Some questions about Catholic teaching

[guanophore]

I was not raised very strictly Catholic, and I had actually assumed that all Church teaching was based in Scripture. It was a real blow finding out that this was not true.

Why was that such a “blow”?

I can assure you that I am not trying to do this, and I’m not sure why someone would. Are you saying that protestants have lied about being Catholic on here? Why would a protestant lie about being a Catholic if they believe it’s a sin? That seems like hypocrisy at its finest.

Yes, there are plenty of Protestants and others who come in here misrepresenting themselves just for entertainment purposes. I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and you are not one of them!

I am puzzled why you are “questioning” your faith from a foundation of Protestant ideas.

How did you happen to become fond of Sola Scriptura?

BTW, wikipedia is probably not the best source for information about Catholicism.

 

[seekerofanswers]

These are certainly references to the Eucharist, yes - and He is also very clear that those who do not eat His flesh and drink His blood can have no life in them - and since the Catholic Church is the only Church in which this is possible, it seems like a logical conclusion that Jesus means for all of us to be Catholic.

I get that they are ultimately references to the Last Supper, but my question was more along the lines of: “Doesn’t John 6:33-35 indicate that the bread may be a symbol, since Jesus was not literally made of bread, but was the bread of life?”

A Merry Christmas to you, by the way!

 

[seekerofanswers]

And what is truly sad is that they cannot seem to see - in the pages of Scripture no less - that Jesus foresaw this and established an authority and a method for resolving these disagreements…a way for the Holy Spirit to lead us to All Truth.

I have protestant friends of different denominations, and the differences between denominations are generally considered to be minor doctrinal disputes that don’t affect their unity as “the invisible body of believers that form the church”.

I do not believe that it the case with you…It seems that we have discerned here why your arguments sound so “protestant”. It is the result of your not having a good grounding in the faith combined with some rather compelling arguments from your protestant friends.
So I will ask again that you forgive us for our suspicions…and hope that you will continue to come with your questions because this is really a great place to get answers.

I want to thank you again for being so kind and understanding where I am coming from. Merry Christmas to you as well!

 

[seekerofanswers]

Since Church teaching comes from Jesus, through the Apostles, and the Bible did not exist for 400 years (that’s the amount of time from the Pilgrims arriving on Plymouth Rock to the modern era!*), the Church could not have received her teachings from Scripture.

I would say this is a stretch. They had the original writings (or copies thereof) and knew which were inspired and which weren’t.

 

[seekerofanswers]

I think a similar question is presented by Jews (in Jesus’ time) and atheists (in modern times).

That is: how can someone who looks like a man, walking around in a robe and sandals, actually be Divine? He looks like every single other ordinary human being I’ve ever met!

How would you respond to someone who poses this to you, seeker?

I would respond that I don’t know, it is a mystery! This is a different question, though, because the miracles done by Jesus and the Apostles involving transformation actually had visible evidence of their occurrence. Imagine if Jesus had said, after transforming water into wine: “Don’t worry if it looks and tastes like water, its substance is wine!” People would have laughed at Him. Merry Christmas!

 

[seekerofanswers]

Do you think these non-Catholic Christians are “bowing down” to that rock, or the musicians? Or could it be that they have assumed this posture during the altar call as one of humility before God?

To be honest, I believe it does look like they are bowing down to the rock, which is just as strange as Catholics bowing to statues. I sometimes assume this posture as one of humility before God, but I would never do it facing a statue, because that would be bowing to a statue.

I hope you had a wonderful Christmas!

 

[seekerofanswers]

Why was that such a “blow”?

It was a blow in that it shook my view of my faith.

Yes, there are plenty of Protestants and others who come in here misrepresenting themselves just for entertainment purposes.

That certainly does give them a poor image, if anything.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong, and you are not one of them!

If I wasn’t so privacy conscious I would take a photo of myself at my parish to prove it to you.

I am puzzled why you are “questioning” your faith from a foundation of Protestant ideas.

In all honesty, some of the interpretations of Scripture that I have posted were what I initially interpreted when reading certain passages for the first time. I later came to understand that these were protestant positions. For some of the interpretations that I posted, it was vice versa.

How did you happen to become fond of Sola Scriptura?

As I stated above, I (incorrectly) believed that the Church’s teachings were entirely based in Scripture. In a sense, I was always “fond” of it.

BTW, wikipedia is probably not the best source for information about Catholicism.

Some articles are very well done, though! I try to check the sources as much as I can to make sure the information is verifiable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

The fact is, the only reason we have for considering the possibility that Jesus did have brothers by Mary, his mother, was the use of the translated word “brothers” to describe some of his male relations in particular passages.

The problem here is that without knowing how words to describe kinship relationships were used in Aramaic or Greek at that time, it is very easy to misread the actual meaning of texts from the time.

Take this example:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.(John 19:25-27)

It appears that three women stood by the cross: 1) Mary, the mother of Jesus, 2) her sister who was also named Mary and 3) Mary Magdalen.

Taken literally, this would mean that the parents of Mary, the mother of Jesus, actually named two of their daughters with the same name, Mary. Why on earth would they have done such a thing? Could it be that they didn’t, and a plausible explanation is that the word “sister” meant something other than daughters of the same two parents?

This exemplifies a problem with “being lead” to make decisions regarding affiliation with particular denominations based upon inadequate understanding of the questions which present an issue for you in this thread.

 

[JRKH]

The fact is, the only reason we have for considering the possibility that Jesus did have brothers by Mary, his mother, was the use of the translated word “brothers” to describe some of his male relations in particular passages.

The problem here is that without knowing how words to describe kinship relationships were used in Aramaic or Greek at that time, it is very easy to misread the actual meaning of texts from the time.

Take this example:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalen. 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. 27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.(John 19:25-27)

It appears that three women stood by the cross: 1) Mary, the mother of Jesus, 2) her sister who was also named Mary and 3) Mary Magdalen.

Taken literally, this would mean that the parents of Mary, the mother of Jesus, actually named two of their daughters with the same name, Mary. Why on earth would they have done such a thing? Could it be that they didn’t, and a plausible explanation is that the word “sister” meant something other than daughters of the same two parents?

This exemplifies a problem with “being lead” to make decisions regarding affiliation with particular denominations based upon inadequate understanding of the questions which present an issue for you in this thread.

Nicely put.
Your point about how things might have been termed in the languages of the time - mainly Aramaic and Greek - is an important one and yet another reason why we place our trust in Holy Mother Church and Apostolic succession. In the living memory of the Church passed down from generation to generation is a sound understanding of what the originals meant, even if we do not still have the original autographs.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

I would say this is a stretch. They had the original writings (or copies thereof) and knew which were inspired and which weren’t.

How was it that they knew what was inspired and what wasn’t?

Think about that answer for a moment, seeker.

Where does that lead you?

Does it tell you that there was, from the beginning, an outside authority (that is, the Magisterium) that told us what was inspired and what wasn’t?

Or are you saying that the early Christians simply knew somehow that the Gospel of Mark was inspired but that the Gospel of Barnabas was not?

 

[PRmerger]

I would respond that I don’t know, it is a mystery!

Well, I hope that would suffice for you, too, as an answer.

This is a different question, though, because the miracles done by Jesus and the Apostles involving transformation actually had visible evidence of their occurrence

But we are agreed that the biggest miracle save for the Resurrection, was the Incarnation–and there was no visible transformation of a man into the Divine, yes?

So it should not be such a stretch for a Christian to believe that someone can appear to be something but ontologically be something else as well? Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

I have protestant friends of different denominations, and the differences between denominations are generally considered to be minor doctrinal disputes that don’t affect their unity as “the invisible body of believers that form the church”.

I think, seekerofanswers, it would be interesting to pose this question to your protestant friends who believe that they have minor doctrinal differences: *which beliefs are major and which beliefs are minor (and can therefore have a diversity of opinion)? And please cite the Bible verses that tell you what’s essential and what’s secondary.
*

You may be surprised to note that they will not be able to tell you, based on the Bible, what’s an essential belief and what’s a secondary belief.

They would be following a man-made tradition on that one.

 

[JRKH]

I get that they are ultimately references to the Last Supper, but my question was more along the lines of: “Doesn’t John 6:33-35 indicate that the bread may be a symbol, since Jesus was not literally made of bread, but was the bread of life?”

The best solution to this dilemma, for me at least, is this…

Do you believe that God was fully in the flesh and blood of Jesus?
If the answer to the above is yes - then…

Why is there the problem in accepting that God (Christ) is fully present in the Eucharist?
Not symbolically - But truly and really…

To me it’s one of the paradoxes of the “Bible Alone” Christians that they readily accept God in the flesh…will argue in favor of every miracle from changing water to wine…to healings…to the multiplication of the loves and fishes…to the OT miracles like parting the Red Sea and yet - for all of that - for all the great power that God has shown - they cannot seem to accept that God can be fully and truly present…Body blood soul and divinity…in the Eucharist.

It doesn’t have to be explained or figured out. Just take Jesus at His word. Just accept rejoice in this great and precious gift.

 

[PRmerger]

To be honest, I believe it does look like they are bowing down to the rock, which is just as strange as Catholics bowing to statues.

And if you were going to continue this honesty, would you say that when you see this that you believe the people are actually worshipping this rock?

Or do you understand, in the context of a Christian church, what is really happening in this scene?

 

[PRmerger]

I get that they are ultimately references to the Last Supper, but my question was more along the lines of: “Doesn’t John 6:33-35 indicate that the bread may be a symbol, since Jesus was not literally made of bread, but was the bread of life?”

A Merry Christmas to you, by the way!

It is indeed a symbol. Just not ONLY a symbol.

 

[JRKH]

I have protestant friends of different denominations, and the differences between denominations are generally considered to be minor doctrinal disputes that don’t affect their unity as “the invisible body of believers that form the church”.

Yes I’ve heard this same argument…and it’s very convenient for them…BUT…when you really start to probe the reality of this “sound bite”, the argument does not stand up.
The Eucharist is a perfect example. Jesus Clearly states in Holy Scripture that if you do not eat His body and drink His blood you have no life in you. This makes this entire passage of great import to salvation…yet do ALL agree on what this means? they do not. Some protestants hold to “real presence” and some to “symbolic presence”.
Baptism is another example. Scripture says we must repent and be baptized…water and spirit…yet there are protestants who reject the necessity of water baptism…
The ability to lose salvation after baptism is another. Some protestants believe you can, others believe you cannot. This is of critical import to how one might choose to live their life.
The NT is filled with exhortations to unity…unity so tight that we become one with Christ and with the father. (John 17:20-21). Paul and Peter exhort that we be of one mind and have no dissensions…Authority is granted to a visible Church in Mt 18:15-18 and that authority is exercised over the universal Church at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15…Yet your protestant friends will try to say that Mt 18 refers only to the “Local Church community”…Which is laughable when, a) it does not say this anywhere in Scripture and b) different local protestant communities, even in the same city come to different beliefs and firmly refuse to use the biblical model for resolving these serious differences…

No - the argument that they agree on essentials just doesn’t hold up…Get a big enough group of protestants together and they won’t even be able to agree on what the essentials ARE. Well - there will be one or two. That 1) Jesus is God and rose from the dead…and 2) the Catholic Church is wrong……

I want to thank you again for being so kind and understanding where I am coming from. Merry Christmas to you as well!

I’ve been on the same journey as you. I am happy to help.
May you be blessed greatly during this Christmas season.

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

I would say this is a stretch. They had the original writings (or copies thereof) and knew which were inspired and which weren’t.

If they knew which writings were inspired and which weren’t, why did it take the Bishops of the whole world from 317 AD until 397 AD to discern the New Testament? And why, after the three Councils had concluded their work, did the Pope wait eight years before closing the Canon of the New Testament and proclaiming it infallibly for all time and for the whole world?

If it were so well known, why didn’t they just compile and close the New Testament in 317 AD, as originally planned?

 

[seekerofanswers]

But we are agreed that the biggest miracle save for the Resurrection, was the Incarnation–and there was no visible transformation of a man into the Divine, yes?

The visible transformation was the miracles that Jesus did. There was always some visible evidence of any miracle of Jesus. This is why I don’t understand why the bread and wine don’t taste like flesh and blood if that is what they are transformed into. People could see that Jesus was divine through his miracles. They could taste that the water he turned into wine was literally wine.

 

[seekerofanswers]

How was it that they knew what was inspired and what wasn’t?

They knew what was inspired based on which authors claimed inspiration.

 

[dmar198]

They knew what was inspired based on which authors claimed inspiration.

Not all authors claim inspiration. The Protestant version of Esther doesn’t even mention God.