Your view on Catholics

[Fignar]

Saw this topic on another thread where I can't respond at all, so thought I would bring it up here, where we can discuss our differences. See what misconceptions there may be, and perhaps gain a bit of understanding.

So, let's have it! What is your view on "The Roman Catholics"?

I did see that the other thread's OP stated that we, as Catholics, are not Christians. I found that interesting as the Church believes that we were began by Christ himself. I would be shocked to find out my Church did not believe in Christ's gift of salvation. Paid for by his own blood. Or that my church doesn't believe in the Trinity. These are things needed to be defined as a Christian I believe. Belief that Christ is our savior. Belief in the Trinity.

 

[grahame]

Hello Fignar.
I am not a Catholic, or to put it in a more Protestant way, I am not a "Roman" Catholic. For all Christians believe in the one Catholic Church. I would rather NOT say that no Roman Catholic is a Christian. For God knows who his people are. We could say just as well that some Baptists are not Christians, or Methodists or Episcopalian or Church of England etc.

I think Christians should be very careful about condemning others as not being Christians. I personally have had some very intelligent conversations with Catholics and have found many to be more open and friendly than a lot of so called Protestants. Indeed these conversations have resulted in my having a deeper respect for Roman Catholics than I had at one time. In fact I can even go as far as to say I prefer to have conversations with Catholics than with most protestants or so called evangelicals. Can I go further and say that I prefer to talk with Muslims than I do with many protestants. No I can go further still and say that I even prefer in this present climate to speak with unbelievers than with some so called protestants.

For on many so called "Christian" or "evangelical" internet forums I find many of them to be very agressive and will bite you if you differ from them in some small matter of doctrine. I find some to be sarcastic and downright rude in their opposition to you.

Yet go to a Catholic forum and I have found the complete opposite to be true and do on the contrary find a unity among the believers there. Is it no wonder that the Roman church laughs at the many different beliefs found in the so called "Protestant" church? For unity is very hard to find. I find it is a wonder that any come to a knowledge of Christ in such an atmosphere of disunity. For does not our Lord Jesus say.

"By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35)

But alas there are some that have a name that liveth but are dead.

But having said that Fignar, there are very important issues that prevent me from holding to many Roman Catholic teachings. For instance could you please show me a verse that tells me that I must accept the present Pope as a direct descendant of Peter the Apostle? For the Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of apostolic succession does it not? And therefore means that he has the same apostolic authority as the apostles when he speaks "ex cathedra", or "from the chair". Or am I wrong here?

Or could you show me one scripture that teaches that we should pray to Mary as good Catholics do and pray to her thus: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." ? When we are told in scripture that

"there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5)

There are just two things I find to be unscriptural. Unless Of course you can verify that they are scriptural? I don't mean to sound offensive with these questions. But they are of great concern to me.

 

[Fignar]

Hello Fignar.
I am not a Catholic, or to put it in a more Protestant way, I am not a "Roman" Catholic. For all Christians believe in the one Catholic Church. I would rather NOT say that no Roman Catholic is a Christian. For God knows who his people are. We could say just as well that some Baptists are not Christians, or Methodists or Episcopalian or Church of England etc.

I think Christians should be very careful about condemning others as not being Christians. I personally have had some very intelligent conversations with Catholics and have found many to be more open and friendly than a lot of so called Protestants. Indeed these conversations have resulted in my having a deeper respect for Roman Catholics than I had at one time. In fact I can even go as far as to say I prefer to have conversations with Catholics than with most protestants or so called evangelicals. Can I go further and say that I prefer to talk with Muslims than I do with many protestants. No I can go further still and say that I even prefer in this present climate to speak with unbelievers than with some so called protestants.

For on many so called "Christian" or "evangelical" internet forums I find many of them to be very agressive and will bite you if you differ from them in some small matter of doctrine. I find some to be sarcastic and downright rude in their opposition to you.

Yet go to a Catholic forum and I have found the complete opposite to be true and do on the contrary find a unity among the believers there. Is it no wonder that the Roman church laughs at the many different beliefs found in the so called "Protestant" church? For unity is very hard to find. I find it is a wonder that any come to a knowledge of Christ in such an atmosphere of disunity. For does not our Lord Jesus say.
But alas there are some that have a name that liveth but are dead.

But having said that Fignar, there are very important issues that prevent me from holding to many Roman Catholic teachings. For instance could you please show me a verse that tells me that I must accept the present Pope as a direct descendant of Peter the Apostle? For the Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of apostolic succession does it not? And therefore means that he has the same apostolic authority as the apostles when he speaks "ex cathedra", or "from the chair". Or am I wrong here?

Or could you show me one scripture that teaches that we should pray to Mary as good Catholics do and pray to her thus: "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death." ? When we are told in scripture that

There are just two things I find to be unscriptural. Unless Of course you can verify that they are scriptural? I don't mean to sound offensive with these questions. But they are of great concern to me.

You don't sound offensive at all, and I applaud you actually responding to me.

First, you are correct about our teachings of apostolic succession. I will get back to this one however, if you don't mind.

Let me address Mary first of all. Or, to put it better, the Hail Mary.

You leave parts out of the prayer, and it is said:

"Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you. Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now, and at the hour of our death"

Luke 1: 28 "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed art thou among women."

Luke 1: 42 "Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb"


This next verse, I give to show of course, that Mary was the Mother of the Lord. I would assume you do believe she is the Mother of God. I could give more to prove that Christ was God, but I don't think I have to on these forums.

Luke 1: 43 "And how does this happen to me, that the mother of MY LORD should come to me"


We believe that Mary is our mother, just as she was Christ's own mother.

When on the cross in John 19: 26-27

"When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman behold, your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home."

The Catholic Church teaches us that this is the point that John took Mary as his own mother. That it shows us what we are to do as well. Fulfill Christ's wishes.

So, while the Hail Mary is found in scripture, and is scriptural, you won't find a verse that just plain as day says "You better talk to Mary" It just isn't in there, but I think we can agree that interpretations that have been handed down for over a 1,500 years now, are a bit less open to error than others. Martin Luther himself, had a great love for Mary.

In his sermon of August 15, 1522, the last time Martin Luther preached on the Feast of the Assumption, he stated:

There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know. And since the Holy Spirit has told us nothing about it, we can make of it no article of faith . . . It is enough to know that she lives in Christ.

The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart. (Sermon, September 1, 1522).

[She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity. (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537).

One should honor Mary as she herself wished and as she expressed it in the Magnificat. She praised God for his deeds. How then can we praise her? The true honor of Mary is the honor of God, the praise of God's grace . . . Mary is nothing for the sake of herself, but for the sake of Christ . . . Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God. (Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521).

Luther gives the Blessed Virgin the exalted position of "Spiritual Mother" for Christians:

It is the consolation and the superabundant goodness of God, that man is able to exult in such a treasure. Mary is his true Mother .. (Sermon, Christmas, 1522)

Mary is the Mother of Jesus and the Mother of all of us even though it was Christ alone who reposed on her knees . . . If he is ours, we ought to be in his situation; there where he is, we ought also to be and all that he has ought to be ours, and his mother is also our mother. (Sermon, Christmas, 1529).

Martin Luther had the belief of Mary's Immaculate Conception, Luther's words follow:

It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin" (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527).

She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522).

Hope that helps the question you have about Mary, and how Catholic's view her. I have been unemployed for almost a year now, and I get to go to Mass on Thursdays lately! I gotta run for now, will be back to answer the apostolic succession one for ya! Thanks for talking with me!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I often try to give Catholics a fair shake and because of it people have claimed that I'm Catholic. However, I have several problems with the Catholic faith.
1) How can they be consistent with Jesus who rebukes the pharisees for their wall of laws around Torah yet pretty much do the same with Canon Law? Have you seen the size of it? I've seen abuse of Canon law especially when it comes to marriage. In fact most diocese have a tribunal which has a dedicated staff to just annulments.

2)Purgatory is obviously speculatively based theology yet its dogma is defined definatively and unlike the trinity which is much more clearly defined in scriptural text. Yet Origen was condemned for his speculation. ie a)When Purgatory is outside of time why doctrinally add time constraints on it? b) If its the renewing fire that is part of the shekinah Glory of God why pray people out of there since its still in God's presense and they are outside of time as well. doesn't make sence to doctrinally define a speculative theological point.

2) Why is the Catachism failing to reach the majority of Catholics with right teaching? I heard a guy say that when his friend died he felt Mary carry the mans soul to purgatory. Nothing in Marian doctrine would indicate Mary to do this neither is this in any purgatory doctrine of the Church but there is no correction to these misconseptions

3)The crux of Tradition is probably best described by Bruce Metzger here

That in the early Church the words of Jesus were treasured and quoted, taking their place beside the Old Testament and being held as of equal or superior authority to it...Parallel with the oral cirulation of Jesus' teachiing were apostolic interpretations of the significance of his person and work for the life of the church. It is natural that when these two kinds of authoritative materials (the rememered words of Jesus and the apostolic explanations of his person and work) were drawn up in written form, the documents would be circulated and read in services of worship - The New Testament Its background, Growth, and Content by Bruce Metzger p. 274

however, besides a very few referrences to very few practices what evidence is there that the multitude of doctrinal issues derived basically (only) from Tradition (part of the 2 headed snake that is considered the entire word of God) has been specifically passed from the Apostles themselves and held in the deposit of Faith apart from the writings in the NT. We can say for sure the writings of the NT are part of that deposit but how about the other things which have changed over the years. There is no evidence that the Apostles originally taught purgatory. Its definately a later development. And I only use that as one example. The earliest find of the veneration of Mary was in the third century. There is no evidence what so ever that Mary was venerated in the NT neither in the Gospel accounts nor in the epistles. In fact by the 3rd century Christianity had progressed under Greek philisophical tutalage as can be seen in the writings of Justin Martyr (who wore the philosopher's robes) that its almost reasonable to see a mixture of Hera veneration confused with Christian motiffs. After all Christianity not being an authorized religion of the Empire seemed to model itself after the common Haterae of that culture. The deposit it would seem was a very bare skeleton indeed with very little to offer outside what is already writen in the NT. The only argument that I can personally see is in the Eucharist but the others I cannot see. The veneration of Mary leads to the immaculate conseption, perpetual virginity, etc... So how to explain he expanded Deposit?

 

[Fignar]

I often try to give Catholics a fair shake and because of it people have claimed that I'm Catholic. However, I have several problems with the Catholic faith.
1) How can they be consistent with Jesus who rebukes the pharisees for their wall of laws around Torah yet pretty much do the same with Canon Law? Have you seen the size of it? I've seen abuse of Canon law especially when it comes to marriage. In fact most diocese have a tribunal which has a dedicated staff to just annulments.

2)Purgatory is obviously speculatively based theology yet its dogma is defined definatively and unlike the trinity which is much more clearly defined in scriptural text. Yet Origen was condemned for his speculation. ie a)When Purgatory is outside of time why doctrinally add time constraints on it? b) If its the renewing fire that is part of the shekinah Glory of God why pray people out of there since its still in God's presense and they are outside of time as well. doesn't make sence to doctrinally define a speculative theological point.

2) Why is the Catachism failing to reach the majority of Catholics with right teaching? I heard a guy say that when his friend died he felt Mary carry the mans soul to purgatory. Nothing in Marian doctrine would indicate Mary to do this neither is this in any purgatory doctrine of the Church but there is no correction to these misconseptions

3)The crux of Tradition is probably best described by Bruce Metzger here however, besides a very few referrences to very few practices what evidence is there that the multitude of doctrinal issues derived basically (only) from Tradition (part of the 2 headed snake that is considered the entire word of God) has been specifically passed from the Apostles themselves and held in the deposit of Faith apart from the writings in the NT. We can say for sure the writings of the NT are part of that deposit but how about the other things which have changed over the years. There is no evidence that the Apostles originally taught purgatory. Its definately a later development. And I only use that as one example. The earliest find of the veneration of Mary was in the third century. There is no evidence what so ever that Mary was venerated in the NT neither in the Gospel accounts nor in the epistles. In fact by the 3rd century Christianity had progressed under Greek philisophical tutalage as can be seen in the writings of Justin Martyr (who wore the philosopher's robes) that its almost reasonable to see a mixture of Hera veneration confused with Christian motiffs. After all Christianity not being an authorized religion of the Empire seemed to model itself after the common Haterae of that culture. The deposit it would seem was a very bare skeleton indeed with very little to offer outside what is already writen in the NT. The only argument that I can personally see is in the Eucharist but the others I cannot see. The veneration of Mary leads to the immaculate conseption, perpetual virginity, etc... So how to explain he expanded Deposit?

These are common things that most people that are not Catholic have issue with. You gave a lot of "meat" in your post. I am willing to address whatever questions you may have. I will warn you however, I know so very little when it comes down to it. I am not graced with the extensive knowledge that some of my Catholic brothers and sisters are, but I do try. I will inform you of Church teaching, if asked, and will freely admit to not having/knowing an answer if I do not. I will however, always get back to you on anything I don't know right off.

Thank you for your response, and I hope to continue talking about things.

Thanks for having me here to btw!

 

[Fignar]

Hello Fignar.


But having said that Fignar, there are very important issues that prevent me from holding to many Roman Catholic teachings. For instance could you please show me a verse that tells me that I must accept the present Pope as a direct descendant of Peter the Apostle? For the Roman Catholic church teaches the doctrine of apostolic succession does it not? And therefore means that he has the same apostolic authority as the apostles when he speaks "ex cathedra", or "from the chair". Or am I wrong here?



There are just two things I find to be unscriptural. Unless Of course you can verify that they are scriptural? I don't mean to sound offensive with these questions. But they are of great concern to me.

Yes, the Catholic Church does teach the doctrine of apostolic succession. You are 100% correct, and honestly I am happy about it, in the regard to ex cathedra/from the chair.

You won't find a piece of scripture that says you have to accept the current Pope as the direct descendant of Peter. Not that says it that clear of course. You would have to believe firstly, that Christ said he would build his church upon Peter. Matt 16: 18-19. This is the Catholic Church's teaching on that scripture. That Christ named Simon, Rock. I can not get into all the translations of petra, and the others, for I am simply not that good or knowledgeable about that side of it.

Through believing that what the Catholic Church teaches about Matt 16: 18-19, you could then see that Peter was the head of Christ's church on earth. Not the entire leader, for only Christ can be the one true leader of his Church. But, Peter was standing in Christ's shoes to lead the apostles once Christ was gone from his humanly form here on earth.

If you believe in what I have posted, saying that as a general reference not a you personally, then you could then see how once Judas was gone, they named another in his place by the laying on of hands.

This began apostolic succession, and it is still practiced today. It has never stopped, nor was broken from the time of Christ.

So, if you believe that scripture for what we believe it to be, apostolic succession isn't hard to grasp. If you don't, then it will always be something you struggle with.

I hoped this helped. There are others better at giving the facts, but I find that sometimes to many facts only confuse the matter. At least to start off with.

 

[annsni]

Fignar - I asked and I don't think you've answered. What is your purpose as a Catholic to come to a Baptist bulletin board? So far you've promoted Catholicism and that is all. What is your goal and purpose to joining here?

 

[webdog]

Fignar - I asked and I don't think you've answered. What is your purpose as a Catholic to come to a Baptist bulletin board? So far you've promoted Catholicism and that is all. What is your goal and purpose to joining here?

I agree. He stated he wanted to reply to questions posed in other threads...yet continues to start new threads here.

 

[Fignar]

Fignar - I asked and I don't think you've answered. What is your purpose as a Catholic to come to a Baptist bulletin board? So far you've promoted Catholicism and that is all. What is your goal and purpose to joining here?

I am sorry, I thought I did answer. I will again.

I came here, and saw that there were questions posed to Catholics, but yet saw no responses to them. I thought perhaps you would want to know what a Catholic really believes. Not what you think we believe. I signed up merely to help bring about some understanding of our mutual faith in Christ. To help bridge the gap between our denominations.

I have simply answered the questions posed to me so far in most threads. I have only started two threads that I am aware of, and it was so that topic could be discussed with a Catholic. The topic was being discussed on another thread where I could not post. The other thread was meant to ask a question that I was not sure where to post it to begin with. I have stated on that thread that if it should be moved, please do so. It was meant for the moderators to post and answer.

I don't mean to offend at all. I am sorry my presence here does that.

 

[annsni]

I am sorry, I thought I did answer. I will again.

I came here, and saw that there were questions posed to Catholics, but yet saw no responses to them. I thought perhaps you would want to know what a Catholic really believes. Not what you think we believe. I signed up merely to help bring about some understanding of our mutual faith in Christ. To help bridge the gap between our denominations.

I have simply answered the questions posed to me so far in most threads. I have only started two threads that I am aware of, and it was so that topic could be discussed with a Catholic. The topic was being discussed on another thread where I could not post. The other thread was meant to ask a question that I was not sure where to post it to begin with. I have stated on that thread that if it should be moved, please do so. It was meant for the moderators to post and answer.

I don't mean to offend at all. I am sorry my presence here does that.

You started two threads. "Your view on Catholics" and "Catholics not accepted?" You state you are a Christian yet it is very clear here that you are Catholic. You stand more with the "Catholic" part of you than the "Christian". There are many topics here that you can discuss but the Catholic beliefs is what you want to talk about instead. You have an agenda to let all of us ignorant Baptists know what the Catholic church teaches when MANY of us have come out of that church and unless our priests and nuns were in error, we certainly know what the Catholic church teaches. I don't go to the Catholic site in order to state my beliefs. I do that here in my own town. I don't even go to the Catholic site to clear up misconceptions about what Baptists believe. The Catholic site is for Catholics. The Baptist site is for Baptists. I don't see the need to go pushing an agenda that is not really needed or wanted here or there.

 

[Fignar]

You started two threads. "Your view on Catholics" and "Catholics not accepted?" You state you are a Christian yet it is very clear here that you are Catholic. You stand more with the "Catholic" part of you than the "Christian". There are many topics here that you can discuss but the Catholic beliefs is what you want to talk about instead. You have an agenda to let all of us ignorant Baptists know what the Catholic church teaches when MANY of us have come out of that church and unless our priests and nuns were in error, we certainly know what the Catholic church teaches. I don't go to the Catholic site in order to state my beliefs. I do that here in my own town. I don't even go to the Catholic site to clear up misconceptions about what Baptists believe. The Catholic site is for Catholics. The Baptist site is for Baptists. I don't see the need to go pushing an agenda that is not really needed or wanted here or there.

I did edit my post while you were responding. I was wrong when I said I did only one thread. I cleared it up in my edit however.

I have tried to only respond to questions that were posed to Catholics. My very first post was on a thread asking Catholics a question.

I am sorry my presence here offends you. On the Catholic forums, we have many faiths and denominations, and for the most part, we remain civil and discuss our differences.

Here, you clearly have a section for non-Baptists to discuss things. It clearly says for All Christians.

I am representing Christianity as you are. I am here to talk about things is all. I can't very well post a Baptist belief, now can I? I don't believe in somethings you guys do. But isn't that what makes Christ so great? He represents us all, not simply one denomination.

 

[lori4dogs]

'Here, you clearly have a section for non-Baptists to discuss things. It clearly says for All Christians."

Many here, don't believe we are Christians. Depite our stating that we believe salvation is by Grace, through faith in Jesus ALL sufficient sacrifice on the Cross for our sins, and believing that God raised him from the dead' (Romans 10:9) They consider us Mary worshipping idoloters who cannot POSSIBLY understand the 'true gospel' as they see it contained in Baptist doctrines (although they seem to acccept their 'millineal exclusion, original sin denying, theisitc evolution believing, types). There are a litany of 'Baptist Scholors' they label as False Teachers IE: Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, FranklinGraham, ect.

The truth is Baptist Churches continuously divide and split over doctrine and false teaching that crops up in the their local churches. There has always been a crisis of authority in Baptist churches because they advered to local 'autonomy' of the church. There for several of the Baptist churches in our area who have left the Baptist conventions they were associated with in favor of interdenominatin affililiations and they are flourishing. Not so with the Baptist churches. They continue to shrink or close.

 

[billwald]

I think the percentage of regenerate Catholics is about the same as the percentage of regenerate Protestants is about the same as the percentage of regenerate Mormons . . . .

 

[Fignar]

I think the percentage of regenerate Catholics is about the same as the percentage of regenerate Protestants is about the same as the percentage of regenerate Mormons . . . .

True to some extent.

 

[Darron Steele]

Saw this topic on another thread where I can't respond at all, so thought I would bring it up here, where we can discuss our differences. See what misconceptions there may be, and perhaps gain a bit of understanding.

So, let's have it! What is your view on "The Roman Catholics"? ...

My view on Roman Catholics is not shared by everyone here.

I believe:
1) Catholics, whether Christians or not, are people,
2) Being people, they should be treated according to the standards to which Jesus Christ called us,
3) Catholics are not a group of people we can treat in ways that Scripture prohibits,
4) Catholic individuals may or not be Christians, but devout Catholics in the U.S. at least generally are,
5) Catholic norms vary from world region to world region,
6) that Catholics and the Vatican are two different things,
7) that Catholics now should not be impugned for Catholic clergy past,
8) some of the views common to them are without Scriptural warrant and silly,
9) it should not be assumed that they believe and do everything the Vatican says they should believe and do,
10) Catholics are individuals who think and live as individuals, not automatons,
11) Catholics are not stupid, and are no less competent to tell us what they believe/do than we are to tell what we believe/do.

I...
I came here, and saw that there were questions posed to Catholics, but yet saw no responses to them. I thought perhaps you would want to know what a Catholic really believes. ...

You will find out that many times, that is not really the case.

 

[Johnv]

My view on Roman Catholics is not shared by everyone here.

You view is lucid and concise, and is shared by me.

 

[Fignar]

Thank you for the responses. If you have any questions to ask me, always feel free. I won't start posting my thoughts unless asked however, as I have seen where that goes fast.

 

[Darron Steele]

You view is lucid and concise, and is shared by me.

Thanks.

I think our view is actually that of the majority.

 

[Salty]

My view on Roman Catholics is not shared by everyone here.


9) it should not be assumed that they believe and do what the Vatican says they should believe and do,

.

If an individual does not believe as the Vatican says - then they are not a Roman Catholic, they are only a RCINO (RC in name only)

Salty

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thank you for the responses. If you have any questions to ask me, always feel free. I won't start posting my thoughts unless asked however, as I have seen where that goes fast.

You never really answered my last question. I was hoping for a good discussion about it rather than "its the general problem protestants have with Catholics. Well? I'm curious.