Catholic Questions.

[D28guy]

PeterMeansRock,

Welcome to the board. I was raised in the Catholic Church of Rome but was gloriously brought into the body of Christ in 1982. Of course God plugged me into the bible believing evangelical world.

If I listed all the errors that break my heart regarding the Catholic Church I would be typing for hours upon hours, but the main ones would be...

1) The Catholic Churchs denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ...justification through faith alone, and their substitution for that truth the false gospel that God condemns...justification through faith+works.

2) The Catholic Churchs denial that all born of the Spirit people are to turn to Gods written word, the scriptures, as their truth standard and primary source of spiritual food, and that we all are to test all things against it so we can recognise error.

And their substitution of that the cultic idea that only their *supposed* high and lofty "hierarchial authorities" are to interpret the scriptures...while the supposed "lay" people have no right to do that.

(That is precisely what the Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Jim Jones and David Koresh teach or taught their people.)

Those are the 2 very basic, foundational errors of Catholicism, and all the others flow from those, imo.


And by the way, as someone else posted, although I am an evangelical child of God I too do not believe that every single Catholic is necesarrily automatically lost because they are affiliated with such an organisation. I know some born again Catholics and am overjoyed that they are my brothers and sisters in Christ.

If you are born again I am proud to be your brother.

I do believe however that the born again people in the Catholic Church are in the extreme minority and are probably not part of the priesthood or hierarchy.

I have no proof of any of that of course, just my opinion.

God bless you,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

CharlesMeadows,

"That's pretty unlikely. Look at the context. He was aying Peter was the rock. Like it or not the catholics are right on this one!"

Ummmm...no. They are not.

Gods best,

Mike

 

[PeterMeansRock]

My replies, in pieces:

But I think my biggest problem would be the prominence given to Mary. I know that the RCC does not elevate Mary to the level of Christ - but practically it seems there is more emphasis on devotion and prayer to her than to Jesus Himself.

While I cannot speak for every individual Catholic, I can say that the Church's teachings do greatly honor Mary but never to the detraction of Christ Jesus who is our salvation and hope. Mary is the New Eve to Christ's Adam, and the Ark of the New Covenant. The first Christian who accepted Christ into her heart and even into her womb...we greatly revere the mother of the King, but not the point of missing that it is the King who is most preeminently important.

 

[PeterMeansRock]

Jack Chick, Hunt, David Cloud,

Shudders...

One of my main problems with Catholicism, like Charles, is the Marian '

For those who don't Habla Greek, υπερδουλια = "hyperdulia".

Three terms used to describe forms of worship are:
Dulia, Hyperdulia, and Latria

We pray to God with our minds aware that he is Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, and this awareness is latria. We pray to our Lady with our minds aware that she is God's noblest and holiest creature, Mother of Jesus and of his Church, and this awareness is hyperdulia. We pray to our brothers and sisters, the saints, and to the angels, with our minds aware that they are our models, patrons, and intercessors, who offer our prayers to God before the throne of the Lamb (Rev. 4:10, 5:6-14), and this awareness is dulia. It is not necessary for men and women here at prayer explicitly to know these technical terms. It is necessary only to know that God is God and all others are not God.

 

[PeterMeansRock]

Could you clarify your definition of "his Church"?

Broadly: The Church is the body of believers.

Slightly less broadly: That body is composed of people who are heirs to the kingdom through the Son, Christ Jesus. Some are prophets, some apostles, some teachers (1 cor 12:29), though not all are.

Jesus gave us - and the Church he Founded on Peter and the Apostles (Matt 16, 18) had - bishops, priests and deacons. The apostles handed on their authority to others through the laying on of hands...This has continued even unto this day and most properly is a quality of the Church he intended to found.

It is this church, incidentally, which is the reason that you have 27 books in your NT and know that to be correct.

 

[PeterMeansRock]

hey, I'm a philosophy major too! Did you specialize in any particular philosopher or philosophical period?

Mostly general. Definitely not a modern/postmodern...though I was early on in my spiritual journey...

My biggest issue with Catholic practice is praying to other entities than the Godhead. Mary, the saints, etc. The explanation I've always heard is that it is not different than asking a friend to pray for you. Yes, except one small detail, the saints are DEAD!

Very good point. So you'd admit that IF the saints can hear us then the practice is no more morally problematic than asking you here on earth to pray for me, no?

Let us clarify what would otherwise be a misunderstanding:

Classically, "To pray" means "to ask" and is different from "to worship". So "praying" to the saints is merely asking them. We pray to and worship god, but only pray to the saints.

Well, we know first off that we are surrounded by "such a great cloud of witnesses" (Heb 1), which includes even the OT heroes and fathers and certainly those in the new.

We also know that those in heaven can present the prayers of the saints on earth in a manner like incense rising to heaven (Rev 5:8). So, it WOULD seem that others, including those in heaven, can present our prayers (petitions) to god, just like you can.


Similarly the angels do this as well (Rev 8) and we know that they watch over us and simultaneously behold the face of God in heaven (Matt 18:10)

Does that help?

 

[PeterMeansRock]

And besides, if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, which He is, then what's the point? ... I don't need to ask something of a dead believer (who can't hear me anyway).

The exact same as me asking you to pray for me. By your rationale, St. Paul was wasting his time asking for prayers on his behalf...and I'd be wasting my time asking you to pray for me...but was he and am i?

The body of Christ is ONE, it is connected and all parts help all parts. Death does not separate us. Abraham Isaac and Jacob are living, for God is not the god of the Dead! (Mark 12:26-27)

I was raised in the Catholic church. My main concern, although I have many, is the issue of transubstantiation and the continued unbloody sacrifice of Christ in the Mass in light of Hebrews chapter 10.

Good Question.

Quite simply, Heb 10 is speaking of the old covenant and animal sacrifices for the remission of sins of Israel. That was then, in the past, and is no longer a part of what we have.

Christ is not "re-sacrificed", but his ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice is made present now always. It is eternal and always with us - and that is what the Eucharist is.

Christ is very clear that he is giving us his FLESH to eat in John 6, and in the Last supper discourses where he says "this IS my body" and "this IS my blood".

Paul is clear too when he writes:

"Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself, and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself." (1 Cor 11:27-29)

As for "transubstantiation", all that means is that the substance of the item in question has changed.

E.G.: Fido is my faithful dog. I love him. One day fido runs into traffic and is hit and killed. Sitting before me I have the body of my dog...but I do not have my dog. He has been substantially changed from a living animal to fertilizer, though he still looks remarkably the same (barring skid marks).

So too does the Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ become present for us under the appearance of bread and wine.

I find it funny that people can refuse to believe that god could become bread, but not that he could become man...think on that...

 

[PeterMeansRock]

What if Peter means pebble

Good question.

Petros can mean pebble in Greek whereas Petra means rock. However Christ named Simon in Aramaic, and the Transliteration of that is present when Paul calls Peter "Cephas". That's not Greek. Its an Aramaic word "Kepha" spelled in Greek letters. And it means "ROCK", period.

Moreover, Jesus gives peter a threefold blessing in that infamous passage, each blessing being explained by it's other half.

A1 "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah for A2 flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my father in heaven"

B1 "And I say to you you are ROCK (kepha/Petros), and B2 upon this rock (kepha/petra) I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

C1 "And I will give to you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that C2 whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus is naming Simon ROCK, very clearly. A name not ever given before.

Then there is the consistent witness of the Early Church Fathers which I'll not go into presently as I doubt you'll care much.

Does that help?

Pax Christi,

-Justin
(I'll reply to the rest later...I just wanted to get these out since I wrote them a while ago...)

 

[PeterMeansRock]

Yes, I've heard that one too. That Christ was making a play on words in the Greek - petra/petros - saying that Peter was a pebble, but upon this boulder (Himself) He would build the church.

Consider this phrase: "I have a truck and a car which is blue."

Which one is blue? The Car, according to language grammattics not confined to english only.

Jesus is talking about Peter and calls him "ROCK" and in the same breath says that on that rock he'd build his church. It doesn't make grammatical sense for the Rock to not be peter.

Moreover, Jesus is giving Peter a great blessing, three fold as discussed above. He's giving Peter the Keys to the Kingdom (as foreshadowed in the OT, See: Isaiah 22:20f). Why? Because Peter is that Rock!

It amazes me that Catholic apologists feel they have to say such things. We all know that. When we say they are "dead" its because they have experienced their physical death and we are to never attempt to contact them.

Then how can they present our prayers like incense before the Father? How can we call them a "great cloud of witnesses"?

Conjuring the dead is one thing. Praying to them is another.

We pray, and in doing so, God himself makes possible their ability to know our prayers, and they in turn then intercede for us.

Prayer isn't only about asking. It's about becomming more closely one with the Body of Christ - which is One.

Of course God plugged me into the bible believing evangelical world.

Catholic's ar bible believing Christians. "Ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ" says St. Jerome, who penned the Latin Vulgate.

1) The Catholic Churchs denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ...justification through faith alone, and their substitution for that truth the false gospel that God condemns...justification through faith+works.

The ONLY time the phrase "Faith alone" is mentioned in the bible is here:

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).

2) The Catholic Churchs denial that all born of the Spirit people are to turn to Gods written word, the scriptures, as their truth standard and primary source of spiritual food, and that we all are to test all things against it so we can recognise error.

Show me where the Scriptures say that the scriptures are the standard and primary source of spiritual food.

"I commend you," says St. Paul, "because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2),

and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

1 Thes 5:12 tells us that there are people over us, who are there to instruct us because not everything was written down - nor was it necessary that ll things be written down. Christ gave us a Church, with "episcopoi" (gk- overseers, aka bishops), and this was functional before the scriptures were written because the scriptures mention them.

This Church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 tim 3:15)

And Paul tells Timothy "Take as your norm the sound words you heard from me. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit which dwells in us" 2 tim 1:13-14

The Holy Spirit is what kept the church faithful from the beginning to the present.

And their substitution of that the cultic idea that only their *supposed* high and lofty "hierarchial authorities" are to interpret the scriptures

As upposed to your "high and lofty" self which is able to interpret infallibly?

Who better than those to whome Christ said "Whatever you bind on earth will have already been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven" (Matt 18)

Not all are teachers...but some are. Not all have had hands lain upon them in a valid succession - but some have.

If you are born again I am proud to be your brother.

Thanks.

I do believe however that the born again people in the Catholic Church are in the extreme minority and are probably not part of the priesthood or hierarchy.

Which leaves me wondering just how many bishops and priests you know well...

I have no proof of any of that of course, just my opinion.

But yours is infallible?

 

[PeterMeansRock]

WARNING: I tend to be thorough!

 

[Charles Meadows]

The "wordplay in the Greek" has been put forth for years to counter the catholic arguments for the papacy. But as such it has emerged because of necessity and NOT because of likelihood. The ONLY reason to see rock as not referring to Peter is to attempt to weaknen that catholic argument. That being said I do NOT agree with the papacy arguments - but I don't think that legitimizes bad arguments.

Also, consider the Yalqut Sh'moni Midrashim. God tells Abraham that he is a rock (petra used here as a loan word instead of the Hebrew tsur) on which He (God) will build a nation. So there's a good parallel to Jesus' statement about Peter being the rock.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by PeterMeansRock:
The ONLY time the phrase "Faith alone" is mentioned in the bible is here:

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).

You might want to "save your breath" on this one. Having had "discussions" with D28guy on this issue several times, and having made the same simple arguement myself that you yourself make here, I can predict what the response will be. D28 will say that you are obviously "distoring" and "mangling" the meaning of the James passage (despite what it explicitly says!), and then he will proceed to pontificate on how sola fide (and sola scriptura for that matter) are both "truths" that are "thundered forth" in the Scriptures. He will then post a litany of verses which really do nothing to prove sola fide (and they certainly don't overthrow the truth of James 2:24)...so brace yourself.

 

[PeterMeansRock]

The ONLY reason to see rock as not referring to Peter is to attempt to weaknen that catholic argument. That being said I do NOT agree with the papacy arguments - but I don't think that legitimizes bad arguments.

Thank you. Your honesty is refreshing.

There is a parallel, similar to the rock, to the Keys of the Kingdom being given to the Prime Minister of the King to whom authority to "bind and loose" or "open and shut" is given over other ministers in Isaiah 22.

In the Kindom of Israel, the Kings main job was to be off fighting for his land. In his stead he left ministers to act with his authority. But sometimes they could not agree, so to one the king gave his authority - symbolized by the Key to the Kingdom - to one, his Prime or Chief minister.

His authority and power is only because of the King's authority and power, but is nevertheless real.

When Christ the King, the Heir of David, gave Simon the Keys to the Kingom - any first century Jew would have gone "Oh...so THAT's the prime minister of this king".

 

[Melanie]

The Catholic Church doesn’t require or make a person ask a Saint to pray for them. It’s up to the individual. Asking my mom to pray for me is no different than asking a Saint to pray for me and as long as one isn’t trying to summon the presence of some Saint who has passed on, then there’s no harm. quoted from riverm

Of course not....because all souls in Heaven are saints. The RCC highlights some individuals as Saints but there are numberless who led good lives or were martyred unknown...these too are saints.

The dead have souls who live ever on regardless in Heaven or Hell, they are not asleep or in a coma. At the Last Judgement the Lord will raise our bodies to reunite with our souls "in a twinkling of an eye at the Last Trumpet"

 

[jesusrocks]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
First Question to the Catholic Expert: What if Peter means pebble?

Selah,

Bro. James

just a question (definitely some interesting replies already).. in reading that passage, if Jesus were calling Peter "pebble", it would sound like an insult and completely out of place because we are left with these choices for the interpretation of the term "pebble"...

"You are a pebble, Peter"--as in small and meaningless, which doesn't make sense after Peter's confession that Jesus is the Christ.

"I'm going to put a pebble on the foundation"-- pebbles blow off and fall, they are not sturdy building blocks, and immediately afterwards Jesus promises that the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the Church, so putting a pebble on even a sturdy foundation doesn't make much sense.

Do you have another interpretation for this passage that makes more sense? And reading through the Greek, since Church is a feminine noun and Peter is masculine there has to be a change in the Greek to show the difference. The Catholic point about the Aramaic Jesus would've spoken seems pretty solid to me. And besides, Ephesians 2:20 tells us that the Church is built on the Apostles and Prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. To say that Jesus was calling Peter "Rock" and going to "build His Church on him" seems to make sense in light of the rest of the Bible. It doesn't take anything away from God to say that He used men to accomplish His purpose, it only glorifies God all the more because it shows that God can use even the imperfect.

... my two cents.

 

[PamelaK]

Hello Again PeterMeansRock -
Thanks for answering so quickly.

Regarding the following which was my quote and part of your answer:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was raised in the Catholic church. My main concern, although I have many, is the issue of transubstantiation and the continued unbloody sacrifice of Christ in the Mass in light of Hebrews chapter 10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Good Question.

Quite simply, Heb 10 is speaking of the old covenant and animal sacrifices for the remission of sins of Israel. That was then, in the past, and is no longer a part of what we have.

Christ is not "re-sacrificed", but his ONCE FOR ALL sacrifice is made present now always. It is eternal and always with us - and that is what the Eucharist is."

In the Catholic Catechism which is posted on www.vatican.va, I see the following two notations (copied below) #'s 1367 and 1368. They seem to say that Christ is still being sacrificed, although in a different (unbloody) manner, and that Catholics are joining Him also in a sacrifice of their works, praise, prayers, etc. Perhaps today's Catholic understands this differently and you could explain this. I do remember in the liturgy, years ago, asking God to accept this sacrifice.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190

1368 The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of Christians to be united with his offering.

You also mentioned John 6 regarding transubstantiation. After John 6:54 the disciples tell Jesus that this is a hard saying and who can hear it? He is clear in John 6:63 that the flesh profiteth nothing and the words he spoke are spirit and life.

Again, thanks for responding. I know I have not replied in depth but am getting ready for a long trip, will be in and out of the forum tomorrow, and then on the road for Friday. Hoping to check in as often as I can, probably starting again next week (if I don't get stuck in a snow drift

), but trying to beat the clock right now. I'm looking forward to a more in-depth discussion when I have more time. Please feel free to e-mail me if you'd like. Have enjoyed your posts.

 

[jesusrocks]

Originally posted by PamelaK:
You also mentioned John 6 regarding transubstantiation. After John 6:54 the disciples tell Jesus that this is a hard saying and who can hear it? He is clear in John 6:63 that the flesh profiteth nothing and the words he spoke are spirit and life.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I've always found this interesting.

It doesn't seem like a good idea (to me) to claim that Jesus was speaking symbolically because He uses the "spirit". Spirit does NOT mean "symbolic". Otherwise you've just done away with the third person of the Trinity. Furthermore, in my studies of the Bible I have not been able to find a passage where the term "spirit" is used to mean something "symbolic". Perhaps you could help me there?

 

[D28guy]

It was posted,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Jack Chick, Hunt, David Cloud,

Shudders...</font>[/QUOTE]I'm not very familiar with David Cloud.

Regarding Jack Chick, everything I have seen in his tracts concerning Catholicism was pretty good and accurate, but I dont like cartoon style material all that much.

Regarding his stuff on politics, communism, and that Rivera(is that right?) person, I dont know if that is accurate or not.

But regarding Dave Hunt, I would say it that the wise Catholic would read his books prayerfully and soberly. His books on Catholicism are very good, imo.

I wish they would have never needed to have been written, but unfortunetly they need to be.

Sadly,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

PeterMeansRock...

"Jesus gave us - and the Church he Founded on Peter and the Apostles (Matt 16, 18) had - bishops, priests and deacons. The apostles handed on their authority to others through the laying on of hands...This has continued even unto this day and most properly is a quality of the Church he intended to found."

Of course they tell you that...and that you must believe that. It is very very very important for them to convince their people that that is true, and that the Catholic Church of Rome has an unbroken string of this connecting them directly to Peter.

"It is this church, incidentally, which is the reason that you have 27 books in your NT and know that to be correct."

I know someone who used to say this...

"Why, you wouldnt even have a table of contents page if it werent for the Catholic Church!"

(Eyes rolling)

The Catholic Church is an organisation which has brought condemnation on themselves in so many ways, but one of which is adding false books to the true scriptures that Almighty God has given us. Books of course that they must add to Gods word because they support some of the Catholic Churchs false and idolatrous teachings.

With sadness,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

PeterMeansRock,

I said...

"1) The Catholic Churchs denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ...justification through faith alone, and their substitution for that truth the false gospel that God condemns...justification through faith+works."

And you said...

"The ONLY time the phrase "Faith alone" is mentioned in the bible is here:

"See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24).

(sigh)

Oh no. Not that one again. (moan)

I have to say, from this post and others I see that you have all of the stock "pull these out at the appropriate times!" responses ready to go.

I was kind of hopeing that maybe with you being new you might at least say things a lttle differently...or at least change the words around a little bit...alter them a little bit...SOMETHING.

I'm sorry but its just kind of laborious to realise its going to be the SAME...OLD...THINGS, with the SAME...EXACT...PHRASES, representing the SAME OLD ERRORS, all over again.

Oh well. I'm limited on time right now, but I'll come back and get to responding to all of these errors.

And I have to say, you have no idea how much I wish my last computer hadnt of imploded and needed to be replaced.

I'm a computer know nothing and dont know anything about "downloading" and puting things on "discs" and all that stuff. All I can do is put stuff on those things called "documents". I had tons of great stuff that would save me a lot of typing but it was all lost when the computer died...so I have to start all over.

But I'll get to your issues in time.

God bless,

Mike