit guide me in the weeks (and probably months) that will follow before I come to the truth, whatever that may be. I will certainly pray for you and your wife, and may God bless you both.

 

[bzkoss236]

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.

The term ‘substance’ being used here is the philosophical definition, which means it’s essence, or what something actually is instead of how it appears to be. It is not referring to the physical substance of what it appears to be made of under scientific analysis. Just as you could not do scientific analysis on Jesus to show that He is God along with His humanity.

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

So, you are saying that I shouldn’t ask people to pray for me? Because that would be making more mediators? So, if I asked you to pray for me, and you then asked someone else to pray for me too then that would be 3 mediators? No, that is not how it works. Jesus is the one mediator between God and Man, not God and a man. He is mediator between God and all men. So it doesn’t matter how many men you go through, Jesus is still the one mediator. Also, the Saints in Heaven are still man, though glorified, but still human. So, Jesus is still the mediator. The Bible says that it is pleasing to God for people to intercede for one another (pray for one another) and so we do, and those in Heaven pray for us too. Look at the verses before the 1 Timothy verse which cites Jesus as the one mediator:

1 First of all, then, I ask that supplications, prayers, petitions, and thanksgivings be offered for everyone,
2 for kings and for all in authority, that we may lead a quiet and tranquil life in all devotion and dignity.
3 This is good and pleasing to God our savior,
4 who wills everyone to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God. There is also one mediator between God and the human race, Christ Jesus, himself human,
6 who gave himself as ransom for all.

Here is another tract you should read: catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints
Also this: catholic.com/tracts/the-intercession-of-the-saints

 

[JRKH]

I think we both (and everyone else here) can agree that my beliefs ultimately rest on whether or not I accept the RCC as the authoritative Church that Jesus started. I have not decided to “journey out of the Church” at this point, so there isn’t anything to reconsider, but I certainly will consider what you have shown me and let the Spirit guide me in the weeks (and probably months) that will follow before I come to the truth, whatever that may be. I will certainly pray for you and your wife, and may God bless you both.

This is good to hear.

After posting last night I started thinking about a great show on EWTN called “The Journey Home”. Have you heard of it? The guests on the program are all converts (or reverts like myself) and tell their stories…Many were protestant ministers - trained in the bible - yet they all came to understand that the Catholic Church is the True Church that you are currently seeking.

You can watch various old episodes on YouTube…HERE and while some stories might not fit your own journey others probably will. In any event. Listening to some of these can be an eye-opening experience…especially, as I say, because often times these are people who were trained ministers in their particular “bible believing” denomination.

THIS Episode might be a good place to start.

I think that others have mentioned to you books by men like Karl Keating and Scott Hahn and I would highly recommend that you look into these as well.

May God bless you on your journey.

Peace
James

 

[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.

It’s funny that you would post that, considering the fact that I believe that God is currently leading me down the path away from Catholicism and towards the Christian Church. Thank you for the recommendations, though.

But if you are truly seeking answers to lead you to the Truth “…wherever that may be…” then it only makes sense that I would suggest books that delve deeply into Catholic theology and give detailed explanations. Currie’s book takes a look from the Fundamentalist perspective…evaluating Catholicism from the outside-in so to speak (though I do think he had converted by the time the book was published). Keating’s book is more “apologetics” oreiented…taking many of the argumjents against Catholicism and explaining the Church’s teachings/beliefs from the Catholic perspective.

If you indeed want to seek answers, then you’ll no doubt want to gather as much information as possible, no?

Tell you what…if you are really interested, I will be willing to loan you either of those books, at my own expense (postage). Feel free to PM me if you are interested.

 

[JRKH]

But if you are truly seeking answers to lead you to the Truth “…wherever that may be…” then it only makes sense that I would suggest books that delve deeply into Catholic theology and give detailed explanations. Currie’s book takes a look from the Fundamentalist perspective…evaluating Catholicism from the outside-in so to speak (though I do think he had converted by the time the book was published). Keating’s book is more “apologetics” oriented…taking many of the argumjents against Catholicism and explaining the Church’s teachings/beliefs from the Catholic perspective.

If you indeed want to seek answers, then you’ll no doubt want to gather as much information as possible, no?

Tell you what…if you are really interested, I will be willing to loan you either of those books, at my own expense (postage). Feel free to PM me if you are interested.

Mr Currie was on The Journey Home program and I even linked to the episode in my post earlier. On that show he said that the book - the subject matter - was originally written to explain his journey to his father who was a fundamentalist preacher. It was his spiritual director who encouraged him to publish it.

Peace
James

 

[ahs]

Mr Currie was on The Journey Home program and I even linked to the episode in my post earlier. On that show he said that the book - the subject matter - was originally written to explain his journey to his father who was a fundamentalist preacher. It was his spiritual director who encouraged him to publish it.

Peace
James

Oh yes! I remember now. He discussed this in the intro/preface of the book (it’s been nearly a year since I’ve read it). I’m very much interested in the Journey Home episode…I’ll visit the link you posted!