Some questions about Catholic teaching

[seekerofanswers]

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.

Good point. There are denominations, however, that disagree with this notion and believe that doctrinal differences between protestants are the result of certain left-over doctrines from Catholicism, and that Catholicism is ultimately the problem (they like to go there a lot ).

 

[seekerofanswers]

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

Because Jesus’ miracles were done by Jesus, not a Catholic priest, and they had visible evidence of their occurrence.

• they cannot seem to accept that God can be fully and truly present…Body blood soul and divinity…in the Eucharist.

Reading John 6 on my own convinced me fairly strongly that it is a symbol:

33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world … And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.

Certainly, Jesus is not literally made of bread.

47 Amen, amen I say unto you: He that believeth in me, hath everlasting life.

48 I am the bread of life.

49 Your fathers did eat manna in the desert, and are dead.

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven.

52 If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.

53 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

54 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.

55 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.

So, eating the “bread of life” is a symbol of believing in Jesus. The Catholic view seems to be a proof-text of John 6:54-55, without reading it in context.

When the disciples tell Jesus that it is a hard saying, Jesus does not tell them that it is not just a “saying”. Instead he says:

64 It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.

Some Catholic apologists have argued that since Jesus did not call the disciples who turned away back to Him to explain that it was just symbolic, Jesus must have been speaking literally:

67 After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.

What they miss is that this follows something completely different that Jesus said:

65 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
66 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.

The disciples that walked no more with Him did so when they learned that Jesus knew already who was going to believe in Him and who was not going to believe. They didn’t reject a literal view of Jesus’ earlier words, they rejected Jesus’ teaching of predestination.

 

[seekerofanswers]

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?

Certainly they are not worshipping the rock, but it doesn’t matter. God commanded us to neither bow down to or worship a graven image.

 

[seekerofanswers]

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

Peace
James

All good points here, except for one thing: didn’t the word “church” mean congregation?

 

[dmar198]

Certainly they are not worshipping the rock, but it doesn’t matter. God commanded us to neither bow down to or worship a graven image.

First, bowing down in the presence of something doesn’t not necessarily imply that you are bowing down to it. Joshua and all Israel bowed down before the Ark, which had statues on it, in Joshua 7:6. David bowed down before the Temple, which had engraved images on it and in it, in Psalm 5:7 and 138:2. In fact in 1 Kings God gave instructions for the Temple and included that the people must pray toward it (throughout 1 Kings 8, it is repeated several times), and every time we see them doing that they bowed toward it (Daniel 6:10, Jonah 2:4). The Temple, by the way, had enormous gold statues, 15 feet tall: 1 Kings 6:23-28. Not to mention that there were engraved images of angels carved throughout its walls (1 Kings 6:29).

Second, the statement about making images, bowing to them, and worshiping them, all need to be understood in the sense of making them for worship, bowing to them in worship, and worshiping them which is idolatry. It is similar to the way the Bible says “And beware not to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven; neither be drawn away and worship them and serve them.” Deut 4:19. If you take this at face value it is telling you not just “Don’t worship stars” but also “Don’t lift up your eyes toward them.” But obviously that means don’t look at them in worship. Or “Do not look upon wine when it is red.” Prov. 23:31. It doesn’t mean you can’t look at wine at all; but it means not to get drunk on it. This is clearly a way of speaking in which the first verb mentioned is connected in its intention to the last verb. Therefore making images that aren’t for worship is not prohibited; and bowing down in front of statues but not to them is not prohibited; but rather we see people both making statues and bowing down in front of them, with God’s approval and even command, and thus we know that there is an appropriate use for these things.

 

[aragonjohn1]

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!

Jesus the Christ said Is didn’t He?

Merry Christmas
God bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

All good points here, except for one thing: didn’t the word “church” mean congregation?

Have a blessed Christmas.

 

[seekerofanswers]

Have a blessed Christmas.

To you as well!

 

[jmcrae]

All good points here, except for one thing: didn’t the word “church” mean congregation?

NO, where are you getting this from?

Not even most Protestants think this, since they call themselves things like “the Lutheran Church,” and “the Anglican Church,” which are obviously composed of more than one congregation.

 

[seekerofanswers]

NO, where are you getting this from?

Not even most Protestants think this, since they call themselves things like “the Lutheran Church,” and “the Anglican Church,” which are obviously composed of more than one congregation.

εκκλησια - translated as church, congregation, assembly

translated as assembly in Acts 19:32 DRA:

32 Now some cried one thing, some another. For the assembly was confused, and the greater part knew not for what cause they were come together.

original greek:

ἄλλοι μὲν οὖν ἄλλο τι ἔκραζον· ἦν γὰρ ἡ ἐκκλησία συγκεχυμένη, καὶ οἱ πλείους οὐκ ᾔδεισαν τίνος ἕνεκεν συνεληλύθεισαν.

This is just one example.

 

[JRKH]

All good points here, except for one thing: didn’t the word “church” mean congregation?

The Greek is Ekklesia…
a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a. an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
So yes - it does mean “Congregation” but it also mean s a specific type of congregation. Called out and for “deliberation”…
So - How many “congregations” Did Jesus found? One? Ten? thousands??? I hope that you and your friends agree with me that He founded One Congregation - One Ekklesia - One Church to which He gave authority to bind and loose.

Now follow along with me for a minute…
A Local congregation comes together, deliberates, and comes to a determination on some important point of doctrine. Another local congregation in a different city comes together, deliberates and comes to a different, conflicting, determination on the same important point of doctrine.
We know that the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion and that there cannot be more than on truth. This means that one or the other group got it wrong…or that there are elements of truth and error in both views…

What does Scripture tell us to do in such a case…Can you see anything in NT Scripture that sounds like what I described above and what the NT Church did about it??

Peace
James

 

[jmcrae]

εκκλησια - translated as church, congregation, assembly

translated as assembly in Acts 19:32 DRA:

original greek:

This is just one example.

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? Jesus established only one Church; this is de fide. But obviously HIs Church has more than one congregation; otherwise how could it go out into the world and convert every nation?

 

[JRKH]

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? Jesus established only one Church; this is de fide. But obviously HIs Church has more than one congregation; otherwise how could it go out into the world and convert every nation?

Let’s not get tangled up in this detail…

Christ founded a single ekklesia…Church…“congregation”. That congregation exists in many many places - universally. It remains a single ekklesia.

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

First, bowing down in the presence of something doesn’t not necessarily imply that you are bowing down to it. Joshua and all Israel bowed down before the Ark, which had statues on it, in Joshua 7:6. David bowed down before the Temple, which had engraved images on it and in it, in Psalm 5:7 and 138:2. In fact in 1 Kings God gave instructions for the Temple and included that the people must pray toward it (throughout 1 Kings 8, it is repeated several times), and every time we see them doing that they bowed toward it (Daniel 6:10, Jonah 2:4). The Temple, by the way, had enormous gold statues, 15 feet tall: 1 Kings 6:23-28. Not to mention that there were engraved images of angels carved throughout its walls (1 Kings 6:29).

These creations were direct commandments of God, and God breaks his own commandments. The Great Flood is just one other example.

Also, people bowed towards the Ark because God communicated to Moses from between the cherubims. They were literally bowing to God, not the cherubims. They also bowed towards the Temple because God was literally housed in the Temple, because the Ark was housed in the temple, and God communicated from between the cherubims. These are all examples of people bowing to God. The only time that people bowed to anything but God was when they bowed to the golden snake, and it was consequently destroyed.

Exodus 25:22: “Thence will I give orders, and will speak to thee over the propitiatory, and from the midst of the two cherubims, which shall be upon the ark of the testimony, all things which I will command the children of Israel by thee.”

Catholics literally bow to statues of Mary, while the Israelites only ever bowed to the Ark or Temple because that was where God was literally housed and communicated with Moses.

 

[seekerofanswers]

One Church to which He gave authority to bind and loose.

I still think that Matthew 18:15-18 makes it very clear that binding and loosing has nothing to do with authority, but with helping people recognize the guilt of their sin and reconciling them to whoever they sinned against.

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

 

[jmcrae]

I still think that Matthew 18:15-18 makes it very clear that binding and loosing has nothing to do with authority, but with helping people recognize the guilt of their sin and reconciling them to whoever they sinned against.

And how would they do that, without making their confession of sin to the priest?

 

[JRKH]

It depends on the context, doesn’t it? Jesus established only one Church; this is de fide. But obviously HIs Church has more than one congregation; otherwise how could it go out into the world and convert every nation?

I still think that Matthew 18:15-18 makes it very clear that binding and loosing has nothing to do with authority, but with helping people recognize the guilt of their sin and reconciling them to whoever they sinned against.

I did not ask about individuals…

Go back and look again at the NT…there is another place that gives a better answer to the question I had asked…

Peace
James

 

[seekerofanswers]

And how would they do that, without making their confession of sin to the priest?

By confessing to one another! There is no confession of sin to priests in the Bible.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. - James 5:16

 

[jmcrae]

By confessing to one another! There is no confession of sin to priests in the Bible.

Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. - James 5:16

Check the line before that - "Call the priest … " Why call the priest, if no priest is required for Confession, whether in public or in private?

 

[seekerofanswers]

Check the line before that - "Call the priest … " Why call the priest, if no priest is required for Confession, whether in public or in private?

It is extremely clear that the priest is there to anoint the sick with oil, and not to hear confessions:

14 Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him.

16 Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.