Catholic Distinctives: Prelimary Questions

[Berserk]

As a lifelong evangelical, I note that we evangelicals typically ignore the ensuing set of questions that should precede discussion of Catholic doctrinal distinctives:

I. QUESTIONS PRELIMARY TO A DISCUSSION OF CATHOLIC CONFESSION OF TO PRIESTS:
(1) Why do evangelicals spend so little time searching their hearts for unconfessed sins of omission, thought, word, and deed?
(2) Why do most evangelicals devote so little time confessing their sins to each other?
"Confess your sins to one another...so that you may be healed (James 5:16)."
(3) Why do evangelicals ignore Jesus' authorization of His disciples' role as mediators of divine forgiveness? "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven. If you retain the sins of any, they are retained (John 20:22-23)."

II. QUESTIONS PREMINARY TO A DISCUSSION OF THE REAL PRESENCE OF CHRIST IN THE ACT OF PARTAKING OF HOLY COMMUNION:
(1) Why do evangelicals duck the fact that Jesus relocates His discussion of Holy Communion from the Last Supper (John 13:2ff.) to John 6?
(2) Why does Jesus mean when He teaches that He comes to abide in "those who munch on (Greek: "trogo") my flesh and drink my blood (John 6:56)?" "Trogo" is never used figuratively!
(3) Why does Jesus say, "My flesh is real food and my blood is real drink (6:55) and then add, "Whoever eats me will live because of Me (6:57)?"
(4) Why doesn't Jesus explain that He is speaking figuratively about Holy Communion here to prevent the mass exodus of offended disciples who take Him literally (6:66)?
(5) Why are "many of you sick and ill and many have died" because you "eat and drink (the bread and wine) without "discerning the Body (1 Corinthians 11:29-30)?" Put differently, why are such dire consequences singled out only for "unworthy" Eucharistic participation?

III. QUESTIONS PRELIMARY TO A DISCUSSION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY:
(1) Don't believers enter the afterlife with the same free will and flawed character that they had developed in this life? Then how can evangelicals with serious character flaws immediately enter a heavenly realm in which "nothing impure will enter (Rev. 21:27)?"
(2) Why is John shown a vision of the eternally open gates of Heaven ("the New Jerusalem") for the benefit of those "outside" the gates, the sinful dead (Rev. 21:25 as clarified in 22:15)?
(3) Doesn't Peter teach the doctrine of a 2nd chance for sinful deceased "spirits in prison" to hear the Gospel and get saved (so 1 Peter 3:19 as clarified in 4:6)?
(4) What is the postmortem purifying "fire" that tries flawed believers, so that they can ultimately be saved (1 Corinthians 3:15)?
(5) If Paradise is located in "the third Heaven (2 Corinthians 12:2-3)," then might not the 2 lower Heavens include a realm like Purgatory? Ancient Judaism also locates Paradise in the third Heaven and sometimes teaches that the 2 lower heavens are spiritual dimensions.

IV. QUESTOPMS PRELIMINARY TO A DISCUSSION OF CATHOLIC PRAYING TO SAINTS:
(1) What do the righteous dead know about their loved ones on earth?
(2) If the righteous dead know about ongoing earthly persecution of Christians and intercede with God for divine intervention (so Rev. 6:9-10), does this not mean that the righteous dead monitor the earthly lives of their loved ones and continue to pray for them?
(3) In our race as spiritual athletes, righteous dead spectators ("a cloud of witnesses") are not said to precede us, but rather to actually "surround" us (Hebrews 12:1-2). Might one not reasonably infer that deceased righteous spectators remain aware of our plight, cheer us on and support us during our race?
(4) If the righteous dead pray for the living and remain aware of their earthly plight, why not infer that we can request (pray) that they pray for us in our hour of need?
In Paul's vision the same verb "euchomai" used for prayer to God is used for a prayer to Paul from a physically absent Macedonian man: "During the night Paul had a vision: There stood a Macedonian man, praying to him, saying, "Come over, and help us (Acts 16:9)."

 

[amadeus]

@Berserk
Sometime ago I asked a Catholic just what he meant by the word "evangelical". He never really answered me. You like that Catholic have used that same word, "evangelical" as if everyone should know what it means. Looking it up a dictionary does not tell me what you mean and without that knowledge how can I really understand your OP.

Please provide us your definition of the word as you use it in your OP.

Thanks for your consideration.

 

[Enoch111]

I note that we evangelicals typically ignore the ensuing set of questions that should precede discussion of Catholic doctrinal distinctives...

Those questions are ignored and rightly so. Catholic apologists are convinced that they belong to the "true Church". End of discussion. So you can either join 'em or move on. There's no middle ground and there is no need to waste time on fruitless discussions.

Amadeus, an evangelical is one who believes that the Gospel ("the Evangel" or Good News) is central to everything else. And Christ is central to the Gospel. But the days of true evangelicals are over. The days of true fundamentalists are also over. And the days of the Reformers are definitely over. So what are we left with today? Spiritual confusion.

When Billy Graham -- a fundamentalist southern preacher -- began to involve the Roman Catholic Church in his crusades, that was the beginning of spiritual confusion.

 

[amadeus]

Those questions are ignored and rightly so. Catholic apologists are convinced that they belong to the "true Church". End of discussion. So you can either join 'em or move on. There's no middle ground and there is no need to waste time on fruitless discussions.

Amadeus, an evangelical is one who believes that the Gospel ("the Evangel" or Good News) is central to everything else. And Christ is central to the Gospel. But the days of true evangelicals are over. The days of true fundamentalists are also over. And the days of the Reformers are definitely over. So what are we left with today? Spiritual confusion.

When Billy Graham -- a fundamentalist southern preacher -- began to involve the Roman Catholic Church in his crusades, that was the beginning of spiritual confusion.

Thank you! I don't plan on many lengthy discussions with Catholics, but just in case, it is nice to understand what a person is saying.

 

[Berserk]

Enoch: "Those questions are ignored and rightly so."

Those questions simply focus on basic biblical texts before which evangelicals typically freeze like Bambi in the headlights. So your comment suggests a myopic focus on just those prooftexts cited to support your narrow theological agenda. Informed Catholics would issue you this challenge: "Enoch, let's get into the Word--the whole counsel of God!"

Enoch: "Amadeus, an evangelical is one who believes that the Gospel ("the Evangel" or Good News) is central to everything else. And Christ is central to the Gospel."

This vague generalization reveals your ignorance of what an evangelical is. Amadeus, an evangelical is a Protestant Christian who accepts Scripture as the inspired Word of God, embraces salvation by grace through faith in Christ's finished work on the cross, and professes an intimate personal relationship with Christ that accepts Christ's lordship over their entire lives.

Enoch: "But the days of true evangelicals are over. The days of true fundamentalists are also over...

LOL. You just need to get out more!

Enoch: "When Billy Graham -- a fundamentalist southern preacher -- began to involve the Roman Catholic Church in his crusades, that was the beginning of spiritual confusion."

It is you who are badly confused! Billy Graham's crusades inspired thousands of nominal Catholics to accept Christ as their savior and Lord and to develop a personal relationship with Him--and the Catholic church applauded such spiritual renewal among their members! As a boy, I showed up early for every night of a 7-day Billy Graham crusade (1967). Why? Because I wanted to soak up the electrifying atmosphere that was filled with a sense of the Spirit's presence that rightly created the expectation that hundreds would commit their lives to Christ each night. Just a few years ago and 1,500 miles from that crusade site, a minister from United Church of Canada told me he was gloriously saved in that crusade several decades ago!

 

[Enoch111]

I note that we evangelicals typically ignore the ensuing set of questions that should precede discussion of Catholic doctrinal distinctives

Here's an other reason evangelicals do not need to get into dialogues with Catholics (as found in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia):
PART I
[Catholic] Doctrine regarding relics
The teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to the veneration of relics is summed up in a decree of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV), which enjoins on bishops and other pastors to instruct their flocks that "the holy bodies of holy martyrs and of others now living with Christ—which bodies were the living members of Christ and 'the temple of the Holy Ghost' (1 Corinthians 6:19) and which are by Him to be raised to eternal life and to be glorified are to be venerated by the faithful, for through these [bodies] many benefits are bestowed by God on men, so that they who affirm that veneration and honour are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other sacred monuments are uselessly honoured by the faithful, and that the places dedicated to the memories of the saints are in vain visited with the view of obtaining their aid, are wholly to be condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned, and also now condemns them."

Further, the council insists that "in the invocation of saints the veneration of relics and the sacred use of images, every superstition shall be removed and all filthy lucre abolished." Again, "the visitation of relics must not be by any perverted into revellings and drunkenness." To secure a proper check upon abuses of this kind, "no new miracles are to be acknowledged or new relics recognized unless the bishop of the diocese has taken cognizance and approved thereof."

Moreover, the bishop, in all these matters, is directed to obtain accurate information to take council with theologians and pious men, and in cases of doubt or exceptional difficulty to submit the matter to the sentence of the metropolitan and other bishops of the province, "yet so that nothing new, or that previously has not been usual in the Church, shall be resolved on, without having first consulted the Holy See."

 

[Enoch111]

PART II
The justification of Catholic practice, which is indirectly suggested here by the reference to the bodies of the saints as formerly temples of the Holy Ghost and as destined hereafter to be eternally glorified, is further developed in the authoritative "Roman Catechism" drawn up at the instance of the same council. Recalling the marvels witnessed at the tombs of the martyrs, where "the blind and cripples are restored to health, the dead recalled to life, and *devils?* expelled from the bodies of men" the Catechism points out that these are facts which "St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, most unexceptionable witnesses, declare in their writings that they have not merely heard and read about, as many did but have seen with their own eyes", (Ambrose, Epist. xxii, nn. 2 and 17, Augustine, Serm. cclxxxvi, c.v.; City of God XXII, "Confess.", ix). And from thence, turning to Scriptural analogies, the compilers further argue: "If the clothes, the kerchiefs (Acts 19:12), if the shadow of the saints (Acts 5:15), before they departed from this life, banished diseases and restored strength, who will have the hardihood to deny that God wonderfully works the same by the sacred ashes, the bones, and other relics of the saints?

This is the lesson we have to learn from that dead body which, having been accidentally let down into the sepulchre of Eliseus, "when it had touched the bones of the Prophet, instantly came to life" (2 Kings 13:21, and cf. Sirach 48:14). We may add that this miracle as well as the veneration shown to the bones of Joseph (see Exodus 13:19 and Joshua 24:32) only gain additional force from their apparent contradiction to the ceremonial laws against defilement, of which we read in Numbers 19:11-22. The influence of this Jewish shrinking from contact with the dead so far lingered on that it was found necessary in the "Apostolical Constitutions" (vi, 30) to issue a strong warning against it and to argue in favour of the Christian cult of relics.

According to the more common opinion of theologians, relics are to be honoured; St. Thomas, in Summa III:25:6, does not seem to consider even the word adorare inappropriate—cultu duliae relativae, that is to say with a veneration which is not that of latria (divine worship) and which though directed primarily to the material objects of the cult—i.e., the bones, ashes, garments, etc.—does not rest in them, but looks beyond to the saints they commemorate as to its formal term.

Hauck, Kattenbusch, and other non-Catholic writers have striven to show that the utterances of the Council of Trent are in contradiction to what they admit to be the "very cautious" language of the medieval scholastics, and notably St. Thomas. The latter urges that those who have an affection to any person hold in honour all that was intimately connected with him. Hence, while we love and venerate the saints who were so dear to God, we also venerate all that belonged to them, and particularly their bodies, which were once the temples of the Holy Spirit, and which are some day to be conformed to the glorious body of Jesus Christ. "whence also", adds St. Thomas, "God fittingly does honour to such relics by performing miracles in their presence [in earum praesentia]."

It will be seen that this closely accords with the terms used by the Council of Trent and that the difference consists only in this, that the Council says per quae—"through which many benefits are bestowed on mankind"—while St. Thomas speaks of miracles worked "in their presence".

But it is quite unnecessary to attach to the words per quae the idea of physical causality. We have no reason to suppose that the council meant more than that the relics of the saints were the occasion of God's working miracles. When we read in the Acts of the Apostles, xix, 11, 12, "And God wrought by the hand of Paul more than common miracles. So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out from them" there can be no inexactitude in saying that these also were the things by which (per quae) God wrought the cure.

Scriptures have been misapplied to support the superstition of relics. So why should evangelicals get involved?

 

[amadeus]

... Amadeus, an evangelical is a Protestant Christian who accepts Scripture as the inspired Word of God, embraces salvation by grace through faith in Christ's finished work on the cross, and professes an intimate personal relationship with Christ that accepts Christ's lordship over their entire lives...

Thank you for your definition!

 

[Berserk]

Here's an other reason evangelicals do not need to get into dialogues with Catholics (as found in the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia):
PART I

Notice how Enoch and fundamentalists of his ilk will say practically anything to divert attention away from critical engagement with foundational biblical texts that inform Catholic understanding of their distinctives. Enoch, season your penchant for irrelevant bluster by actually engaging the relevant biblical texts. I reiterate the informed Catholic challenge to the likes of you: "Let's actually get into the Word!"

 

[Enoch111]

Notice how Enoch and fundamentalists of his ilk will say practically anything...

All I did was quote from a Catholic source. I said very little since the evidence speaks for itself. And you cannot deny that that is indeed Catholic doctrine. The only issue is whether you are worshipping at a relic and don't want that to be exposed.

 

[Mungo]

All I did was quote from a Catholic source. I said very little since the evidence speaks for itself. And you cannot deny that that is indeed Catholic doctrine. The only issue is whether you are worshipping at a relic and don't want that to be exposed.

It was not relevant to the OP. It was a deliberate attempt to divert from the topic into Catholic bashing.

 

[Addy]

I think the question should be... WHY on earth do Catholics come into Non Denominational Forums to cause strife????

I certainly do not SEEK OUT Catholic forums.... because I do not desire to have conversations about Catholicism...
I find it so strange that the Catholics seem to think they need to come and defend their faith here ... when in all reality...
there would be NO discussions about Catholicism.

It's one thing to have discussions between protestant doctrines with other protestants... but absolutely FRUITLESS to have discussions about faith between Catholic and Protestant... the two sides are completely opposite.

I am a former Catholic... in real life... I would never ever attend a Catholic church... that is my choice... I do not go around bashing Catholics... it is Catholicism that I loathe.

I don't think the Catholics would tend to find themselves wandering in and attending any kind of Protestant services either... so why should the forums be any different?

 

[Mungo]

I think the question should be... WHY on earth do Catholics come into Non Denominational Forums to cause strife????

I certainly do not SEEK OUT Catholic forums.... because I do not desire to have conversations about Catholicism...
I find it so strange that the Catholics seem to think they need to come and defend their faith here ... when in all reality...
there would be NO discussions about Catholicism.

It's one thing to have discussions between protestant doctrines with other protestants... but absolutely FRUITLESS to have discussions about faith between Catholic and Protestant... the two sides are completely opposite.

I am a former Catholic... in real life... I would never ever attend a Catholic church... that is my choice... I do not go around bashing Catholics... it is Catholicism that I loathe.

I don't think the Catholics would tend to find themselves wandering in and attending any kind of Protestant services either... so why should the forums be any different?

This forum is Christian Apologetics forum.
Catholics are Christians.
So what is your problem with Catholics discussing here?

 

[Addy]

So what is your problem with Catholics discussing here?

It is not the discussing that bothers me... it's the fact that ALL discussions between Catholics and Protestants regarding DOCTRINE and FAITH are FRUITLESS. It's a whole different ball of wax... and you guys come in these forums fully aware of that...
You CANNOT believe that you are the ONE TRUE CHURCH... with the expectation that you will be met with open arms by those who WALKED out of Catholicism.... there is NOTHING good or positive that comes out of these discussions...
What has transpired here in the last few weeks especially is proof of what I have just stated.

We can talk about many topics... but just not religion... My point is simply I don't understand why you or anyone else as a CATHOLIC would desire to mingle with those who do not believe like you.... It's a TRAP... it's always a TRAP...

 

[Addy]

and you know what... YOU are right @Mungo ... This is indeed Christian apologetics... MY bad for NOT noticing the different section...
Have a lovely day...

My apologies for NOT noticing that this site has way more sections than I even knew... I think this is where all Catholic discussions should take place.
Safe for everyone and not disruptive to the FLOW of the forums.

 

[Addy]

@Mungo... since you are a Catholic... I will leave this with you... If you desire that I would remove the posts I made in this thread... I am more than willing to do so... I have already apologized for not recognizing the significance of this particular forum... I will humbly comply if you would like my comments removed.

 

[Enoch111]

It was not relevant to the OP. It was a deliberate attempt to divert from the topic into Catholic bashing.

It was totally relevant. The OP was wanting evangelicals to answer questions about Catholic distinctives. And relics and their veneration are definitely one of them.

 

[Mungo]

@Mungo... since you are a Catholic... I will leave this with you... If you desire that I would remove the posts I made in this thread... I am more than willing to do so... I have already apologized for not recognizing the significance of this particular forum... I will humbly comply if you would like my comments removed.

Don't take everything so personally Addy.

 

[Mungo]

It was totally relevant. The OP was wanting evangelicals to answer questions about Catholic distinctives. And relics and their veneration are definitely one of them.

The OP was about particular distinctives, and relics was not one of them.
It was not an general invitation to troll.

 

[Addy]

Don't take everything so personaly Addy.

I was being respectful and polite... it was not an issue of taking things personally....

You were correct.. I neglected to see what forum this was in.