• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

about the Catholic Church

S

Sirach

Guest
Originally posted by D28guy:
Sirach,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"What does the Ten Commandments enumeration mean?

I don't see a major differnce that we can cast judgement on someone or group, they're still the same commandments, and technically, there are more than ten. They still say the same thing."
The numbering is not the primary problem. The problem is that they removed the part about making graven images and bowing down to them.

The reason why they would have to do that obvious.

Mike
</font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

They did not remove anything. They grouped about making graven images AND bowing down to them with the first commandment because they say it deals with having no other God.

Here it is directly from the Catechism:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt1.htm#art1

Jesus summed up man's duties toward God in this saying: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind."1 This immediately echoes the solemn call: "Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD."2

God has loved us first. The love of the One God is recalled in the first of the "ten words." The commandments then make explicit the response of love that man is called to give to his God.

ARTICLE 1
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT

I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. 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; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.3

It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."4
And from another site in the spirit of academic study and truth to what they say - not that I agree, but what they say:

They point out that they do not worship graven images, that they use the graven images as reminders, and it is backed up by Scripture.

"David gave Solomon the plan "for the altar of incense made of refined gold, and its weight; also his plan for the golden chariot of the cherubim that spread their wings and covered the ark of the covenant of the Lord. All this he made clear by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all, all the work to be done according to the plan" (1 Chr. 28:18–19). David’s plan for the temple, which the biblical author tells us was "by the writing of the hand of the Lord concerning it all," included statues of angels."

Similarly Ezekiel 41:17–18 describes graven (carved) images in the idealized temple he was shown in a vision, for he writes, "On the walls round about in the inner room and [on] the nave were carved likenesses of cherubim."

During a plague of serpents sent to punish the Israelites during the exodus, God told Moses to "make [a statue of] a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it shall live. So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live" (Num. 21:8–9).

One had to look at the bronze statue of the serpent to be healed, which shows that statues could be used ritually, not merely as religious decorations.

Catholics use statues, paintings, and other artistic devices to recall the person or thing depicted. Just as it helps to remember one’s mother by looking at her photograph, so it helps to recall the example of the saints by looking at pictures of them. Catholics also use statues as teaching tools. In the early Church they were especially useful for the instruction of the illiterate. Many Protestants have pictures of Jesus and other Bible pictures in Sunday school for teaching children. Catholics also use statues to commemorate certain people and events, much as Protestant churches have three-dimensional nativity scenes at Christmas.

If one measured Protestants by the same rule, then by using these "graven" images, they would be practicing the "idolatry" of which they accuse Catholics. But there’s no idolatry going on in these situations. God forbids the worship of images as gods, but he doesn’t ban the making of images. If he had, religious movies, videos, photographs, paintings, and all similar things would be banned. But, as the case of the bronze serpent shows, God does not even forbid the ritual use of religious images.

It is when people begin to adore a statue as a god that the Lord becomes angry. Thus when people did start to worship the bronze serpent as a snake-god (whom they named "Nehushtan"), the righteous king Hezekiah had it destroyed (2 Kgs. 18:4).

Sometimes anti-Catholics cite Deuteronomy 5:9, where God said concerning idols, "You shall not bow down to them." Since many Catholics sometimes bow or kneel in front of statues of Jesus and the saints, anti-Catholics confuse the legitimate veneration of a sacred image with the sin of idolatry.

Though bowing can be used as a posture in worship, not all bowing is worship. In Japan, people show respect by bowing in greeting (the equivalent of the Western handshake). Similarly, a person can kneel before a king without worshipping him as a god. In the same way, a Catholic who may kneel in front of a statue while praying isn’t worshipping the statue or even praying to it, any more than the Protestant who kneels with a Bible in his hands when praying is worshipping the Bible or praying to it.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Do_Catholics_Worship_Statues.asp
God Bless,
Sirach
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by Living4Him:
Angel is their job description (messenger), saint designates their holiness "sanctos" = holy in Latin.
Actually no Angel in all of scripture is ever called a saint.

In Christ,

Bob
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
It is true that Catholics like pagan worshippers of the family gods - only use images to "represent" or "remind them" of the deity/being that is being prayed to.

So when God forbids the use of images - He is speaking about praying to something that is being represented in the form of an image. (you know - "exactly" what pagans do).

Cath Digest 9/1993 pg 129
Question:
“My husband has been transferred to Japan and we have been here in Hiroshima for about two months. On a site seeing tour the Japanese guide brought me to a Buddhist shrine. There were statues of Buddha everywhere. The guide told me they represented different aspects of life and that the people offer food to the Buddhas and ask for Favors. It made me think of Our Catholic praying to the saints and wonder whether they have anything like the Ten Commandments to guide them.

There were fountains at the gate where pious visitors washed their hands before entering the shrine grounds. Could this be the same as our holy water?”

Ans:
“Very probably the physical washing signifies some kind of spiritual cleansing, AS it does with Us! Some Muslims say prayers on rosarylike beads Just as We do, so there is no copyright enforced on prayerful customs among the great world religions. The Pagan Romans prayed, each family to its Own household gods, JUST as we do to our patron saints. In Old Testament times the gentile had local gods for their town or country, and our Christian Saints eventually supplanted Them!

The Hebrews, of Course, had the mission of Wiping Out such heathen worship with the worship of the one true God, and while they have always had great respect for spiritual heroes, they Never set up any of their own race as substitutes for the local pagan gods!!
They had no need to make distinctions between praying TO the saints for their intercession with god and total adoration of God as the source of everything, as we must!
..

In Christ,

Bob
 

D28guy

New Member
Here is an example of Mary...in the form of a statue...supposedly *not* being worshipped, but only venerated...

Link... Click here

Of particular interest is this part...

"Pope John Paul II places the crown on the head of the statue of Mary, proclaiming her the patroness and "Queen of Cuba." An announcer led the large assembled crowd in shouting "Viva! Queen of Cuba", "Viva! Blessed Mother of Charity", and "We all belong to you Mary."
Mat Almighty God have mercy.


Very sadly,

Mike
 

daktim

<img src =/11182.jpg>
People here have demonstrated that they far from know what the Catholic Church teaches, as I have pointed out with the Catholic Church's own Catechism.


Your Servant in Christ,
Sirach This is where I must strongly disagree with you Sirach. You have pointed out time and again what the Catholic church "claims" to teach, or what their catechism says they should teach. DHK, D28guy, Bro. James, Debbie in Philly, myself, and others who have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with many different Catholic churches KNOW what the RCC actually practices. THAT'S the difference. They say one thing and practice another.

"I am the LORD, I change not..." Malachi 3:6

"We are the RCC, we change when it's convenient."

In Christ,
daktim
 

Living4Him

New Member
This is where I must strongly disagree with you Sirach. You have pointed out time and again what the Catholic church "claims" to teach, or what their catechism says they should teach. DHK, D28guy, Bro. James, Debbie in Philly, myself, and others who have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with many different Catholic churches KNOW what the RCC actually practices. THAT'S the difference. They say one thing and practice another.
It is a shame that you all have had experiences in parishes where abuses abound. The Catholic Church admits that there is a large generation of Catholics not properly taught the faith.

My parish priest has been a priest since 1943 and he is the most caring an compassionate person I know. He truly lives what Christ taught us and he practices what the RCC claims to practice.

The Church does not change in the areas of Faith and Morals. A way of doing things may change, but God's Truths are not changed.

Catholic.com has many articles to help those who have questions about what really happened a Vatican II
 
S

Sirach

Guest
This is where I must strongly disagree with you Sirach. You have pointed out time and again what the Catholic church "claims" to teach, or what their catechism says they should teach. DHK, D28guy, Bro. James, Debbie in Philly, myself, and others who have FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE with many different Catholic churches KNOW what the RCC actually practices. THAT'S the difference. They say one thing and practice another.

"I am the LORD, I change not..." Malachi 3:6

"We are the RCC, we change when it's convenient."

In Christ,
daktim
That's just it bro, you don't know what the Catholic Church teaches, you only think you know. I know a lot of Catholics that have the Catholic Church wrong. Just because you were Catholic does not mean you are correct about the Catholic Church teachings. You, like many current Catholics, have misconceptions on what the Catholic Church really teaches. That is not the Catholic Churches fault for you not taking the responsibility to know your faith. We all have a responsibility to know our faith. Any priest that preaches contradictary to what the Catholic Church official teachings are, is breaking a vow to God - or is ignorant of the teaching. The Catholic Church cannot be blamed for those who are wrong about Catholic Church teachings.

All any of you have to do is show me with links to the Catechism where I am wrong, and I'll change my view. Because I love Christ, therefore I love the truth and rejoice in correction.

Your personal experiances and/or misconceptions do not equate to the Catholic Church teachings.


God Bless,
Sirach
 

daktim

<img src =/11182.jpg>
That's just it bro, you don't know what the Catholic Church teaches, you only think you know. I know a lot of Catholics that have the Catholic Church wrong. Just because you were Catholic does not mean you are correct about the Catholic Church teachings. You, like many current Catholics, have misconceptions on what the Catholic Church really teaches. That is not the Catholic Churches fault for you not taking the responsibility to know your faith. We all have a responsibility to know our faith. Any priest that preaches contradictary to what the Catholic Church official teachings are, is breaking a vow to God - or is ignorant of the teaching. The Catholic Church cannot be blamed for those who are wrong about Catholic Church teachings.
I just don't get it. You sound like you are the only authority on Catholic church teaching, and you refuse to believe any testimony from anyone who is a former Catholic and disagrees with your conclusions on what the Catholic church purports to teach. Yet at the same time you say you are not saying that what they teach is Scripturally sound. Have you ever been a member of any Catholic church? Do you know firsthand what they teach and practice? How come you know so many Catholics who have no understanding of what Rome really teaches? Are we all idiots?

From what I gather above, the correct thing for me to do when I was growing up was to argue and fight the very people I was supposed to be trusting. I guess when they told me that priests have power to absolve sins, I should have stood up and shouted, "Show me the link to the catechism!" When I was taught that Mary was born without sin, contrary to clear Biblical teaching, I should have demanded, "Where's the link?" When the priest told me my friend was deceived about Jesus Christ, and that I needed to trust the Ten Commandments and live a good life, while ignoring the Bible, I should have grabbed him by the collar and said, "You didn't show me a link!!" I know THOUSANDS of people who were taught what I was taught. Remember, I am from Chicago, where MILLIONS of people live. Different Catholics from different parrishes all ended up with the same teachings. Anti-Bible. Where were you with your links when we all needed you the most?

When the pope came to Chicago years ago, we were told to get our trading cards of the saints and pictures of the pope out so we could pray to him while his visit was televised. That way he could bless us and our little pictures. HERESY! HE HAD NO LINK!

If the Catholics are so unscriptural, as you seem to imply, why defend them to begin with? And no matter what you say, until you have attended a Catholic church for as many years as I and the others have, you CAN NOT say you know what they teach.

I'm sure there are Catholic churches out there with sincere priests trying to do the will of God and follow the Bible the best they know how. But they would be the exception, not the rule.

In Christ,
daktim
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
I find the Roman Catholic Church's reverence for the eucharist and its joy in liturgy refreshing. I think we could all spend hours talking about the strange and hokey things pastors and leaders in any Christian denomination do; my question is this: is there any way we can ignore our differences and "be one," like Jesus said in John 17?

My hope for this, despite the fact that God is never wrong, wanes...
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I find the Roman Catholic Church's reverence for the eucharist and its joy in liturgy refreshing. I think we could all spend hours talking about the strange and hokey things pastors and leaders in any Christian denomination do; my question is this: is there any way we can ignore our differences and "be one," like Jesus said in John 17?
The problem with the ecumencal approach to "everything" is that it can not tolerate the "Details".

Why DID so many protestants die for their faith? Why WERE they so willing to lay down their lives for truth if it is really "nothing to hold on to"?

In the case above - even the RCC admits that she is in GROSS ERROR if the non-Catholic view of communion is correct!!

If the RCC is wrong about its blatantly unbiblical claims regarding the eucharist then it is “idolatry” according to the RCC itself!.

The Faith Explained – A bestselling RC commentary on the Baltimore Catechism post Vatican II by Leo J. Trese is promoted as “A standard reference for every Catholic home and library”. Complete with Papal Imprimatur -- Quote from page 350-351

Parenthetical inserts “mine”

The Faith Explained – Page 350

“On this, the last night before His death, Jesus is making His last will and testament.

Ibid. Page 351
A last will is no place for figurative speech (in the Catholic opinion); under the best of circumstances (human) courts sometimes have difficulty in interpreting a testator’s intentions aright, even without the confusion of symbolic language. Moreover, since Jesus is God, He knew that as a result of His words that night, untold millions of people would be worshipping him through the centuries under the appearance of the bread. if he would not really be present under those appearances, the worshippers would be adoring a mere piece of bread, and would be guilty of idolatry,. Certainly that is something that God Himself would set the stage for, by talking in obscure figurative speech.

IF Jesus was using a metaphor; if what He really meant was, “This bread is a sort of SYMBOL of My Body, and this is a SYMBOL of My Blood (not yet spilled – so they were not then participating in sacrifice); hereafter, any time that My followers get together and partake of the bread and wine like this, they will be honoring Me and representing My death”; if that IS what Jesus meant (as many protestants claim), then the apostles got Him all wrong (in the Catholic option here). And through their misunderstanding (can the Catholic document blame the Apostles instead of the Catholic church’s tradition that interjects this RC heresy?), mankind has for centuries worshiped A PIECE OF BREAD as God”
In Christ,

Bob
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
Originally posted by C4K:
No - there is no compatability with works salvation.

It all comes down to that.

Is it "do" or "done"?
It is, I think, a little of both, and that's the thing we Evangelicals have forgotten. Christ has done all He could to purchase our salvation, yes. But if we "accept" that gift, and do nothing with it, we are lost.

And, once again, the key to do-ing is love.
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I find the Roman Catholic Church's reverence for the eucharist and its joy in liturgy refreshing. I think we could all spend hours talking about the strange and hokey things pastors and leaders in any Christian denomination do; my question is this: is there any way we can ignore our differences and "be one," like Jesus said in John 17?
The problem with the ecumencal approach to "everything" is that it can not tolerate the "Details".</font>[/QUOTE]Cannot tolerate? Or chooses to veiw the details as just that - details?

Why DID so many protestants die for their faith? Why WERE they so willing to lay down their lives for truth if it is really "nothing to hold on to"?
Where did I claim that the Protestants had nothing to hold on to?

In the case above - even the RCC admits that she is in GROSS ERROR if the non-Catholic view of communion is correct!!

If the RCC is wrong about its blatantly unbiblical claims regarding the eucharist then it is “idolatry” according to the RCC itself!.
I tend toward the Catholic side of the spectrum as to the nature of the elements, though not to such an extreme; that is, I would argue that Jesus' words were literal but that no substantial change need occur for said words to be literal. My assumption is that you lean more toward the ordinalist side. The question is, Bob, with all possible respect, what if it is nonCatholics like you and I who are wrong about the nature of the Eucharist? Would we be guilty not of idolatry, but of profaning the Body?

This is the kind of thing I would be fascinated to learn more about. Sadly, because of the moats we've dug about ourselves, I can't.
 

Living4Him

New Member
But if we "accept" that gift, and do nothing with it, we are lost.
So true, so true.

The analogy I like to use is this:

God, by His Grace and Mercy gives me a present.
I accept the present and by faith I believe that God gave me a sweater.

However, if I accept the freely given present I can not let the wrapped box stay on a shelf and hope that the sweater will magically jump out of the box and onto by body.

I have to be willing to put His gift to good use by unwrapping the paper, opening the box, pulling out the sweater, and actually put it on.

Now because I had to do "some work" to get to what is inside, did that mean that it's no longer a free gift?
 

tragic_pizza

New Member
living, I think the discussion most appropriately applies to the matter of our conduct following our conversion. Reading most of what Jesus said, and the Epistles expound upon, it is our conduct alone which is the most telling mark of our faith in Christ to others. Moral conduct is a work, after all...
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
I tend toward the Catholic side of the spectrum as to the nature of the elements, though not to such an extreme; that is, I would argue that Jesus' words were literal but that no substantial change need occur for said words to be literal. My assumption is that you lean more toward the ordinalist side. The question is, Bob, with all possible respect, what if it is nonCatholics like you and I who are wrong about the nature of the Eucharist? Would we be guilty not of idolatry, but of profaning the Body?
Well here "again" it gets down to "details that matter".

When you ask about the RCC being correct - do you mean "what if we NEED an RC priest with the majic powers to turn the bread into God?". If that is true - then our NOT having an RC priest means the bread is just as we say "a MEMORIAL" of the death of Christ rather than an 'actual sacrifice' of God "again".

If you mean that the bread "becomes" in some way "god" but without needing the majic powers of the RC priests - then even the RCC is wrong and you are saying that any jo-schmo on the street when celebrating the Lord's supper is able unwittingly to pull-God-into-an-active-sacrifice rather than a memorial. Pretty horrendous thought - but you could "speculate that". Certainly that is not what the RCC claims can happen - so you would be "on your own" out on that limb.

In the mean time - what if the Bible is right? How about that option?

In 1Cor 11 we are told that "AS often as you drink the cup and drink this bread you do SHOW THE LORDS DEATH until he comes" and "Do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" is the valid way to think of it.

In that case Heb 10 is correct - and the ONE time offering on the cross was a "ONCE FOR ALL" single event that put a STOP to ALL sacrifice and offerings.

But that is "just if the Bible is true".

Anyway - I agree that it is fun to speculate about all those non-Bible options. As long as we know that that is really what we are doing.

In Christ,

Bob
 

Living4Him

New Member
In that case Heb 10 is correct - and the ONE time offering on the cross was a "ONCE FOR ALL" single event that put a STOP to ALL sacrifice and offerings.

But that is "just if the Bible is true".
Why do some believe that Christ is sacrificed again and again in each and every Mass, when Scripture plainly states that He was sacrificed on Calvary once and for all? Heb 10:10
Many do not realize it, but Christ Himself offered the first Mass at the Last Supper when He offered (sacrificed) Himself to His Father in an unbloody manner, that is, under the form of bread and wine, in anticipation of His bloody sacrifice on the cross to be offered on the following day.


The Mass is a re-enactment of Our Lord's one sacrifice of Calvary. It is that same sacrifice, not another, Heb 10:12.
We, are in time, and to us it would seem that this one sacrifice was consummated 2000 years ago. GOD, however is outside of time and space.
Everything is now in GOD's eyes, and so we are taken back to that one sacrifice as if it were happening now at each and every Mass.
The Catholic Church teaches that the sacrifice on the Cross was a complete and perfect sacrifice of the Lamb of GOD, offered once.
St. Paul bears witness that the sacrificial rite which Christ instituted at the Last Supper is to be perpetuated, and that it is not only important for man's sanctification, but is the principal factor in man's final redemption.
In 1Cor 11:23-26, St. Paul told how, at the Last Supper, Our Lord said: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until He comes."
During the Breaking of the Bread, we say twice, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us," and a third time, "Lamb of GOD, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace."
Thus at every Mass the faithful have a new opportunity to worship God with this one perfect sacrifice and to absorb more of Christ's saving and sanctifying grace of Calvary. This grace is infinite, and the faithful should continuously grow in it. The Mass is offered again and again, because of our imperfect capacity to receive.


Do you not believe Jesus in John 6:51-58 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

6:52
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat?

6:53
Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

6:54
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.

6:56
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

6:57
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

6:58
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.


Let's Not forget

John 6:60-61,66 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?

6:61
When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.


Jesus didn't say, "Wait you misunderstood me."
 

Living4Him

New Member
Also if it was merely symbolic, why would Paul warn about partaking unworthily? How can you eat and drink damnation if it is only a symbol?
 

BobRyan

Well-Known Member
Your question makes no sense L4H. You seem to "claim" that worshipping before God in an unworthy manner - does not really matter if you have not been able to turn bread into god.

That is a kind of reasoning that makes no sense.

When Cain brought his offering before God - he was not worshipping in a worthy manner - his offering was not accepted. This had nothing to do with his ability to turn fruit into god.

When Annanias and Saphira came to the Apostles with their gift for the church - they came in an unworthy manner, and it had nothing to do with their ability to turn money into god.

The RCC admits freely that IF she is really not able to turn bread into God - then she is guilty of idolotry for worshipping what is essentially - just bread in a memorial service.

Jesus said "do this in REMEMBERANCE of Me" - it is a memorial service - NOT a live sacrifice.

In Christ,

Bob
 
Top