Why are Catholics so bad?

Actually, Axehead, there is no such thing in Catholic belief as Tradition apart from Scripture. There has to be some sort of scriptural link or support, because Catholics believe that God's whole revelation is transmitted by the Spirit through Scripture and Tradition-- linked, not separate.

This also means that many of the things being referenced here as unscriptural in reference to the popes are unscriptural-- but they are not part of God's revelation, that is, not part of Tradition. Kissing the popes ring or carrying him around on a special chair, for example, are 'traditions' in the sense that they are historical customs. You can take them or leave them; they are not essential to the papacy, much less to the Gospel. To say that they are unscriptural is fine; they are not Catholic beliefs, simply historical customs. They are not part of Tradition either and so cannot be binding.

bosco said:

Actually, Axehead, there is no such thing in Catholic belief as Tradition apart from Scripture. There has to be some sort of scriptural link or support, because Catholics believe that God's whole revelation is transmitted by the Spirit through Scripture and Tradition-- linked, not separate.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Maybe you could look at my 40 questions so far and provide the Scriptural link.

This also means that many of the things being referenced here as unscriptural in reference to the popes are unscriptural-- but they are not part of God's revelation, that is, not part of Tradition. Kissing the popes ring or carrying him around on a special chair, for example, are 'traditions' in the sense that they are historical customs. You can take them or leave them; they are not essential to the papacy, much less to the Gospel. To say that they are unscriptural is fine; they are not Catholic beliefs, simply historical customs. They are not part of Tradition either and so cannot be binding.

Click to expand...

Ahhh, very good. Can you point out which ones have a Scriptural link and which ones are historical customs that no one has to follow if their conscience does not allow it?

Thank you,
Axehead

bosco said:

Actually, Axehead, there is no such thing in Catholic belief as Tradition apart from Scripture. There has to be some sort of scriptural link or support, because Catholics believe that God's whole revelation is transmitted by the Spirit through Scripture and Tradition-- linked, not separate.

Click to expand...

-- Really?
Then perhaps you would be so kind as to share the specific Scripture that the Catholic church 'links' with their doctrine that Mary never died, but rather was taken bodily into heaven while still alive...

Here are the scriptures I promised.

ABOUT PRIESTS

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel. (Mt 10:18, 23:5-12)

2. That God instituted any other than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (Bishops, Elders), Teachers and Deacons (Eph 4:11-12, 1 Tim 3:1-13, 5:1, Titus 1)

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father." (1 Tim 3:2, 4, 11, 4:3)

4. That the priest is a very powerful person; "more powerful than the angels, more than the saints, more than the Virgin Mary; even more than Jesus Christ himself, for Jesus Christ has to obey the priest's bidding; and the priest is second only to Almighty God. (2 Thess 2:4, Romans 1:22)

5. That the bishops and presbyters ought to say Mass and hear the confessions of the people, and that the people would go to the priests to confess their sins at least once a year. (Psalm 51:1, 32:5, John 14:6)

6. That Jesus instituted cardinals or any order of monks, nuns, monsignors, abbots, etc.

7. Where does Jesus (or His Apostles) recommend that people separate themselves from society to do penance and become monks, or that women be cloistered in convents and be forbidden to speak with or even to see their own parents? Luke 10:1-12, Mt 5:13-16)

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ.

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass.

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. (Heb 10:10-18)

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. (1 Cor 11:23-27)

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices. (Mt 10:8)

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory. (Luke 23:43)

ABOUT THE HOST

16. That the wafer and not bread and wine was used by Jesus when He instituted the Lord's Supper. (Mt 26:26-28)

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord. (1 Cor 11:26)

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases.

19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive.

20. That the priest alone is to partake of the consecrated wine at the communion, but the same is to be denied to the people who receive only the wafer. (The Roman Catholic church has since changed this position and now permit its people to partake). (Mt 26:27)

Axehead

aspen2 said:

I am claiming that it is not found in the Bible.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

I found this unbiblical nonensense on a Protestant web site.


You Receive Jesus Christ Through Prayer

He is now standing at the door of your heart…can you hear Him?

Revelations 3:20 says, "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."

It does not have to be exactly like this, but here is a sample prayer.

Lord Jesus, I need You. Thank you for dying on the cross for my sins. I open the door of my life and receive You as my Savior and Lord. Thank you for forgiving my sins and giving me eternal life. Take control of the throne of my life. Make me into the kind of person you want me to be.


CELEBRATE!...as you stand as a new person in the eyes of God. The old sin and shame are gone and you are ready to discover your purpose in this life. Begin to walk with God daily by reading the bible and fellowshipping with other believers. Let the spirit of God work in and through you as you begin this new life.

Nothing wrong with praying to Jesus but to think that this sort of thing saves you is not Biblical and leads people astray.

Axehead said:

Thank you. Maybe you could look at my 40 questions so far and provide the Scriptural link.

Click to expand...

Axhead,

If you really want to I am prepared to discuss your “questions” with you one by one. However I am not prepared to do so with the faulty praxis and ridiculous conditions you laid down, nor with the erroneous assumptions you have built in to them. Those must all be cleared up first. That is why I asked some of the questions I did and which you failed to answer.

If you want to discuss your list then these must be discussed first.

1. Where in scripture does it say that all doctrines/practices must be expressed explicitly in scripture?

2. Where in scripture does it say that all doctrines/practices must be explicitly stated in the New Testament?

3. Where is scripture does it say there can be no development in practices or new ones be adopted according to circumstances??

4. Where in scripture does it say that there must be no development in organisation?

5. Where in scripture does it say that Jesus produced a finished product in His Church that must not be altered in any way?

6. Where in scripture does it say that Oral Tradition is not allowed?

7. Where in scripture does it say Jesus told people to work out their own doctrines from a book?

8. Where in scripture does it say a particular word has to be in scripture (as opposed to what the word signifies) e.g. Trinity or Pope?

9. Where in scripture does it say that a practice/structure is only valid if scripture states that Jesus personally instituted it?

My answer to all of these is that scripture does not say any of these. Therefore I decline to discuss your “lists” on the false basis that it does.

Axehead said:

No, I mean "oral tradition" that the Roman Catholic Church has made up without any corroborating witness of Scripture and the Spirit.

Click to expand...

The Catholic Church has not made up any such Oral Tradition

Axehead said:

I certainly agree "The Catholic Church doesn't start with Scriptures."

Click to expand...

Quite right. Jesus gave his teaching to the Church before any of it was written down. It started preaching the gospel immediately. It didn’t wait 400 years until the NT was written and canonised and then say “Now let’s invent some doctrines” as Protestants started to do 1,000 years later.

what may I ask is the apostles creed, it was not even written by the apostles, that is a doctrine, or the Glory Be, again not even in the bible, see I was once a catholic then Jesus saved me.

In all His Love

mjrhealth said:

what may I ask is the apostles creed, it was not even written by the apostles, that is a doctrine,

Click to expand...

How do you know it wasn’t written by the apostles?

But even if it wasn’t – so what? Why should it need to be in the Bible?

It’s a summary of doctrine, like the Nicene Creed.

mjrhealth said:

or the Glory Be, again not even in the bible

Click to expand...

So what? Why should it need to be in the Bible?

Can we only say prayers that are in the Bible?

mjrhealth said:

see I was once a catholic then Jesus saved me.

In all His Love

Click to expand...

If you were baptised a Catholic then Jesus saved you at your baptism.




Protestantism is so contradictory.

At one moment we are being told that the Holy Spirit leads each person into all truth.

The next minute we are told that nothing should be done, prayed or believed unless it is explicitly stated in the Bible.

They complain that Catholics are rule bound and then get all pharasaical about doing anything that is not explicitly permitted in the Bible..

I am maybe missing your list of 40 somewhere, Axehead, but I can start with these 20:

ABOUT PRIESTS

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel. The Apostles were the priests. They were entrusted with a covenant sacrifice and had special authority, not just preaching ability.

2. That God instituted any other than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (Bishops, Elders), Teachers and Deacons. Not a problem-- but 'Apostle' & 'elder' already contain all the features of what Catholics today term bishops, priests, pope.

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father." A priest is not called 'father' as a matter of doctrine, but of custom, as it describes their role. Celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine; but it is followed because both Jesus and Paul described it as the 'better way', and so we try to follow the better way.

4. That the priest is a very powerful person; "more powerful than the angels, more than the saints, more than the Virgin Mary; even more than Jesus Christ himself, for Jesus Christ has to obey the priest's bidding; and the priest is second only to Almighty God. The priest being a more 'powerful' person than anyone at all, including you or me, is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. Certainly there is no Catholic belief that they are more powerful than angels or saints or Mary-- and to say that Jesus Christ has to do the priest's bidding would be considered heresy by the Catholic Church. This would be outright unacceptable to any believing Catholic according to the Church's own teachings.

5. That the bishops and presbyters ought to say Mass and hear the confessions of the people, and that the people would go to the priests to confess their sins at least once a year. When Jesus said 'do this in memory of me' with the covenant sacrifice and administered to the Apostles the Holy Spirit specifically for the remission of sins in John 20. It is not in fact a Church discipline that one confess once per year, unless in the state of serious sin; you may be thinking of the Church law to receive communion at least once per year.

6. That Jesus instituted cardinals or any order of monks, nuns, monsignors, abbots, etc. The Catholic Church does not claim any such thing and never has. These are either (in the case of monks or nuns) believed to be ways of living the Gospel that the Holy Spirit has inspired over the centuries or (in the case of monsignors, cardinals) titles of distinction, not of actual spiritual gift or ability. None of these were instituted by Jesus. No argument there.

7. Where does Jesus (or His Apostles) recommend that people separate themselves from society to do penance and become monks, or that women be cloistered in convents and be forbidden to speak with or even to see their own parents? No one recommends this even today, much less in Jesus' time. There is no requirement to do this. Some people have chosen to; when they do, they can freely leave. Plenty of monks and nuns are able to freely see their own parents, and certainly no one has to become a monk or nun in the first place.

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ. The Mass is believed to be the one-time, once-for-all sacrifice of the Last Supper/Calvary extended throughout time. Thus, Christ instituted it at the Last Supper/Calvary.

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass. Again, the Last Supper, where Jesus both offered it and commanded the Apostles to do so, followed by the 'breaking of the bread' described in the NT and Paul's teaching about offering the Lord's Supper (given to the Corinthians).

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Jesus Himself says that it is His body offered for sins and His blood poured out as the seal of a new covenant. That is a sacrifice. But it is not a repitition of the sacrifice, but a re-presentation. There is only one Mass, offered once for all: Calvary. All that is done is that this sacrifice is made present once again in a special way to us.

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. I don't know why it wouldn't be considered so? It is the offering of Jesus' body & blood in worship as well as in fellowship with other members of the body. I am not sure what you think is essentially different?

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days. Sundays, from the earliest days of Christianity, were treated with the same binding power as the sabbath-- in fact, it is the sabbath of the new covenant, thanks to Jesus making that day infinitely more holy by rising on that day. You wouldn't have to look far in scripture to see that the sabbath law was taken quite seriously by the Lord; and with the new covenant sacrifice being offered, it follows that this is the special worship, along with rest from unnecessary work, that would be expected on this day. With feast days this is a binding discipline rather than a doctrine, but I would argue that it simply grows from the application of reason-- certain days which celebrate key truths about revealed truth should be mandatory celebrations by members of the body. Strictly speaking however, that is discipline rather than doctrine.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices. This too is not a requirement. It grows from 'the laborer is worth his pay.' The money is to be used as a stipend for the priest and/or the cost of materials used for the church. Priests may celebrate Mass without taking money at all, certainly. This is not doctrine or even discipline, but rather custom.

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die. One doesn't have to pay for it to receive spiritual blessings, but certainly if Mass is offered for a specific person or intention, we believe we are calling down the Holy Spirit for a specific intention. Again, that doesn't have to be 'paid for', as I said above. To expect a spiritual blessing from it is no different than your aunt expecting a spiritual blessing if your Bible Study group interceded specifically for her Wednesday night.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory. Again, I don't know why it wouldn't aid souls in purgatory (and by the way, 'burning' in purgatory is not a doctrine either). If prayers can (which Catholics believe), and the Mass is believed to be the greatest worship we can offer God because it is offering the body and blood of Jesus Himself back to the Father, then it stands to reason that would have the greatest spiritual blessings for souls being purified for heaven.

ABOUT THE HOST

16. That the wafer and not bread and wine was used by Jesus when He instituted the Lord's Supper. This is not and never has been a Catholic belief. He is believed to have used the bread for the Passover meal, not a 'wafer'.

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord. Well, He said it would at the Last Supper and in John 6-- Paul certainly thought so when He taught the Corinthians this as well.

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases. Why not? He is under the form of bread. When He became man, the living Christ could be struck, abused, ridiculed, use the bathroom, eat food, spit, etc.... why is this any more outrageous than the humility He already shows in the Incarnation?

19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive. I guess the same way He could multiply a few loaves into enough to feed thousands and have enough left over. He said it would be His body, not part of His body; He's pretty good with bread miracles, the Gospels tell us.

20. That the priest alone is to partake of the consecrated wine at the communion, but the same is to be denied to the people who receive only the wafer. (The Roman Catholic church has since changed this position and now permit its people to partake). Again, that was a custom. That's why it can change. Catholic teaching is that one receives the body and the blood when receiving communion. Recieving from the chalice is a fuller symbol, but is not necessary to receive the fullness of Jesus in communion.

bosco said:

I am maybe missing your list of 40 somewhere, Axehead, but I can start with these 20:

ABOUT PRIESTS

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel. The Apostles were the priests. They were entrusted with a covenant sacrifice and had special authority, not just preaching ability.

2. That God instituted any other than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (Bishops, Elders), Teachers and Deacons. Not a problem-- but 'Apostle' & 'elder' already contain all the features of what Catholics today term bishops, priests, pope.

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father." A priest is not called 'father' as a matter of doctrine, but of custom, as it describes their role. Celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine; but it is followed because both Jesus and Paul described it as the 'better way', and so we try to follow the better way.

4. That the priest is a very powerful person; "more powerful than the angels, more than the saints, more than the Virgin Mary; even more than Jesus Christ himself, for Jesus Christ has to obey the priest's bidding; and the priest is second only to Almighty God. The priest being a more 'powerful' person than anyone at all, including you or me, is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. Certainly there is no Catholic belief that they are more powerful than angels or saints or Mary-- and to say that Jesus Christ has to do the priest's bidding would be considered heresy by the Catholic Church. This would be outright unacceptable to any believing Catholic according to the Church's own teachings.

5. That the bishops and presbyters ought to say Mass and hear the confessions of the people, and that the people would go to the priests to confess their sins at least once a year. When Jesus said 'do this in memory of me' with the covenant sacrifice and administered to the Apostles the Holy Spirit specifically for the remission of sins in John 20. It is not in fact a Church discipline that one confess once per year, unless in the state of serious sin; you may be thinking of the Church law to receive communion at least once per year.

6. That Jesus instituted cardinals or any order of monks, nuns, monsignors, abbots, etc. The Catholic Church does not claim any such thing and never has. These are either (in the case of monks or nuns) believed to be ways of living the Gospel that the Holy Spirit has inspired over the centuries or (in the case of monsignors, cardinals) titles of distinction, not of actual spiritual gift or ability. None of these were instituted by Jesus. No argument there.

7. Where does Jesus (or His Apostles) recommend that people separate themselves from society to do penance and become monks, or that women be cloistered in convents and be forbidden to speak with or even to see their own parents? No one recommends this even today, much less in Jesus' time. There is no requirement to do this. Some people have chosen to; when they do, they can freely leave. Plenty of monks and nuns are able to freely see their own parents, and certainly no one has to become a monk or nun in the first place.

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ. The Mass is believed to be the one-time, once-for-all sacrifice of the Last Supper/Calvary extended throughout time. Thus, Christ instituted it at the Last Supper/Calvary.

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass. Again, the Last Supper, where Jesus both offered it and commanded the Apostles to do so, followed by the 'breaking of the bread' described in the NT and Paul's teaching about offering the Lord's Supper (given to the Corinthians).

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Jesus Himself says that it is His body offered for sins and His blood poured out as the seal of a new covenant. That is a sacrifice. But it is not a repitition of the sacrifice, but a re-presentation. There is only one Mass, offered once for all: Calvary. All that is done is that this sacrifice is made present once again in a special way to us.

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. I don't know why it wouldn't be considered so? It is the offering of Jesus' body & blood in worship as well as in fellowship with other members of the body. I am not sure what you think is essentially different?

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days. Sundays, from the earliest days of Christianity, were treated with the same binding power as the sabbath-- in fact, it is the sabbath of the new covenant, thanks to Jesus making that day infinitely more holy by rising on that day. You wouldn't have to look far in scripture to see that the sabbath law was taken quite seriously by the Lord; and with the new covenant sacrifice being offered, it follows that this is the special worship, along with rest from unnecessary work, that would be expected on this day. With feast days this is a binding discipline rather than a doctrine, but I would argue that it simply grows from the application of reason-- certain days which celebrate key truths about revealed truth should be mandatory celebrations by members of the body. Strictly speaking however, that is discipline rather than doctrine.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices. This too is not a requirement. It grows from 'the laborer is worth his pay.' The money is to be used as a stipend for the priest and/or the cost of materials used for the church. Priests may celebrate Mass without taking money at all, certainly. This is not doctrine or even discipline, but rather custom.

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die. One doesn't have to pay for it to receive spiritual blessings, but certainly if Mass is offered for a specific person or intention, we believe we are calling down the Holy Spirit for a specific intention. Again, that doesn't have to be 'paid for', as I said above. To expect a spiritual blessing from it is no different than your aunt expecting a spiritual blessing if your Bible Study group interceded specifically for her Wednesday night.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory. Again, I don't know why it wouldn't aid souls in purgatory (and by the way, 'burning' in purgatory is not a doctrine either). If prayers can (which Catholics believe), and the Mass is believed to be the greatest worship we can offer God because it is offering the body and blood of Jesus Himself back to the Father, then it stands to reason that would have the greatest spiritual blessings for souls being purified for heaven.

ABOUT THE HOST

16. That the wafer and not bread and wine was used by Jesus when He instituted the Lord's Supper. This is not and never has been a Catholic belief. He is believed to have used the bread for the Passover meal, not a 'wafer'.

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord. Well, He said it would at the Last Supper and in John 6-- Paul certainly thought so when He taught the Corinthians this as well.

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases. Why not? He is under the form of bread. When He became man, the living Christ could be struck, abused, ridiculed, use the bathroom, eat food, spit, etc.... why is this any more outrageous than the humility He already shows in the Incarnation?

19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive. I guess the same way He could multiply a few loaves into enough to feed thousands and have enough left over. He said it would be His body, not part of His body; He's pretty good with bread miracles, the Gospels tell us.

20. That the priest alone is to partake of the consecrated wine at the communion, but the same is to be denied to the people who receive only the wafer. (The Roman Catholic church has since changed this position and now permit its people to partake). Again, that was a custom. That's why it can change. Catholic teaching is that one receives the body and the blood when receiving communion. Recieving from the chalice is a fuller symbol, but is not necessary to receive the fullness of Jesus in communion.

Click to expand...

Hi Bosco,

Thank you for taking the time to do this. Would you mind giving the Scripture references for the items that are not "custom", as you stated? That seems to be questions 1, 3, 8-15, 17-19. (So, I am to understand that questions 2, 4-7, 16 and 20 are regarded as custom?) Correct me anywhere if I misstated or misunderstood you.

If you look earlier in the thread you will see the first 20 questions.

All the best,
Axehead

bosco said:

I am maybe missing your list of 40 somewhere, Axehead, but I can start with these 20:

ABOUT PRIESTS

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel. The Apostles were the priests. They were entrusted with a covenant sacrifice and had special authority, not just preaching ability.

2. That God instituted any other than Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors (Bishops, Elders), Teachers and Deacons. Not a problem-- but 'Apostle' & 'elder' already contain all the features of what Catholics today term bishops, priests, pope.

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father." A priest is not called 'father' as a matter of doctrine, but of custom, as it describes their role. Celibacy for the priesthood is a discipline, not a doctrine; but it is followed because both Jesus and Paul described it as the 'better way', and so we try to follow the better way.

4. That the priest is a very powerful person; "more powerful than the angels, more than the saints, more than the Virgin Mary; even more than Jesus Christ himself, for Jesus Christ has to obey the priest's bidding; and the priest is second only to Almighty God. The priest being a more 'powerful' person than anyone at all, including you or me, is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. Certainly there is no Catholic belief that they are more powerful than angels or saints or Mary-- and to say that Jesus Christ has to do the priest's bidding would be considered heresy by the Catholic Church. This would be outright unacceptable to any believing Catholic according to the Church's own teachings.

5. That the bishops and presbyters ought to say Mass and hear the confessions of the people, and that the people would go to the priests to confess their sins at least once a year. When Jesus said 'do this in memory of me' with the covenant sacrifice and administered to the Apostles the Holy Spirit specifically for the remission of sins in John 20. It is not in fact a Church discipline that one confess once per year, unless in the state of serious sin; you may be thinking of the Church law to receive communion at least once per year.

6. That Jesus instituted cardinals or any order of monks, nuns, monsignors, abbots, etc. The Catholic Church does not claim any such thing and never has. These are either (in the case of monks or nuns) believed to be ways of living the Gospel that the Holy Spirit has inspired over the centuries or (in the case of monsignors, cardinals) titles of distinction, not of actual spiritual gift or ability. None of these were instituted by Jesus. No argument there.

7. Where does Jesus (or His Apostles) recommend that people separate themselves from society to do penance and become monks, or that women be cloistered in convents and be forbidden to speak with or even to see their own parents? No one recommends this even today, much less in Jesus' time. There is no requirement to do this. Some people have chosen to; when they do, they can freely leave. Plenty of monks and nuns are able to freely see their own parents, and certainly no one has to become a monk or nun in the first place.

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ. The Mass is believed to be the one-time, once-for-all sacrifice of the Last Supper/Calvary extended throughout time. Thus, Christ instituted it at the Last Supper/Calvary.

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass. Again, the Last Supper, where Jesus both offered it and commanded the Apostles to do so, followed by the 'breaking of the bread' described in the NT and Paul's teaching about offering the Lord's Supper (given to the Corinthians).

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Jesus Himself says that it is His body offered for sins and His blood poured out as the seal of a new covenant. That is a sacrifice. But it is not a repitition of the sacrifice, but a re-presentation. There is only one Mass, offered once for all: Calvary. All that is done is that this sacrifice is made present once again in a special way to us.

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. I don't know why it wouldn't be considered so? It is the offering of Jesus' body & blood in worship as well as in fellowship with other members of the body. I am not sure what you think is essentially different?

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days. Sundays, from the earliest days of Christianity, were treated with the same binding power as the sabbath-- in fact, it is the sabbath of the new covenant, thanks to Jesus making that day infinitely more holy by rising on that day. You wouldn't have to look far in scripture to see that the sabbath law was taken quite seriously by the Lord; and with the new covenant sacrifice being offered, it follows that this is the special worship, along with rest from unnecessary work, that would be expected on this day. With feast days this is a binding discipline rather than a doctrine, but I would argue that it simply grows from the application of reason-- certain days which celebrate key truths about revealed truth should be mandatory celebrations by members of the body. Strictly speaking however, that is discipline rather than doctrine.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices. This too is not a requirement. It grows from 'the laborer is worth his pay.' The money is to be used as a stipend for the priest and/or the cost of materials used for the church. Priests may celebrate Mass without taking money at all, certainly. This is not doctrine or even discipline, but rather custom.

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die. One doesn't have to pay for it to receive spiritual blessings, but certainly if Mass is offered for a specific person or intention, we believe we are calling down the Holy Spirit for a specific intention. Again, that doesn't have to be 'paid for', as I said above. To expect a spiritual blessing from it is no different than your aunt expecting a spiritual blessing if your Bible Study group interceded specifically for her Wednesday night.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory. Again, I don't know why it wouldn't aid souls in purgatory (and by the way, 'burning' in purgatory is not a doctrine either). If prayers can (which Catholics believe), and the Mass is believed to be the greatest worship we can offer God because it is offering the body and blood of Jesus Himself back to the Father, then it stands to reason that would have the greatest spiritual blessings for souls being purified for heaven.

ABOUT THE HOST

16. That the wafer and not bread and wine was used by Jesus when He instituted the Lord's Supper. This is not and never has been a Catholic belief. He is believed to have used the bread for the Passover meal, not a 'wafer'.

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord. Well, He said it would at the Last Supper and in John 6-- Paul certainly thought so when He taught the Corinthians this as well.

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases. Why not? He is under the form of bread. When He became man, the living Christ could be struck, abused, ridiculed, use the bathroom, eat food, spit, etc.... why is this any more outrageous than the humility He already shows in the Incarnation?

19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive. I guess the same way He could multiply a few loaves into enough to feed thousands and have enough left over. He said it would be His body, not part of His body; He's pretty good with bread miracles, the Gospels tell us.

20. That the priest alone is to partake of the consecrated wine at the communion, but the same is to be denied to the people who receive only the wafer. (The Roman Catholic church has since changed this position and now permit its people to partake). Again, that was a custom. That's why it can change. Catholic teaching is that one receives the body and the blood when receiving communion. Recieving from the chalice is a fuller symbol, but is not necessary to receive the fullness of Jesus in communion.

Click to expand...

Absolutely excellent Bosco.

OK- found the first 20. I'm a little slow sometimes.

1. Where Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church instead of HIS CHURCH. (read Matt 16:18). It's called 'Roman' because of it's centralization in Rome, 'catholic' because it's intended for everyone. You don't have to call it the Roman Catholic Church; that's just what it's become known as. Heaven knows it wasn't centered in Rome early on, and maybe someday it won't be anymore. But either way that's fairly unimportant, since calling it by that name is not a matter of doctrine. Catholics believe it to be the same Church that Christ taught about.

2. That the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church today, are the same teachings as those of the primitive Apostolic Church which was the Biblical Christian church? I guess you'd have to compare the writings we have both from and about the primitive apostolic Church and see if we see the same things. We would expect growth and changes in perspective given 20 centuries and immense historical, societal & cultural changes along the way, but we should still see the same core beliefs. This would be the only way to compare the two, in my mind.

3. That there is no salvation outside of the Church of Rome? (Read Acts 4:12, John 14:6) Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." No one comes to the Father but through Him... if Catholics believe that their Church is the Church of Christ, then it is teaching nothing different than what Jesus did here. Jesus instituted His Church, and any Church claiming to be that Church would have to teach this, wouldn't it?

4. That UNREPENTANT sinners such as thieves, assasins, adulterers, backbiters, deceivers, blasphemers, idolaters, etc, can belong to the Church of God? (Read Eph 5:5, Rev 22:15). Belonging to the Church in what sense? Unrepented sins are not forgiven-- period. They can show up to Bible study, to Mass, to whatever, but that doesn't mean that they are in good standing before the judgment seat of God.

5. Can you prove from the Bible that Peter was the first Pope? Yes. Reading the keys to the kingdom being entrusted to Peter alongside Isaiah 22:21-22, which is clearly being referenced by Jesus in that instance, and the commissioning of Peter in John 21 following Jesus' declaration about being the Good Shepherd in John 10, shows a clear, special and hierarchical authority being entrusted to him. You wouldn't have to call it 'pope', but the reality is there.

6. That he exercised the office of Pope in Rome for 25 years? That is not taught by the Catholic Church. It is a historical possibility, but not a doctrine.

7. That he was the visible head of the Christian church? (Matt 20:26-28, 1 Peter 5;1) See the answer to #5, mixed in with the numerous examples of his functioning thus in the first 12 chapters of Acts.

8. That he received from the Lord the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Christian church? Again, the answer to #5 applies here as well.

9. That these prerogatives were then transmitted by Peter to the Bishops of Rome as his successors down to the present day? The early Church taught this, and was teaching it less than 100 years after the Apostles (the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons being a prime example of that). Peter himself instituted what is today called 'apostolic succession' with the replacement of Judas; we see it expanding with the commissioning of Paul, Barnabas, etc. Moreover, it stands to reason that if Jesus did entrust a special gift of the Holy Spirit to a pastoral head of His Church, that it wouldn't disappear with the death of that first pastor if the Church was going to continue through time beyond that point.

10. That Peter ever asked or accepted gifts of money "to gather unto himself a treasury of silver and gold" to be called the Treasury of St. Peter", or "Peters Pence"? (Read Acts 3:6, 8:20) http://www.vatican.v...history_en.html This is not doctrine, nor is it binding on Catholics. It's a voluntary collection for the poor.

11. That Peter ever accepted worldly honors such as to be borne about on the shoulders of men on the "sedia gestatoria", the kissing of his feet and many other honors used by pagans? (Read Acts 10:25-26). Firstly, this is historical custom, not binding and certainly not doctrine. The sedia gestatoria, for example, hasn't been used in decades, and I haven't seen anyone kissing the pope's feet lately either. It comes and goes with history. Secondly, the use of wedding rings, handshakes, & many other honors used by pagans are used by Christians with no harm to the Gospel.

12. The the word "Pope" is in the Bible, except its synonym as the anti-Christ. (Read II Thes. 2:3-12; Rev 17:1-10). Paul calls himself a "father in the Gospel" to at least one church community; and in Isaiah 22:21-22, God Himself declares that the minister receiving the Keys to the Kingdom of David will be a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The title 'pope' is a historical creation, not a necessity or a doctrine-- but there is scriptural support.

13. That the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter. Who else is he a successor of? Again, very early & orthodox Christian writings bear out that this was believed long before the elders in Rome held any real wealth or political power.

14. That the Pope is the Vice-gerent of God upon earth and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (Read II Thess 2:3-12). The answer to #5, again.

15. That the Pope is infallible (Rom 3:4, 10, 23). The pope is not infallible; he may declare something infallibly, though. This is a function of the Holy Spirit, not purely of the pope. This is believed by the Catholic Church to be true of ecumenical councils as well (again, through the Holy Spirit, not the men themselves). Jesus saying "the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth" and "whoever hears you, hears me" certainly was not true of Judas; but it was being spoken specifically to the Apostles. Somewhere in the promises of Christ, then, we have to find that the Holy Spirit works through His chosen leaders to make sure the true doctrines He spoke would not be lost, despite the waywardness and sometimes the scandalous sins of some of those chosen leaders. The possibility of the pope declaring something infallibly (something John Paul II never did in 26 1/2 years of being pope, for example) grows from this belief, not from his own power (of which he has none, apart from the Holy Spirit).

16. That the Pope ought to be called "Holy Father." (Read Matt 23:9, John 17:11). Same as answer to #12.

17. That the Pope can canonize saints, i.e. make saints out of persons long since dead, some of whom were criminals (Read II Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1, and Col 1:2). They are not canonized if they were criminals at the time of death, certainly. It is currently what the pope does, but this was not always the case in history (the same as popes being elected by cardinals). It is simply who is chosen to do it on behalf of the Church, believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit to declare someone a heroic example of Christ, belonging to the cloud of witnesses that the Letter of the Hebrews tells us to be attentive to in order to be encouraged onwards to Him.

18. That the Pope ought to have temporal power with soldiers and armed guards and have political sway over all the nations of the earth (Read John 18:36). Certainly not Catholic teaching and not doctrine. This belonged to a time in history when the Church leadership and politics were bound together as one in Europe, which is no longer the case (thanks be to God). It is a historical reality, but never has been part of Catholic teaching.

19. That the Pope can excommunicate churches and individuals, release entire peoples from being subject to kings and republics and place whole nations under ban. Peter did it with Ananias and Sapphira; Paul recommended this practice in his letters. It is not the pope alone who does it, and in fact there are instances in Catholic teaching where one excommunicates oneself by a seriously sinful act-- not dependent on what anyone else judges it by.

20. That the Pope can proclaim a Holy Year every twenty-five years with the promise of special indulgences and remission of sins to those who go to Rome to visit certain churches there. (Isa 1:12-17) It is part of what is believed to be pastoral authority from Christ, binding and loosing with the keys given to him. These special blessings are available year-round for various other activities, but one cannot receive them simply (for example) visiting the Church-- it is always conditional on repentance of all sins, encountering the Lord in communion and prayer on behalf of the Church as part of the same activity. In that sense, all that changes when the pope offers some blessing for an activity is that part of the activity-- the repentance, communion and prayer for the rest of the body are always in effect, all of which are blessed activities in scripture.

Yet another good response, Mungo! I apologize for the lengthy delay in response. Though we differ markedly in opinion in this regard, I admire your insight, steadfastness and tenacity.

Mungo said:

There are certainly cultural differences.
In Portugal for example Christ on the cross is often depicted in quite a bloody state which we tend not to do here. But perhaps we could argue that we sanitise the awfulness of the crucifixion.

Click to expand...

That’s a valid point. IMO, it’s a question of balance. We should rightfully understand the tremendous price Christ paid for us with His redemptive sacrifice and brutal death on Calvary. In my view, there should be a happy medium between a complete sanitization of the crucifixion (which could minimize the immense suffering and significance of the cross) and engaging in gory blood-letting re-religious re-enactments.

Mungo said:

76. Apocryphal books incorporated into the Bible by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.
I presume that you mean the OT books that we call the Deuterocanonical books (a modern term) - Tobit Judith etc.
These books were taken into the canon from the beginning when to Church adopted the Greek LXX version of the OT. This was the version most commonly used by Jews at the time.
They were removed by Martin Luther.

Click to expand...

<snip for brevity>

Here is where I side mostly with my Catholic brethren. Personally, I’ve found the Deuterocanonical books to be of extremely great merit, especially, the Book of Wisdom and the Book of Sirach. Absolutely marvelous works! A number of the other books certainly have historical benefit (i.e., filling the gaps between Old and New Testaments) such as the highly inspirational Books of Maccabees.

If I recall correctly, it was members of the Calvinists who officially removed the Deuterocanonical books from the Protestant Bibles, rather than Martin Luther but that’s not the main consideration here. The pertinent question is, What/Who determines what is/isn’t THE WORD OF GOD?

In my view, neither the Catholics nor Protestants have the right answer. The Catholics rely on their ecclesiastical hierarchy, official catechisms and church tradition to provide guidance. A significant percentage of Catholics don’t even own a copy of the Bible. Whereas, the Protestants believe that every solitary word in their particularly favored authorized version is the indisputable truth (including every doctrine emanating from the Dallas Theological Seminary or their favorite pastor/televangelist). However, what does the beloved Apostle John state?

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Mungo said:

38. Boring repetitive masses w/ two glossed over scriptures

That’s a very personal opinion. And it’s wrong on several counts.

Firstly boredom. We do not go to Mass to be entertained but to worship God. Anyone who finds worshipping God boring needs to look at their heart. The Mass is not all about me and what I want. It is about God, worshipping him and receiving what he wants to give us (himself in the Eucharist).

Click to expand...

OK, I see the validity of your position here, Mungo. It’s just the repetitive religious rituals that aren’t my cup of tea. To each his own . . .

Mungo said:

Secondly there are not two scriptures in the Mass, glossed over or otherwise.

At a Sunday Mass there are four readings from scripture. At a weekday Mass there are three.

The readings are carefully chosen so that over the cycle (3 yr for Sunday, 2yr for weekdays) the congregation hear a wide selection of texts from all the books of the Bible.

At Mass we also pray the “our Father” which is straight from scripture.

In addition there are many prayers and acclamations that come straight from scripture. For example we proclaim with the angels at Bethlehem “Glory to Gods in the highest, and peace to men on earth” (Lk 2:14); with John we affirm that Jesus is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world” (Jn 1:29); we cry out with the four living creatures before the throne “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord, God almighty” (Rev 4:8).

At Sunday Mass there is always a sermon on one of the scripture readings. Where I go to Mass during the week there is also a sermon on one of the readings.

Admittedly the quality varies (though I am very fortunate in hearing excellent sermons) but the scriptures are not “glossed over”.

Click to expand...

Alright, you’ve demonstrated that there ARE some scripture references in Catholic services but they aren’t renowned for having regular Bible studies like Protestant believers.

Mungo said:

51. Burying St. Joseph's idols to sell real estate

That’s hilarious. Where did you get that from?

I’d put that on a par with this one I came across from the Lord’s Witnesses website:
“Hot cross buns are baked for Mary in most Roman Catholic churches”

Click to expand...

I know it sounds utterly ridiculous and I also know the housing market is rough these days but that’s what a number of Catholics do to sell their property:

http://www.ehow.com/how_6975585_instructions-bury-st_-joseph-statue.html
http://www.st-josephstatue.com/st_joseph.htm

http://www.catholicsupply.com/christmas/stjoe.html to buy your very own St. Joseph Home Selling Kit

http://www.snopes.com/luck/stjoseph.asp

Here’s the specific instructions:

* Bury the statue in the yard, the exact location varies, most common is in the front of the house. Favorable spots are either close to the "For Sale" sign or close to the road.

(THIS PART BELOW IS PARTICULARLY HILARIOUS!)

* Bury the statue upsidedown, facing the house.

Actually, (according to Snopes.com) different realtors quote different placements of the statue:

• Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)
• Right side up.
• In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.
• Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."
• Three feet from the rear of the house.
• Facing the house.
• Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)
• Exactly 12 inches deep.

* Pray to Saint Joseph when you are burying him and keep praying until the house is sold.

* But the most important part is to have faith all the time, in Yourself, in Your Sale and in Saint Joseph.

* After your house is sold you should to take him with you to your new home and put him in a place of honor.

Mungo said:

82. Sedevacantist Catholic factions & conspiracies (Anti-popes since 1958 A.D.)

Sedevacantists are not Catholics. They have left the Catholic Church so I don’t see why you have included them in a list of errors in Catholic teaching.

Click to expand...

I wouldn’t be too zealous to excommunicate Sedevacantists. There’s a friend of mine who’s one and swears “They are the REAL Catholics!” and the rest of the RCC is errant. It appears that the Protestants don’t have the corner on the market of sectarianism.

Mungo said:

Any comments? Shall I go on to some more?

Click to expand...

By all means, Mungo. I’m enjoying the dialog and find the discussion rather refreshing.

bosco said:

OK- found the first 20. I'm a little slow sometimes.

1. Where Jesus Christ founded the Roman Catholic Church instead of HIS CHURCH. (read Matt 16:18). It's called 'Roman' because of it's centralization in Rome, 'catholic' because it's intended for everyone. You don't have to call it the Roman Catholic Church; that's just what it's become known as. Heaven knows it wasn't centered in Rome early on, and maybe someday it won't be anymore. But either way that's fairly unimportant, since calling it by that name is not a matter of doctrine. Catholics believe it to be the same Church that Christ taught about.

2. That the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church today, are the same teachings as those of the primitive Apostolic Church which was the Biblical Christian church? I guess you'd have to compare the writings we have both from and about the primitive apostolic Church and see if we see the same things. We would expect growth and changes in perspective given 20 centuries and immense historical, societal & cultural changes along the way, but we should still see the same core beliefs. This would be the only way to compare the two, in my mind.

3. That there is no salvation outside of the Church of Rome? (Read Acts 4:12, John 14:6) Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life." No one comes to the Father but through Him... if Catholics believe that their Church is the Church of Christ, then it is teaching nothing different than what Jesus did here. Jesus instituted His Church, and any Church claiming to be that Church would have to teach this, wouldn't it?

4. That UNREPENTANT sinners such as thieves, assasins, adulterers, backbiters, deceivers, blasphemers, idolaters, etc, can belong to the Church of God? (Read Eph 5:5, Rev 22:15). Belonging to the Church in what sense? Unrepented sins are not forgiven-- period. They can show up to Bible study, to Mass, to whatever, but that doesn't mean that they are in good standing before the judgment seat of God.

5. Can you prove from the Bible that Peter was the first Pope? Yes. Reading the keys to the kingdom being entrusted to Peter alongside Isaiah 22:21-22, which is clearly being referenced by Jesus in that instance, and the commissioning of Peter in John 21 following Jesus' declaration about being the Good Shepherd in John 10, shows a clear, special and hierarchical authority being entrusted to him. You wouldn't have to call it 'pope', but the reality is there.

6. That he exercised the office of Pope in Rome for 25 years? That is not taught by the Catholic Church. It is a historical possibility, but not a doctrine.

7. That he was the visible head of the Christian church? (Matt 20:26-28, 1 Peter 5;1) See the answer to #5, mixed in with the numerous examples of his functioning thus in the first 12 chapters of Acts.

8. That he received from the Lord the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Christian church? Again, the answer to #5 applies here as well.

9. That these prerogatives were then transmitted by Peter to the Bishops of Rome as his successors down to the present day? The early Church taught this, and was teaching it less than 100 years after the Apostles (the writings of Irenaeus of Lyons being a prime example of that). Peter himself instituted what is today called 'apostolic succession' with the replacement of Judas; we see it expanding with the commissioning of Paul, Barnabas, etc. Moreover, it stands to reason that if Jesus did entrust a special gift of the Holy Spirit to a pastoral head of His Church, that it wouldn't disappear with the death of that first pastor if the Church was going to continue through time beyond that point.

10. That Peter ever asked or accepted gifts of money "to gather unto himself a treasury of silver and gold" to be called the Treasury of St. Peter", or "Peters Pence"? (Read Acts 3:6, 8:20) http://www.vatican.v...history_en.html This is not doctrine, nor is it binding on Catholics. It's a voluntary collection for the poor.

11. That Peter ever accepted worldly honors such as to be borne about on the shoulders of men on the "sedia gestatoria", the kissing of his feet and many other honors used by pagans? (Read Acts 10:25-26). Firstly, this is historical custom, not binding and certainly not doctrine. The sedia gestatoria, for example, hasn't been used in decades, and I haven't seen anyone kissing the pope's feet lately either. It comes and goes with history. Secondly, the use of wedding rings, handshakes, & many other honors used by pagans are used by Christians with no harm to the Gospel.

12. The the word "Pope" is in the Bible, except its synonym as the anti-Christ. (Read II Thes. 2:3-12; Rev 17:1-10). Paul calls himself a "father in the Gospel" to at least one church community; and in Isaiah 22:21-22, God Himself declares that the minister receiving the Keys to the Kingdom of David will be a "father" to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The title 'pope' is a historical creation, not a necessity or a doctrine-- but there is scriptural support.

13. That the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter. Who else is he a successor of? Again, very early & orthodox Christian writings bear out that this was believed long before the elders in Rome held any real wealth or political power.

14. That the Pope is the Vice-gerent of God upon earth and the Vicar of Jesus Christ. (Read II Thess 2:3-12). The answer to #5, again.

15. That the Pope is infallible (Rom 3:4, 10, 23). The pope is not infallible; he may declare something infallibly, though. This is a function of the Holy Spirit, not purely of the pope. This is believed by the Catholic Church to be true of ecumenical councils as well (again, through the Holy Spirit, not the men themselves). Jesus saying "the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth" and "whoever hears you, hears me" certainly was not true of Judas; but it was being spoken specifically to the Apostles. Somewhere in the promises of Christ, then, we have to find that the Holy Spirit works through His chosen leaders to make sure the true doctrines He spoke would not be lost, despite the waywardness and sometimes the scandalous sins of some of those chosen leaders. The possibility of the pope declaring something infallibly (something John Paul II never did in 26 1/2 years of being pope, for example) grows from this belief, not from his own power (of which he has none, apart from the Holy Spirit).

16. That the Pope ought to be called "Holy Father." (Read Matt 23:9, John 17:11). Same as answer to #12.

17. That the Pope can canonize saints, i.e. make saints out of persons long since dead, some of whom were criminals (Read II Cor 1:1; Phil 1:1, and Col 1:2). They are not canonized if they were criminals at the time of death, certainly. It is currently what the pope does, but this was not always the case in history (the same as popes being elected by cardinals). It is simply who is chosen to do it on behalf of the Church, believed to be guided by the Holy Spirit to declare someone a heroic example of Christ, belonging to the cloud of witnesses that the Letter of the Hebrews tells us to be attentive to in order to be encouraged onwards to Him.

18. That the Pope ought to have temporal power with soldiers and armed guards and have political sway over all the nations of the earth (Read John 18:36). Certainly not Catholic teaching and not doctrine. This belonged to a time in history when the Church leadership and politics were bound together as one in Europe, which is no longer the case (thanks be to God). It is a historical reality, but never has been part of Catholic teaching.

19. That the Pope can excommunicate churches and individuals, release entire peoples from being subject to kings and republics and place whole nations under ban. Peter did it with Ananias and Sapphira; Paul recommended this practice in his letters. It is not the pope alone who does it, and in fact there are instances in Catholic teaching where one excommunicates oneself by a seriously sinful act-- not dependent on what anyone else judges it by.

20. That the Pope can proclaim a Holy Year every twenty-five years with the promise of special indulgences and remission of sins to those who go to Rome to visit certain churches there. (Isa 1:12-17) It is part of what is believed to be pastoral authority from Christ, binding and loosing with the keys given to him. These special blessings are available year-round for various other activities, but one cannot receive them simply (for example) visiting the Church-- it is always conditional on repentance of all sins, encountering the Lord in communion and prayer on behalf of the Church as part of the same activity. In that sense, all that changes when the pope offers some blessing for an activity is that part of the activity-- the repentance, communion and prayer for the rest of the body are always in effect, all of which are blessed activities in scripture.

Click to expand...

Hi Bosco,

How would one go about finding out what Oral Traditions are from Catholic "Custom" and "Culture" and what Oral Traditions are corroborated by Scripture?

Thanks,
Axehead

There's a lot of controversy over Catholics being too 'religious' and not 'spiritual' enough. If you check up anything to do with Salvation on google, I'm sure you'll find a site on there (I can think of one off the top of my head) that says Catholicism is a 'cult'...along with several other denominations.

I am unable to persecute anyone based on their denomination so I'll just leave this by saying I'm totally unbiased on what denomination a person chooses to be a part of. God is the one who can truly make that call, in my eyes.

I do not think this is spcecifically aboutcatholis, since all denomintaion have their own doctrins that try to explain why they hve the way andthe truth, it just tht catholics tend to think that evryone is against them whne it really is just that everyone is trying to walk in truth. For instance the apostels creed, catholic church is not mentioned anywhere in scripture so how can why say this

It’s a summary of doctrine, like the Nicene Creed.

Click to expand...

This is not true, mind you their is no one on here that can convince someone of the truth if they refuse to accecpt it, that really is between God and them, but they will be without excuse for they have being told, and by the way my baptism as a child does not count in eyes of God for you see, it is a decision I have to make to walk with God, it is something that I have to be willing to receive and as a child ( baby) that is a decision I cannot make, see as a catholic i new of this man Jesus but i did not know HIm, then He revealed Himself to me , now I know Him not just about Him, as you see Christ is building ( yes He is doing it, not man), upon revelation something man cannot give you only God through the Holy Spirit, and i must digress as there are two things that church can do for you that God , Jesus and the Holy Spirit cant do,

Lie and place a stumbling block before you , as that is something man does not God.

In All His Love

Jesus is with me always I do not need to sit on a pew to learn from Him, I am free in Christ not a slave to religion.

1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

I hope you can see its not the way it is meant to be.

In His Love

Are they any worse than other people? They are being deceived by the devil into following a false religion that focuses on many things except that salvation is by "grace through faith" and "not of works, lest any man should boast." Eph. 2:8,9

Forgiveness is NOT aquired by confessing our sins to a priest or any other mere mortal; only God can forgive sins. Forgiveness is not aquired by doing penance, or saying "Hail Mary", or any other things a priest tells them to do. Are you aware that we are all "bad" before coming to Christ and seeking forgiveness? He is our Righteousness, and we become righteous only through him and not some mortal or dead saint.

Like everyone else, they are in need of the Saviour, but they try to reach Him through whatever their church tells them is the right way instead of reading it for themselves in God's word. I was saved by reading God's word about how one is saved, and by realizing that I was lost and headed for hell unless I called on the Lord for forgiveness and salvation.

How would one go about finding out what Oral Traditions are from Catholic "Custom" and "Culture" and what Oral Traditions are corroborated by Scripture?

Click to expand...

By reading the catechism of the Catholic Church, Axehead, as well as being familiar with Scripture and at least somewhat with history. Everything that Catholics consider doctrine would be found in the catechism, along with explanations of those doctrines. Obviously familiarity with Scripture is already a necessity for Christians, and the historical familiarity helps us to see how mere customs or traditions (whether good or bad) develop, stick around, disappear, etc.

I would also note though that there seems to be some confusion over the term 'Tradition'-- this refers specifically to the faith handed on through the Apostles, not to 'traditions' in history. All of Tradition is corroborated by Scripture, and vice versa; they are, by definition, joined. Catholics believe (as Scripture teaches) that this is how the Spirit transmits the living truth of Christ through the centuries of the Church.

bosco said:

By reading the catechism of the Catholic Church, Axehead, as well as being familiar with Scripture and at least somewhat with history. Everything that Catholics consider doctrine would be found in the catechism, along with explanations of those doctrines. Obviously familiarity with Scripture is already a necessity for Christians, and the historical familiarity helps us to see how mere customs or traditions (whether good or bad) develop, stick around, disappear, etc.

I would also note though that there seems to be some confusion over the term 'Tradition'-- this refers specifically to the faith handed on through the Apostles, not to 'traditions' in history. All of Tradition is corroborated by Scripture, and vice versa; they are, by definition, joined. Catholics believe (as Scripture teaches) that this is how the Spirit transmits the living truth of Christ through the centuries of the Church.

Click to expand...

Hi Bosco,

I will get back on track but had a question for you. Do you think God gives His Holy Spirit to people that are not members of the Roman Catholic Church or any derivative of it?

Thank you,
Axehead

The Holy Spirit was given to all men to teach them the truth,

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead

Gal_3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

Best of all

Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
Act 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Act 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
Act 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In all His Love

I absolutely do, Axehead, and mrjhealth beat me to the Scripture that first came to mind there (the house of Cornelius). We need the Spirit to even come to faith in the first place.

Also, you'd asked for some scriptures for support for these--

1. Jesus instituted a hierarchy of priests for HIS Church as a special class, separate from the people, except the Apostles who were to preach the Gospel. I wouldn't base this on any one Scripture, but rather a) on the numerous Scriptures of the Apostles being separated from the people by Christ for their total ministry (which included authority & sacramental ministry, as we see in Acts & Paul); B) on Paul's clear teaching that there is a true hierarchy in the body according to God's calling them to specific ministries, empowered by the Spirit and not simply on the basis of politics or desire.

3. That bishops, deacons and priests cannot marry, and that a priest though unmarried, should be called "Father." I think I did refer to Jesus' teaching & Paul's teaching about celibacy on this one; and St. Paul uses the term "father" in reference to himself, being unmarried, and in reference to OT persons (1 Cor 4:15 & Romans 4:12 would be examples). I think St. Stephen uses such a reference when preaching to the Sanhedrin as well.

ABOUT THE MASS

8. That the Mass was instituted by Christ. As I said, the Last Supper narratives would suffice here (in Matthew, Mark & Luke).

9. That Jesus or the Apostles said Mass. Last Supper narratives, again, as well as 1 Cor 11:23-32.

10. That Mass is a sacrifice and a daily repetition of the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross. Last Supper narratives.

11. That the Mass is identical with the Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 11:23-32.

12. That it is a mortal sin not to go to Mass on Sunday and other feast days. Ezekiel 22:26 would do here, I think... There would be others along the same lines.

13. That the Mass can be said for money at various stipulated prices. As I said above, this is not a requirement, so there wouldn't need to be a Scripture for this apart from those saying 'the laborer deserves his keep', etc.

14. That the Mass can be said for the benefit of the living who pay for having it said, in order that they may receive divine favors, have their sins forgiven and an easier access into heaven when they die.

15. That the Mass gives repose to the souls of dead people who are supposed to be burning in Purgatory. 2 Tim 1:16-18... but in reality, any scripture exhorting us to pray for others,

ABOUT THE HOST

17. That the wafer in the hands of the priest is changed into the real body, soul and DIVINITY of our Lord. Last Supper narratives; John 6's "bread of life" teaching; 1 Cor 11:24-33 again.

18. That the Living Christ said to be in the host can be eaten, locked up in the tabernacle or carried about by the priest anywhere he pleases. 19. That the consecrated host or wafer, even if broken up into a thousand pieces, each such particle contains the entire body of Jesus Christ alive. Both of these would logically follow if 17 were true, so they would be rooted in the same scriptures.