New Ark of the Covenant Response (Introduction)
Last week a comment appeared on my post Biblical Mary: The Ark of the New Covenant by a lady named Monica. Here’s what she had to say:
People praying the rosary, singing Mary songs, etc is a form a worship no matter how much catholics want to deny it. These things only belong to God. I have seen pictures of Mary sitting next to God in His throne as she was was co-equal with God when she was only a human like any of us. Of course she was blessed by God and deserves to be honored but it does not imply a godly position. God chose her by His grace, grace is God giving us something we dont deserve.
Why do we need Mary as mediator when Jesus Christ already paid the price for our sins so that we could approach God directly? Saying that we need Mary as mediator is like saying that what Christ did in the cross is worthless or meaningless. Read Luke 23:45 which says that the curtain in the temple was broken apart in two, this symbolizing that the use of mediators (like in the old testament where only the priests could enter the most holy of the holy places and approach God to intercede for people) was terminated.
People call her our hope, our salvation, etc. Acts 4:12 says that salvation is found in Christ alone.
Yes people are taking focus away from Christ by giving her attributes that only belong to Christ, such as being sinless, holy, mediator, being taken to heaven alive, doing miracles and being the queen of heaven etc.
If you notice most catholic churches today are named after Mary. Everything in the catholic church is about Mary. Most times when I see Catholics praying, it is all to Mary. When the Pope died, he entrusted his soul and the church to Mary. So where is Christ?
I would suggest you doing more research about the origins of the roman catholic church which comes from pagan origins when it was founded in Rome by Constantine about 300AD. This is well known in history. Constantine was the first pope, and he mixed paganism with Christianity and that is how the Roman catholic church was born. You will find many parallels between the Roman catholic church and paganism. One of them is that the pagans used to worship a goddess called the “Mother of God”, and “queen of heaven”. Read Jeremiah 7:18 and Jeremiah 44:17-25 where the Jews were worshipping this false goddess named “queen of heaven” provoking the Lord to anger. This is exactly what the Catholics are doing today.
Contact me at [email redacted] to further discuss this.
It was a bit of shame that Monica’s comment didn’t actually address anything I wrote in the post itself, but since many of the objections she raised are fairly common, I thought it’d be good to provide a substantial response to these objections over the course of a few days. I was very encouraged by Monica’s openness to dialogue and I hope we’ll have a good exchange here as I present a basic Catholic response to her objections.
I’m going to divide my reply into several parts. In the early posts I’m going to respond to her comments about Mary and then I will then spend the remaining two posts addressing what she had to say in the final paragraph about Constantine and the creation of the Catholic Church. I’m devoting two posts to this latter part because I’ve been wanting for some time to write a post concerning the state of Christianity prior to Constantine’s rise to Emperor and this gives me a convenient excuse 🙂
So stay tuned, the first part will be coming out after lunch…
Introduction | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6
Looking forward to it David!
I know you’ll do it justice
Thanks 🙂 If you want something to read until the next one is posted, you might want to check out my There’s something about Mary… series.
Perfect – thanks!
Thanks for tackling this. I didn’t grow up Catholic, but even before my conversion I was amazed by how much Mary was misunderstood by so many people. There’s a lot of hostility there sometimes — and if their assumptions about what we believe and are saying are correct, it would be entirely justifiable and even appropriate — but there is a lot of confusion there too. Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
Thank you sir! I hope Rome is treating you well 🙂
Happy (almost) Easter!
Well, I read all of your posts and I do not know where to start, there are so many things to talk about but I do not know if I have the time to explain all of them, I will summarize my response. I am going to ask you to please bear with me until I fully explain my point.
When people in the bible asked other people to pray for them it was to people who were alive and not to people who had already died. Also, we ASK our friends to pray for us, but we never pray to our friends to pray for us, do you know the difference? In the bible, the apostles were asking (and not praying) to other people to pray for them. In the OT, the people asked Moses to intercede for them before God but they never prayed to Moses to pray for them. I hope you get my point. Besides that, Mary is not omnipresent like God, she can not be at every place at the same time neither can she hear prayers from millions of people who pray to her at the same time. Saying that Mary can hear millions of prayers at the same time and be present everywhere at the same time is kind of like giving her godly powers. There is nothing in the bible that suggests that people who have died have these kinds of powers.
While I totally understand your point that it is not the official teaching of the RCC to worship Mary but only to honor her, the catholic church is not doing well in telling its members that we do not worship Mary but God alone. I grew up Catholic and I know the view Catholics have toward Mary. There are many Catholics who in fact do pray the Rosary, sing to Mary, bow down before her statues as a form of worship. They also attribute to Mary miracles as if Mary had some kind of godly powers. Probably it has never been the intention of the RCC to do all these things as a form of worship but many Catholics are turning to idolatry and the Catholic Church is not doing anything to stop it. Jesus said in Matthew chapter 5, if your right eye is causing you to sin, cut it off, for it is better to enter heaven mutilated than being thrown into hell with your whole body, if the Catholic church is engaging in practices that will lead people to idolatry it is better to cut it off because this will only lead to many people being thrown into hell.
The catholic Church also has lots of images. Did you know that one of God’s commandments was to never have any graven images? Yes we all have pictures in our houses of friends and relatives etc but bowing down before them to worship them is another story. Even when having images of Jesus we must not worship them. Jesus told the Samaritan woman in John chapter 4, that we must worship God in Spirit because God is a Spirit.
You say that Jesus will offer Mary a seat in his throne as he offered the twelve apostles a throne in heaven. The book of revelations mentions the 12 apostles having a throne but it never indicates Mary will have one. Why would the bible mention the 12 apostles having a throne but not Mary? that by the way the throne these apostles will have is not the throne of God.
The same thing for being ascended to heaven alive. You quoted to me verses where Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven alive, if the bible mentions the ascension of these people why not mention about Mary as well? I mean, if it was true that Mary will be offered a throne in heaven and that she was ascended to heaven alive the bible would’ve mentioned about her as well right? but it never did.
If you realize it, the bible never mentions any of the Marian doctrines such as being sinless, taken to heaven alive, being our mediator, being the queen of heaven, etc etc. Read the book of Acts which talks about the early church, if you read it, it never mentions Mary as playing a role in our salvation. The Catholic Church wants to imply that Mary plays a big role in our salvation but if it was true why would the bible not mention it?
I know that you guys do not believe in Sola Scripture, I know that you also go by traditions of the priests but let me tell you this, I would never trust a man over the Word of God. Men are fallible and liars. Romans 3:4 says, Let God be true and every man a liar. I would never entrust my soul into the hands of a human being. If something is not written in the bible I would rather not follow it because who knows, the devil is using people to deceive me. God can not lie in His Word (the bible) but men can say many many lies. You should check the history of the RCC on how many doctrines have been evolving throughout the years, for example, Mary being sinless was stated in 1854, Mary taken to heaven alive in 1929. God created Adam and Even sinless but all descendants of Adam and Eve are born in sin there are NO exceptions (Romans 3:10, Psalms 14:1)
If you notice, Jesus always refused to exalt Mary. Read Mark 3:31-34, Mary and Jesus’ brother went to look for Him and Jesus refused to listen to her. Luke 11:27-28 explains how a woman tried to exalt the mother of Jesus by saying blessed is the woman who bore you, at this Jesus could have turned and say “yes blessed is my mother” but Jesus on the contrary, he turned and said “blessed are those who hear God’s words and obey them”. Jesus was re-directing the focus away from Mary to God.
The bottom line to everything is that God loves you and he wants to have a personal relationship with you. I do not see why God would not listen to you if you do not pray to Mary.
The Marian Doctrine is not the only thing that I object from the catholic church but also the doctrine of salvation by works. Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by Faith ALONE. Read Romans chapter 4,5,6 where Paul states how we are declared righteous before God ONLY by Faith. James 2:14-16 and Philippians 2:12 are the most common misunderstood verses that the RCC uses to justify salvation by works.
James 2:14-16 states “What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
However what James was trying to imply was that good works should be the evidence of our Faith in Christ (the evidence of our salvation) but not the means through which we are saved.
Philippians 2:12 states “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling”
But this verse is referring to something we already inherited and not something we have to earn. It is like when you inherit money from your parents, you have to work it out but you did not gain it out of your means but it was something that was given to you but you just have to put it to work.
The bible clearly states in other verses that we live by Faith alone, and it cannot be contradicting itself.
The RCC still uses many OT practices such as priests as mediators, incense, the altar etc All these things were voided when Jesus died in the cross for us. Romans 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the Law. Paul told in Galatians 1:6 that people engaging in OT practices were following a false gospel. There is no room for mis-interpreting Luke 23:45. If you know the OT you should know that the curtain separated the most holy of the holy places (where God lived) from the rest of the temple. This curtain basically separated God from humans (and only mediators like the priests could enter the most holy of the holy places once a year to splash the blood of the sacrificed lamb once a year). However when Jesus died, the curtain was broken apart in two because Jesus who was the lamb of God had already paid the price for our sins and all the OT practices such as the use of priests interceding for us was voided. Jesus is now our high priest and mediator.
I do not know what you have to say about the history of the RCC but I will be waiting for your response. You should do careful research it is of pagan origins. If you look at the statues these pagans were worshipping they are similar to the ones the catholic church has of the Mother holding down the baby. The pagans called this goddess the queen of heaven and the mother of God. There are many more RCC practices that clearly state they are of pagan origin.
Hi Monica,
(For ease of discussion I’m repeating my first question here.)
Question 1: “Of course she was blessed by God and deserves to be honored.”
In what ways do you honor her?
Question 2: When you were a Catholic, were you ever made to worship Mary as a God?
Question 3: When you were a Catholic, did the artwork in church bother you? ( I mean on a theological or spiritual level.)
Thanks! Happy Easter. 🙂
1. we honor Mary by showing respect for her, by recognizing that she was blessed by God for having been chosen to bring the Messiah, but we respect Mary as we respect every other servant of God.
2. The Catholic Church may not officially teach that we must worship Mary, I do remember the church teaching me that we do not worship Mary but you see, a message is not only communicated through written and spoken words but also through actions.
The catholic church with its actions is giving the people a message different from what they are verbally teaching, therefore they are misleading people. While the catholic church does not officially teach to worship Mary, with their actions they are implying that we must worship her. If you do a careful search on the internet on the word “prayer”, prayer is described and viewed as a form of worship. Prayer is viewed worldwide as a form of worship. Everyone views prayer as worship. Ask any person about prayer and they will view it as worship.
We can ask people to pray for us but “praying” to people to pray for us is something different. Asking is NOT the same as praying. Also, when the apostles in the bible asked (and not prayed) to other people to pray for them it was to people who were alive and not to people who were already dead. When you imply that Mary can hear millions of prayers at the same time is kind of like giving her godly attributes such as being omnipresent. The apostles NEVER prayed to someone to pray for them believing that that person would be able to listen millions of prayers at the same time. What the apostles did and what we do when we ask someone to pray for us is totally different from what the Catholics are doing with Mary.
and let us not forget about all the pilgrimages to Mary. I grew up Catholic and I know perfectly how people celebrate Mary.
3. When I was a catholic I thought that graven images was ok. However when I started reading the bible (most Catholics do not follow the bible but they only follow what the priests teach them!!!) and to know God more, I realized that many of the things I was doing in the Catholic Church were just wrong. Probably you will understand me more when you become a born again Christian.
> 1. we honor Mary by showing respect for her…
What does that look like exactly?
> 2. The Catholic Church may not officially teach that we must worship Mary
The Church teaches far more than that, she explicitly says that Mary is not to be worshiped, but the Trinity alone.
> While the catholic church does not officially teach to worship Mary, with their actions they are implying that we must worship her.
Such as?
> If you do a careful search on the internet on the word “prayer”, prayer is described and viewed as a form of worship.
I addressed this in an earlier comment.
> Prayer is viewed worldwide as a form of worship. Everyone views prayer as worship. Ask any person about prayer and they will view it as worship.
The 1.2 billion Catholics in the world would disagree, as would the majority of Christians throughout the last 2,000 years.
> Also, when the apostles in the bible asked (and not prayed) to other people to pray for them it was to people who were alive and not to people who were already dead.
Our God is the God of the living, not the dead (Matthew 22:32)
> When you imply that Mary can hear millions of prayers at the same time is kind of like giving her godly attributes such as being omnipresent.
I’m afraid this logic is faulty in a couple ways:
1. Saints in Heaven are living in eternity and therefore not bound by time
2. The number of prayers being made is finite, not infinite, so neither omnipresence nor omnipotence is needed
I find this objection rather surprising since it tries to apply constraints on the glorious things of Heaven, which no eye has seen, nor ear heard (1 Corinthians 2:9). Are you saying that, even if God wanted it, it wouldn’t be possible?
We’re told that the angels in Heaven rejoice over a single repentant sinner (Luke 15:10). These angelic beings are not God, yet they know when a single person repents. How do they know? As with all things, it’s only through the grace of God…
> and let us not forget about all the pilgrimages to Mary. I grew up Catholic and I know perfectly how people celebrate Mary.
What’s wrong with pilgrimages? I’m a nerd so I took a trip to see the Yoda statue in front of the LucasArts studios. Worship Yoda, accidentally did I? 😉
Are you now saying it’s even even wrong to “celebrate” Mary?! That must have been a real downer at her birthday parties :-/
> 3. When I was a catholic I thought that graven images was ok. However when I started reading the bible… and to know God more, I realized that many of the things I was doing in the Catholic Church were just wrong
Would you lay the same charge against Moses? Or against God, for that matter? In Exodus 25:18, statues of Angels are commissioned and in Numbers 21:8-9, a bronze snake is made. It seems to me that the ban on images and statuary isn’t quite as total as you imagine.
The Old Testament bans idols, not images or statues and, as we’ve seen, God has even commanded that they be made. We Catholics do not worship the statues or images themselves, but Jesus Christ, “the image (‘eikon’) of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15).
> Probably you will understand me more when you become a born again Christian
Out of interest, in your opinion, what would qualify me to be a born-again Christian? I went to a Protestant congregation for several years and people there referred to me as such.
The Wikipedia will describe prayer as
” Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication”
Look for the definition of prayer and any place you go to will give you the definition of prayer as a form of worship to a deity.
> The Wikipedia will describe prayer as “Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with a deity, an object of worship, or a spiritual entity through deliberate communication”
I wouldn’t suggest getting your definitions from Wikipedia, but since that’s where you’ve gone, let’s take a look…
The definition you quote is completely compatible with what I’ve said about prayer since “Prayer is an invocation…that seeks to activate a rapport with… a spiritual entity through deliberate communication”. The “spiritual entity” in this case is the soul of the Saint in Heaven. The Wikipedia article explains further, but you omitted that section. It explains that “Prayer may be directed towards a… deceased person…requesting assistance”. This is the a perfect summary of Saintly Intercession.
The problem is you are assuming that the one possible meaning of a word is the only meaning. Some words have more than one meaning, and “pray” is one such case. It comes into English via French and is rooted in the Latin word “precarious” which means “obtained by entreaty”. To pray, therefore, means to ask for something. This is aptly demonstrated in my favorite Shakespeare play, A Much Ado About Nothing, in the third scene of the second act:
BENEDICK: An he had been a dog that should have howled thus, they would have hanged him: and I pray God his bad voice bode no mischief…
DON PEDRO: Yea, marry, dost thou hear, Balthasar? I pray thee, get us some excellent music…
Here you see both uses of the word “pray”. In the first, Benedick petitions God, and in the second, Don Pedro asks Balthasar for music. In the former, a request is made to God, in the latter, to man.
> Also, we ASK our friends to pray for us, but we never pray to our friends to pray for us, do you know the difference?
I think the problem here comes from your understanding of what “prayer” means. I addressed it here.
> Saying that Mary can hear millions of prayers at the same time and be present everywhere at the same time is kind of like giving her godly powers.
I also point out elsewhere why these assertions are incorrect.
> the catholic church is not doing well in telling its members that we do not worship Mary but God alone. I grew up Catholic and I know the view Catholics have toward Mary. There are many Catholics who in fact do pray the Rosary, sing to Mary, bow down before her statues as a form of worship.
Did you read this post? I explained why the rosary and songs are not necessarily worship. I don’t see any response to my argument here.
With regards to bowing down to statues, would you also charge Moses with idolatry when he was before the Ark?
> They also attribute to Mary miracles as if Mary had some kind of godly powers.
When the Church proclaims the miracles of Peter which are recorded in Acts, is she attributing to Peter “godly powers” (Acts 5:15)? What about when Paul and Barnabas were in Lystra (Acts 14:12)?
> Probably it has never been the intention of the RCC to do all these things as a form of worship but many Catholics are turning to idolatry
How exactly are “many Catholics” turning these things into idols? Also, if you say that “many Catholics” use these as worship, doesn’t it necessitate the possibility that these things can be used without worship and idolatry?
> The catholic Church also has lots of images.
Don’t forget the Coptic and Eastern Orthodox too…
> Did you know that one of God’s commandments was to never have any graven images?
His command was against worshipping them.
> Yes we all have pictures in our houses of friends and relatives etc…
Why do you make that exception? It’s not listed in Deuteronomy. Also, would I be allowed to kiss a picture of my wife or child? Why do you not count that as worship?
> …but bowing down before them to worship them is another story. Even when having images of Jesus we must not worship them.
Agreed…but we don’t worship images.
> Jesus told the Samaritan woman in John chapter 4, that we must worship God in Spirit because God is a Spirit
So?
> You say that Jesus will offer Mary a seat in his throne as he offered the twelve apostles a throne in heaven.
What I said was that your objection to Mary being on a throne wasn’t consistent with the testimony of Scripture.
> The book of revelations mentions the 12 apostles having a throne but it never indicates Mary will have one
You’re wanting to dictate what appears in John’s vision, a heavily symbolic book. She does appear in the Book of Revelation (singlar, btw), but not in that scene.
Also, I never said that they were apostles. In the text it identifies them as “twenty-four elders” (Revelation 4:4). I would agree with Pope John Paul II when he said “..the 24 elders who seem to symbolize God’s Chosen People in their two historical phases, the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 Apostles of the Church – General Audience of Jan. 12, 2005
> Why would the bible mention the 12 apostles having a throne but not Mary?
Because it’s a heavily symbolic book and the Lord’s mother will be addressed later.
> that by the way the throne these apostles will have is not the throne of God.
Please see my paragraph about the dangers of criticizing some unnamed artwork whose creator might have taken some artistic liberties in his work, rather than the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Well, I do not know how long our discussion will go, but I will keep insisting that we can approach God directly to ask him for something. Yes God is a God of the living but you do not get my point, when the apostles were asking someone to pray for them they were asking it to someone who was here on Earth with them and not to some Spiritual being in heaven. Hebrews 4:16 says we can approach the throne of God with confidence. To God it does not make a difference who is asking him for something and where that person is located, God listens to everyone in any place.
I think you are the one who is trying to come up with another definition for prayer in your attempts to deny that it is used as worship. In either case, praying the Rosary goes against what Jesus said in Matthew 6:7 “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words” The Rosary is all about repeating and repeating the same words many times. We must pray by talking to God. This is how we should pray. When Jesus taught us to pray the “Our Father in Heaven” He was only giving us a guideline for how we should talk to God but it did not mean that we were to just repeat this prayer the same the same time over and over again.
Yes there were many instances in the bible where the apostles healed the sick but it was all attributed to the Holy Spirit. When Peter and John healed the paralytic man outside the temple in Acts, they said “In the name of Jesus Christ”. The miracles were never attributed to them.
The thing is that many Catholics DO attribute the miracles to Mary. There are many Catholics who DO pray directly to Mary. Like I said, I understand you when you say you only ask for Mary’s intercession but many Catholics are deviating from what the Catholic Church officially teaches. I have lived around Catholics my whole life.
God allowed images but never to worship using images. These images were not to be used for worship. Yes in the book of Numbers Moses built a Bronze Snake but it was not for worship purposes. If you read 2 Kings 18:1-4: it says that Hoshea had just become king and he broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. Why did he brake it down? Because the Jews were using it for worship which was idolatry.
This bronze snake along with the ark of covenant were instruments God used to bring salvation to the Jews but we must never focus on the instruments or people God uses to bring us salvation but we must focus on God alone.
And please note that the verse I gave you in 2 kings 18:4 it says that they were burning incense to the bronze snake, meaning that God recognized this as worship, that is why Hoshea destroyed the bronze snake. You Catholics put candles on virgin Mary’s statues and this is viewed by God as worship.
Also, if you read the verses I gave you from Jeremiah 7:18 it says “The children gathered wood, and the men used it to build altars to worship false gods. The women were engaged in kneading dough and baking cakes of bread for the “Queen of Heaven”” In this verse, God is viewing gathering wood, building altars and kneading dough and baking cakes for the queen of heaven as worship. You Catholics engage in all these kinds of practices when you build altars to Mary. To God this is all considered worship.
Now where does Mary appear in the book of revelations? If you are referring to the chapter where it describes the woman giving birth to Jesus and fleeing to hide from the antichrist (the beast), and to Revelations 12:1 where the woman carrying the child descended from heaven with 12 stars and the moon under her feet, well it was not referring to Mary but to Israel. Jesus came from Israel. Israel and the church in the bible are viewed as female. There are verses in the bible where it says we are the bride of Christ.
Revelations 21:2 describes Jerusalem as a bride to God.
Revelation 19:7-9 says we are the bride of the Lamb.
Revelations 21:9 also talks about the Lamb’s wife (Mary can not be Jesus’ wife).
2 Corinthians 11:2 that we have to be like a chaste virgin to Christ.
The church in the bible is viewed as a woman.
> Well, I do not know how long our discussion will go, but I will keep insisting that we can approach God directly to ask him for something.
When did I say we can’t?
> Yes God is a God of the living but you do not get my point, when the apostles were asking someone to pray for them they were asking it to someone who was here on Earth with them and not to some Spiritual being in heaven.
Well, the Angels and Saints in Heaven seem to be doing something with the prayers of the saints on earth in Rev. 5:8; Rev. 8:3–4
The “dead” in Heaven are far more alive than we are.
> Hebrews 4:16 says we can approach the throne of God with confidence. To God it does not make a difference who is asking him for something and where that person is located, God listens to everyone in any place.
Amen, no problem there.
> I think you are the one who is trying to come up with another definition for prayer in your attempts to deny that it is used as worship.
No, I’ve given amble evidence. I used the very document which you presented. I gave the word’s etymology and also demonstrated the variety of meanings with a historical text (A Much Ado About Nothing). I also pointed out that the majority of Christians today and the Christians of history would agree with the varying means I’ve given.
But unless I’m missing something, all you have done is give an incomplete definition and then simply asserted that I’m wrong (disagreeing with the very document you yourself quoted).
> In either case, praying the Rosary goes against what Jesus said in Matthew 6:7… The Rosary is all about repeating and repeating the same words many times
By that logic, Jesus (Matthew 26:39,42,44) and the Angels (Revelation 4:8) are guilty of the same violation.
Of course, neither of these violate the Lord’s words because they’re not vain repetitions.
> We must pray by talking to God
No argument here.
> When Jesus taught us to pray the “Our Father in Heaven” He was only giving us a guideline for how we should talk to God but it did not mean that we were to just repeat this prayer the same the same time over and over again
Why do you think it’s only a guideline? He simply said “When you pray, say: Our Father…”. What makes you think that He didn’t mean that literally?
Again, it’s worth pointing out that it is not an either/or situation. A Catholic’s prayer life will typically be a mixture of set prayers and extempore, conversational prayer and quiet meditation.
> Yes there were many instances in the bible where the apostles healed the sick but it was all attributed to the Holy Spirit. When Peter and John healed the paralytic man outside the temple in Acts, they said “In the name of Jesus Christ”. The miracles were never attributed to them. The thing is that many Catholics DO attribute the miracles to Mary.
That is incorrect. That is not Catholic belief. A miracle might be attributed to her intercession, but the miracle itself was God’s work. This is exactly the same pattern we find in all the various miracles of the New Testament, such as the healing of the beggar at the Temple.
The same happens today when someone is healed through the laying on of hands. It is communicated through a person, but the work itself is God’s.
> There are many Catholics who DO pray directly to Mary. Like I said, I understand you when you say you only ask for Mary’s intercession but many Catholics are deviating from what the Catholic Church officially teaches. I have lived around Catholics my whole life.
I still don’t think you understand what we mean when we talk about prayer to Mary. I pray directly to Mary, asking her for her intercession. Or, maybe it would be better to ask for examples as to how “many Catholics are deviating from what the Catholic Church officially teaches”? If that’s the case, then your objections should simply relate to the orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.
> God allowed images but never to worship using images.
Good, so we have a distinction. It’s not the images themselves, but the worship of them.
> These images were not to be used for worship
And neither are Catholic statues or icons.
> If you read 2 Kings 18:1-4: it says that Hoshea had just become king and he broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. Why did he brake it down? Because the Jews were using it for worship which was idolatry.
…which means that the presence of images and statues doesn’t necessitate worship.
> This bronze snake along with the ark of covenant were instruments God used to bring salvation to the Jews but we must never focus on the instruments or people God uses to bring us salvation but we must focus on God alone.
Now you’re teaching Catholic doctrine.
> And please note that the verse I gave you in 2 kings 18:4 it says that they were burning incense to the bronze snake, meaning that God recognized this as worship, that is why Hoshea destroyed the bronze snake. You Catholics put candles on virgin Mary’s statues and this is viewed by God as worship.
If a mother lights a candle by the picture of her son who is in military service overseas is she worshipping him?
> Now where does Mary appear in the book of revelations?
Revelation, singular.
> If you are referring to the chapter where it describes the woman giving birth to Jesus… it was not referring to Mary but to Israel
It is both.
> Jesus came from Israel
Who was the one who physically gave birth to Jesus? Mary. If you want the “child” in Revelation to refer to an actual person, why is it strange to see the “woman” as an actual historical person too?
> Israel and the church in the bible are viewed as female
Mary was female!
It’s probably worth pointing out that Israel is not referred to in exclusively female terms (Exodus 4:22).
> There are verses in the bible where it says we are the bride of Christ.
Again, as a Catholic I don’t deny any of the images you list here. I just see no reason for excluding Mary from them.
> Revelations 21:2 describes Jerusalem as a bride to God.
So you have no problem saying that Jerusalem is both mother and bride, but you take issue with identifying Mary as the one who gave birth to the Messiah?
> Revelations 21:9 also talks about the Lamb’s wife (Mary can not be Jesus’ wife)
I never said she was.
> “Well, I do not know how long our discussion will go, but I will keep insisting that we can approach God directly to ask him for something.”
As if Catholics don’t? You said you used to be Catholic–did you sleep through the part of Mass where there are a bunch of prayer petitions and the congregation says “Lord, hear our prayer” about a thousand times?
> ” …when the apostles were asking someone to pray for them they were asking it to someone who was here on Earth with them and not to some Spiritual being in heaven…”
No, you’re overlooking the point: once you concede that supplications, prayers, and intercessions among the physically living/spiritually living do not interfere with Christ’s unique role as mediator, then you have also conceded that supplications, prayers, and intercessions among the physically dead/spiritually living do not interfere with Christ’s unique mediation.
Unless–and this is where I’ll offer you a way out of the conundrum (other than to just admit you’re wrong)–unless you can demonstrate how being physically dead interferes with Christ’s role when being physically living doesn’t.
> “To God it does not make a difference who is asking him for something and where that person is located, God listens to everyone in any place.”
Oh well that’s good, but it contradicts your earlier assertion that God in fact does make a difference who is asking (the living or the dead) and where that person is located (on Earth or in Heaven).
> “I think you are the one who is trying to come up with another definition for prayer in your attempts to deny that it is used as worship.”
Pray (v.) early 13c., “ask earnestly, beg,” also (c.1300) “pray to a god or saint,” from Old French preier “to pray” (c.900, Modern French prier), from Vulgar Latin *precare (also source of Italian pregare), from Latin precari “ask earnestly, beg, entreat,” from *prex (plural preces, genitive precis) “prayer, request, entreaty,” from PIE root *prek- “to ask, request, entreat”
So, no it’s you who have to invent new meanings for words to try to solve your theological difficulties. Not Catholics.
> “In either case, praying the Rosary goes against what Jesus said in Matthew 6:7 “And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words” ”
Ah yes. Strong’s Greek 945 battologéō, From “Battus”, a king of Cyrene, who is said to have stuttered (Herodotus 4, 155) and “logos” meaning words.
That sounds more like a verse against Protestants pretending to speak in tongues (Shabanabashabba nah shabba!) than a verse against prayers that repeat.
In fact, since prayers that repeat are explicitly in the Bible (Psa 136 repeats the same phrase twenty six times, Christ’s prayer in the Garden is repeated 3 times in Mt 26:39, 42, 44), I would say your interpretation is wrong wrong wrong.
> “The Rosary is all about repeating and repeating the same words many times.”
Wrong again. To quote JPII, “The Rosary, precisely because it starts with Mary’s own experience, is an exquisitely contemplative prayer. Without this contemplative dimension, it would lose its meaning…
Without contemplation, the Rosary is a
body without a soul, and its recitation
runs the risk of becoming a mechanical
repetition of formulas, in violation of the admonition of Christ…”
In other words, the rosary is ‘all about’ meditating on 20 different events in Christ’s life from Mary’s point of view.
It’s on a schedule so that all of the prayers are praying IN UNISON.
Example:
On Monday and Saturday, meditate on the “Joyful Mysteries”
First Decade: The Annunciation of Gabriel to Mary (Luke 1:26-38)
Second Decade: The Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth (Luke 1:39-45)
Third Decade: The Birth of Our Lord (Luke 2:1-21)
Fourth Decade: The Presentation of Our Lord (Luke 2:22-38)
Fifth Decade: The Finding of Our Lord in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52)
> “The thing is that many Catholics DO attribute the miracles to Mary. There are many Catholics who DO pray directly to Mary.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 970: “…But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.”
> “…but many Catholics are deviating from what the Catholic Church officially teaches.”
So it’s ok to judge the merits of someone’s religion by how some people misinterpret it? REALLY?
> “God allowed images but never to worship using images.”
That is patently false. While it’s true that God never allowed the worship OF images, there is explicit OT references to worship USING images.
Or are you going to tell me that Jews never worshiped using the Ark of the Covenant? Or using vestments decorated with “a likeliness of” something “on the earth”–(pomegranates specifically.)
And let’s be honest, if a Muslim took a s*it on a picture of Jesus, we would take that as an insult. That’s because DISHONOR directed at an image CARRIES OVER to the object of the image.
But is the corollary true? Does honor of an image carry over to the object of an image?
Ask any soldier who has kissed a picture of his mother or his wife or his daughter if he was worshiping them.
It’s a preposterous claim, and I’m embarrassed that protestants make it.
> “You Catholics put candles on virgin Mary’s statues and this is viewed by God as worship.”
So my intent to honor but not worship Mary will be mistakenly interpreted by God to be worshiping Mary?
I’ve never met anyone who believed in a God they thought was a moron before. How does that work?
> “If you are referring to the chapter where it describes the woman giving birth to Jesus and fleeing to hide from the antichrist (the beast), and to Revelations 12:1 where the woman carrying the child descended from heaven with 12 stars and the moon under her feet, well it was not referring to Mary but to Israel.”
Assuming, as is the common interpretation, that Isa 66:7 pulls double duty in a reference to Christ’s Incarnation and to the birth of the modern day nation of Israel, I find that hard to square with Rev 12. You can’t figuratively have the man child born before the labor pains while figuratively having the man child born during the labor pains.
> “But she was given two wings like those of a great eagle so she could fly to the place prepared for her in the wilderness.” is a Semitic figure of speech for a rapid egress (See Ex 19:4). I could see how after the birth of Christ that could apply to Mary (the Holy Family’s flight to Egypt to escape Herod, with the Massacre of the Innocents absorbing the wrath Herod aimed at Jesus).
But what event did Israel go through after Christ was born that fits that mystery?
> The same thing for being ascended to heaven alive.
When you first wrote this I assumed (lol) you made a typo. However, given that you have repeated this, I think you have some misconceptions concerning Catholic belief. Let’s clear up a couple of things…
Firstly, Catholics believe that Mary was assumed into Heaven, as was Elijah and Enoch. Those who are assumed don’t do it through their own ability, rather it is God who draws them to Himself. In contrast, Jesus ascended into Heaven by His own power.
Secondly, I would suggest that you can’t really interpret Munificentissimus Deus to say that Mary was still alive at the time of her Assumption. This is further corroborated by the Eastern Orthodox referring to the Assumption as The Dormition.
> You quoted to me verses where Elijah and Enoch were taken to heaven alive, if the bible mentions the ascension of these people why not mention about Mary as well?
The Bible talks about the martyrdom of James the Less (Acts 12:2). Why doesn’t it tell us about the death of the other eleven? Why is Paul’s death not mentioned? Why isn’t the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction concerning the destruction of Jerusalem recorded there? This is unrealistic (Matthew 24)?
Like Gabriela, I think you’re placing an unreasonable burden on Scripture, expecting it to chronicle every single event within the first century, over a vast geographic region (John 21:25).
> I mean, if it was true that Mary will be offered a throne in heaven and that she was ascended to heaven alive the bible would’ve mentioned about her as well right? but it never did
It mentions something else really important…
Then God’s temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, loud noises, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery. And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. – Revelation 11:19-12:6
> If you realize it, the bible never mentions any of the Marian doctrines such as being sinless, taken to heaven alive, being our mediator, being the queen of heaven, etc etc. Read the book of Acts which talks about the early church, if you read it, it never mentions Mary as playing a role in our salvation. The Catholic Church wants to imply that Mary plays a big role in our salvation but if it was true why would the bible not mention it?
Mary was most likely still alive during the authorship of Acts since its narrative abruptly stops at approximately AD 60. Again, I could list so many things that Acts doesn’t mention, but that’s okay because it was never intended to be an exhaustive history of the apostolic church.
Read the last comment I posted to you about an hour ago.
I’ve responded here.
> The bottom line to everything is that God loves you and he wants to have a personal relationship with you
Like Gabriela, you seem to think I don’t have a personal relationship with Jesus. I do.
> I do not see why God would not listen to you if you do not pray to Mary
When did I say that?
> I know that you guys do not believe in Sola Scripture, …
Your comments about Sola Scriptura were not directly related so I reposted them in the series where I address that issue.
> The Marian Doctrine is not the only thing that I object from the catholic church but also the doctrine of salvation by works…
You keep bringing up more more issues. Since this is another off-topic distraction I’ve reposted it here and responded to it there.
> I do not know what you have to say about the history of the RCC but I will be waiting for your response.
We will deal with that tomorrow. Please respond to the actual post where I deal with your objections, rather than posting all your comments here – it’s too unwieldy.
> The pagans called this goddess the queen of heaven and the mother of God.
You’ve already said that too. Please try and keep things focussed – it’s hard to keep track of things. I’d help a great deal if you put comments on the articles where the topics themselves are discussed.
Revelations 5:8 indicates that the angels were holding prayers that had been prayed to the lamb (Jesus), and not prayers that had been prayed to them. In revelations 8:3-4 the angel was offering the incense to God’s altar. Anything that is offered to God such as prayers, altars and incense is not idolatry because worship is to God, but if any of these things are offered to someone else then it is idolatry. That is why in the book of 2 kings, Hoshea destroyed the bronze snake, because the Jews were offering incense to it and God recognized it as worship and idolatry. In Jeremiah chapter 7, the people were building altars to the queen of heaven and God recognized that as worship and he burned in anger. You say you do not knead bread in a Lady chapel but catholics do build altars with candles and flowers for Mary all the time. This is viewed by God as worship and idolatry. The only people who turn candles and build altars in front of the pictures of their dead relatives are Catholics. Catholics have this custom of celebrating and praying to the dead. They even pray to the holy death statue. God prohibited these practices in the Old Testament. In Deuteronomy 18:9-14, he prohibited calling upon the dead. If what the catholics do in trying to communicate with people like Mary and the saints etc was allowed because you say “God is a God of the living and not a God of the dead” why would God condemn in the OT the practice of calling upon the dead? People who have died are living in heaven but not on Earth. Communicating with someone who is living in heaven is different from communicating with someone who is living here on earth.
In revelations 4:8, that was not a prayer or a conversation the angels were having with God but it was only an exclamation of the angels about God, he is Holy Holy Holy. In Matthew 26:39-42, Jesus was being interrupted by his disciples who were falling asleep instead of praying. It is not that he was trying to say a prayer where he was repeating the same things like in the rosary, but he was trying to talk to God and then would stop (being interrupted by his disciples) and then come back to speak to God again to where he was first left. Sorry friend but I think you are twisting scripture.
And besides that, when Jesus taught us to pray the “our father in heaven” he taught us to pray to who? To God or to someone else who could intercede for us? The fact that Jesus was teaching us to pray to God is evidence that we can approach God directly without using mediators. God listens to you, you do not need any mediators. The bible says Jesus is our mediator. Yes we can ask someone to pray for us but it does not mean that person will be our mediator before God. The Catholic Church has made it a doctrine that Mary is our mediator.
Luke 15:10 states that the angels know when a sinner repents but the angels are not people. Angels do have powers, example satan, satan was the most powerful angelic being, Ephesians 2:2 states that Satan’s kingdom is in the air, he is everywhere. Satan has the power to be in many places at the same time. Angels that serve God also have powers but they also have limitations, if you read the book of Daniel, one of God’s angels was having a difficult battle against Satan who was stopping him from delivering God’s message to Daniel.
About attributing miracles to Mary, you said something like this “That is incorrect. That is not Catholic belief. A miracle might be attributed to her intercession, but the miracle itself was God’s work. “
Well, that is not what I hear from many Catholics. I have heard catholics claiming they have been healed by virgin Mary. I never heard them attributing these miracles to God.
You fail to understand what I am trying to point when I quote Luke 11:27-28. Yes Mary was blessed because she obeyed God’s words but she was blessed like we all are blessed when we obey God but it does not imply the horrific way on how the Catholic Church is exalting Mary. You fail to understand what Jesus was doing in Luke 11:27-28, Jesus was trying to re-direct the attention away from Mary to God. The woman was trying to exalt Mary (the woman who bore Jesus and nursed ) but Jesus responded “blessed are those listen to God’s words and obey them” not in an effort to say that Mary was blessed because she had obeyed God’s words but in an effort to tell the woman that the true exaltation belongs to God.
When it comes to worshipping images you said “Good, so we have a distinction. It’s not the images themselves, but the worship of them” Even when you are only worshipping the person who represents the images (and not the images themselves) it is still wrong to use images during worship. Catholics DO use images to worship. I always see Catholics praying in front of images such as Mary and Jesus. Even when it is Jesus the person you are worshipping and not the image itself it is still wrong.
The book of revelations is all about symbols, when it talked about the woman, it was never referring to a literal woman like Mary, but it was all the time referring to the church or to Israel. If you read revelations chapter 17, it talks about the great prostitute. The great prostitute is the church from where the antichrist is coming. Satan is represented as the great beast. Everything in the book of revelations is symbolic. If we know that the book of revelations is all about symbols there is no reason to believe that the woman was a literal woman like Mary. The bible is giving clear indication that the church is symbolized as a woman, no reason to believe it is Mary.
I know that I am including many topics in this conversation but I do not like posting one comment here and another there because it gets all confusing and I will appreciate if you too put all your comments in one post instead of posting different posts in different places because I get all lost.
Regarding sola scriptura,
Revelations 22:19 says “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.”
God already did and said everything he needed to do and say. There is nothing more to be added such as all the doctrines that the Popes have been adding throughout the centuries.
You quoted to me 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 1 Corinthians 11:2 where the apostles told us to hold on to their traditions but traditions based on things that they had taught or written in the bible. They were not referring to traditions that contradicted the bible. Galatians 1:8 says “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse”. The Catholic Church is engaging in many traditions that contradict scripture.
Acts 17:11 says “for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. In the bible you see people believing only what was written in scripture.
Yes it is true that not everything is written in scripture such as how many of the apostles died, but at least none of these things are contradicting the bible. There are many doctrines being created by the pope that are contradicting scripture.
The verses that I gave you about salvation by Faith alone are not the only verses that state we are saved by Faith Alone there are many more.
Romans 11:5-6 says works will NOT save us read carefully “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. And if by grace, then it CANNOT BE BASED ON WORKS; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.
Read carefully Ephesians 2:8-9 “ For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— NOT BY WORKS, so that no one can boast”. God will not accept our good works to be saved because God does not want us boasting that we did something to earn our own salvation.
The bible in these verses is giving a clear indication that good works will not be the means of salvation. Good works are the result or evidence of our faith in Christ but not the means of salvation.
Besides that when Jesus died in the cross, the gospel of John states that he screamed “It is FINISHED”, saying that we still need to do things to obtain our salvation contradict what Jesus cried out at the cross “it is finished”.
I guess you never read my comment about purgatory which is so unbiblical as well. Saying that we still need to go to purgatory is like saying that Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient to pay for our sins. When Jesus was dying at the cross, the thief told him, “remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus told him “TODAY, you will be with me in paradise”. Jesus did not say “after some years or after some months”. Yes sin has consequences, there is a consequence to every bad action we will face here on earth. God forgave king david for his sins but david paid the consequence of his sins while on earth.
Monica, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t post massive comments like this that deal with on so many different issues. It makes it hard to track. This is why I broke up your original comment into a series of posts and it’s why I’ve broken up my comments.
> Revelations 5:8 indicates that the angels were holding prayers that had been prayed to the lamb (Jesus), and not prayers that had been prayed to them.
Why do they have anything to do with prayers to God at all? Prayers go from the believer to God without any mediation, right?
If I were a Protestant and writing the Book of Revelation, I’d have the incense rising from earth directly to God’s throne. No angels or Saints would be involved in my version. However, that’s not what John wrote…
> That is why in the book of 2 kings… In Jeremiah chapter 7, the people were building altars to the queen of heaven…
This was just a repetition of what you’ve said before. It would be much more helpful if you responded to what I’ve said and address my various unanswered questions.
> You say you do not knead bread in a Lady chapel but catholics do build altars with candles and flowers for Mary all the time. This is viewed by God as worship and idolatry
That’s quite a pronouncement!
Where does Scripture say that lighting a candle counts as worship? Were the candlelit vigils for the 9/11 or Columbine victims “worship”? Those vigils even involved pictures of the deceased – was that idolatry?
Where does Scripture say giving flowers is “worship”? I know it’s less common today for a guy to buy his mother/sister/girlfriend/friend flowers… but on those rare occasions, I doubt anyone has ever considered that an act of worship!
We keep coming back to the same issue: if it’s okay to do something as an expression of love for a loved one, why does it suddenly become “worship” when it’s done for Mary?
> Catholics have this custom of celebrating and praying to the dead
Yes, because it’s a Jewish practice, recorded in the the Book of Maccabees and found in the Early Church. Also, are you saying that at Protestant funerals they’re not “celebrating” the deceased?
> They even pray to the holy death statue
“Not sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church” – Wikipedia
> In Deuteronomy 18:9-14, he prohibited calling upon the dead.
You’re reading into the text. What is condemned is “necromancy”. That’s not Saintly Intercession.
> Communicating with someone who is living in heaven is different from communicating with someone who is living here on earth
Different? Yes, it is!
> In revelations 4:8, that was not a prayer or a conversation the angels…
Since these comments were all about mediation, I moved them to the mediation post.
(Again, it’s Revelation, not Revelations)
> Well, that is not what I hear from many Catholics. I have heard catholics claiming they have been healed by virgin Mary. I never heard them attributing these miracles to God.
I have never heard anyone say that. It’s not Catholic teaching and therefore I won’t defend it.
Pope John Paul II will be canonized in Rome in the next few days. In the canonization process to officially enroll someone as a Saint, a miracle is required, attributed to that Saint’s intercession. Sr. Marie Simon-Pierre’s was healed from Parkinson’s Disease and this is the miracle attributed to the former Pope’s case. However, it was God who gave the healing. If you see anything in the news which speaks about “Pope John Paul Healed Nun”, it is technically incorrect and not Catholic teaching.
Out of interest, to what do you attribute miracles like this Nun’s healing?
> You fail to understand what I am trying to point when I quote Luke 11:27-28. Yes Mary was blessed because she obeyed God’s words but she was blessed like we all are blessed when we obey God but it does not imply the horrific way on how the Catholic Church is exalting Mary
Wait, so all generations are going to call you blessed?
> You fail to understand what Jesus was doing in Luke 11:27-28, Jesus was trying to re-direct the attention away from Mary to God. The woman was trying to exalt Mary (the woman who bore Jesus and nursed ) but Jesus responded “blessed are those listen to God’s words and obey them” not in an effort to say that Mary was blessed because she had obeyed God’s words but in an effort to tell the woman that the true exaltation belongs to God.
I think you’re letting your anti-Mary bias colour your reading of the text.
The woman praises Jesus by blessing His mother (a Semitic idiom). Jesus uses her words as a teaching moment, pointing out that the one who is truly blessed is the one who is obedient to God.
Where in the text does Jesus talk about exaltation to God? He doesn’t, he talks about obedience to God’s Word…which was exactly what Mary was.
> When it comes to worshipping images you said “Good, so we have a distinction. It’s not the images themselves, but the worship of them” Even when you are only worshipping the person who represents the images (and not the images themselves) it is still wrong to use images during worship.
We’re back to Moses with the Ark and the Bronze Snake again. You have to condemn him too.
> Even when it is Jesus the person you are worshipping and not the image itself it is still wrong
Why? You can’t just assert it.
> The book of revelations is all about symbols, when it talked about the woman, it was never referring to a literal woman like Mary, but it was all the time referring to the church or to Israel.
That is your assertion but you haven’t responded to what Daniel and I said on this matter. You can’t deny that the “the woman” is an actual historical person while, at the same time, asserting that “the son” is.
> If you read revelations chapter 17, it talks about the great prostitute. The great prostitute is the church from where the antichrist is coming
I’d invite you to reconsider your interpretation here by reading this article
> Everything in the book of revelations is symbolic
Everything? Absolutely everything? So “the Son” birthed by “the woman” doesn’t refer to Jesus?
> Regarding sola scriptura…
I moved your previous comments about this doctrine to the article where I actually discuss that teaching. I’d appreciate it if you’d keep your comments about that subject there.
> The verses that I gave you about salvation by Faith alone…
As with your comments about Sola Scriptura, I would prefer to keep separate topics on separate articles and comment threads.
> I guess you never read my comment about purgatory which is so unbiblical as well.
I don’t see any comment about purgatory, but why is that relevant to this discussion? If you want to talk about purgatory, please do it on the Purgatory post.
> Saying that we still need to go to purgatory is like saying that Jesus’ sacrifice was not sufficient to pay for our sins.
That is incorrect. I’d hazard a guess that your understanding of Purgatory needs to be cleansed of some misunderstandings.
> When Jesus was dying at the cross, the thief told him, “remember me when you come into your kingdom”, and Jesus told him “TODAY, you will be with me in paradise”. Jesus did not say “after some years or after some months”. Yes sin has consequences, there is a consequence to every bad action we will face here on earth.
Perhaps interpreting this passage isn’t quite as straight-forward as you say?
* Firstly, the difference a comma can make: “Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise”. See the difference in meaning just by moving the comma?
* Next, you’re assuming that “paradise” means “Heaven”. Had Jesus ascended into Heaven the day after His death? Wasn’t He in Sheol?
* Finally, you’re assuming that the concept of time in eternity is identical to that of terrestrial time.
> God forgave king david for his sins but david paid the consequence of his sins while on earth
So you do agree that one’s sins can be forgiven but that the sins can still have a consequence which must be dealt with? It’s just a hop, skip and a jump then to the doctrine of Purgatory.
Sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ, but there are still consequences to sin which must be address i.e. a purgation after death, to be cleansed of “straw and hay”.
In an effort to try and associate the various discussions with their related posts, I have moved some of my responses to the article where the topic was raised:
“Also, if you read the verses I gave you from Jeremiah 7:18 it says…”
“If you notice, Jesus always refused to exalt Mary…”
“he RCC still uses many OT practices…”
“If you look at the statues these pagans were worshipping…”
well, I think it is pointless that I keep answering to your messages because it seems like you have an excuse for everything I tell you. You just dont seem to understand that praising, exalting, and having that devotion for Mary is completely wrong and forbidden by God. You keep trying to compare everything you do to Mary to how we interact with people who live with us but you just dont seem to understand that what Catholics are doing with Mary has nothing to do with what we do with the people who live around us. Like I mentioned to you before, I doubt you are a born again Christian, if you were you would understand what I am telling you. I agree with what the other poster said about you, it does not seem like you have a personal relationship with Jesus and if you do, you might be few of the exceptions because most Catholics DONT. Catholicism is more about religiosity it is all about performing many religious rituals and praying to Mary rather than having a personal relationship with God. You can not have a strong bond with your wife when you are also having a relationship with other women as well. In the same way, Catholics can not establish that strong bond with God when they are so many people such as Mary and the saints interfering between you and God. Just think about Pope John Paul, he entrusted his soul to Mary, he entrusted the church to Mary, when he died, he had the letter “M” for Mary in his coffin. So where is Jesus? I know that you have been trying to find every excuse to say that Mary is not becoming the focus of the Catholic Church but in fact it is. It really bothers me on how Catholics divide their love and devotion between God and Mary. It is 50% Jesus and it is 50% Mary. God wants you 100%. God does not share anything with anyone. But oh well, you know what, it is just a waste of time trying to discuss these things with you. Keep having your relationship with Mary and we will see if she will be able to do something to save your soul. I am sorry friend but you die you are going to wake up to a cruel reality in the same way Pope John Paul woke up to a cruel reality for entrusting his soul to the wrong person.
Monica:
You have been told lies by people who didn’t even know they were lying, because they were only repeating lies told by others.
Don’t worry, it isn’t your fault, unless your reason for NOT waking up to the truth is a bad one (e.g., you don’t want to find out that your church is incorrect because then you’d lose friends and possibly have to attend a different church where you were less comfortable).
Catholics don’t have “an excuse” for each of the old canards you’ve offered; they have a counter-argument, which is different.
He (or she) who starts a debate ought to expect the other side to contend for their position. Indeed, if he (or she) is a truth-seeker, then he (or she) ought to be grateful and pleased: It means that, if you can demonstrate your view to be correct even against the best counter-arguments the other side can give, then your view is probably really true.
Alternatively, if you cannot, then they have shown either the weakness of your arguments (in which case, praise be to God, you’ll be cured of erroneously believing they were strong); or, they have shown you your opinion was actually false (in which case you may be doubly grateful, for they may have saved you from hell).
So be ecstatic, not irritated, that the Catholic Church is so well-grounded in Scripture, and so profoundly continuous from the faith of Abraham and Moses and David and the prophets of Israel. Whatever the Catholic Church is right about, you may incorporate into your own love of Christ!
You say, “You just dont seem to understand that praising, exalting, and having that devotion for Mary is completely wrong and forbidden by God.”
Not so. It is *commanded* by God. Please tell me which one of these statements you disagree with Monica:
1. Mary is the mother of Jesus;
2. God commands us: “Thou shalt honor [in Hebrew, literally, ‘glorify’] thy father and mother”;
3. Christ obeyed the ten commandments;
4. Christians are supposed to imitate Christ.
Monica, if you are a baptized Christian, then you are an adopted daughter of God the Father, and an adopted little sister of King Jesus. Just who do you suppose your mother is, child of God? Aren’t you willing to obey God’s command to honor [literally, “glorify”] your mother?
You say, “Like I mentioned to you before, I doubt you are a born again Christian….”
Every Catholic is born again, at baptism. Didn’t you know that Jesus’ words “you must be born again” (also translated “born from above” refer to Christian baptism?
There is a misunderstanding (due to ignorance of Scripture in some circles) that a conversion experience, or repenting one’s sins, is what Jesus meant by “born again.” But the proper terms for such things are conversion or repentance.
You add, “…if you were you would understand what I am telling you.”
I think he understands quite well, judging by what he’s written. But even supposing (for the sake of argument) that he doesn’t…isn’t it more likely that it’s because the vocabulary of your 500-or-less-year-old religious tradition is confusing him by using the same words his tradition uses, but using different meanings for them? (Like the misuse of “born again,” for example?)
You say, “I agree with what the other poster said about you, it does not seem like you have a personal relationship with Jesus….”
What a strange statement! Look at the enthusiasm and peace with which he defends his daily walk of faith! I think your irritation has gotten the best of you, Monica: You are reading his words through red lenses, and seeing red. Take a step back, and a deep breath, and read what he writes when he isn’t specifically trying to cure your mistaken notions about Catholic Christianity.
You add, “…and if you do, you might be few of the exceptions because most Catholics DON’T.”
Excuse me.
I grew up Southern Baptist; I was a Christian apologist; I was always very intensely interested in Scripture and while I am a sinner I love Jesus. But I discovered that Protestantism is anti-Scriptural in various ways and that the Catholic faith is not, when one gets past one’s biases and interprets the Bible the way first-century Jews interpreted it. So — although it cost me in various ways — I submitted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ and joined the Church He created. Since doing so I have received amazing blessings of grace and mercy from my Lord!
I do not know about “most Catholics.” Are you judging by whether their vocabulary of faith is “happy clappy?” That is a cultural distinctive of a certain kind of American religion, and while there is room for it in the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom is vast, and can also encompass ecstatic charismatics and sober ascetics and “all the birds of the air,” just like the Bible says.
And anyway, that is but your surface-level impression. “God looketh at the heart.”
My own experience — joy in finding my faith completed when I came home to the Church — certainly seems consistent with that of the stream Protestant converts I’m aware of: Former pastors who’re giving up their livelihood to become Catholics, former Protestant seminary professors, and the like. (There’s a whole television show about them called “The Journey Home”; you can watch former episodes of it on You Tube.)
Yet they don’t resent their Protestant upbringing. They are grateful for the emphasis on Scripture, which encouraged them to pursue Scripture until they understood it better than Calvin and Luther and finally realized that Jesus’ words about “the Church” and “binding and loosing” and “whosoever’s sins you forgive, they are forgiven” and “the pillar and bulwark of truth” can only be true of one church on earth: The one led by bishops in Apostolic Succession (just like the Bible says) which is in communion with the Chief Steward of the Kingdom who has the “keys of the kingdom” under the Son of David (just like the Bible says).
What a relief to find a Church that’s so rooted in Scripture!
You say, “Catholicism is more about religiosity….”
Have you forgotten what the Bible says? James refers to “religion which is pure and undefiled” and the good works (works of grace, naturally, which God has prepared for us beforehand that we might walk in them) associated with “religion which is pure and undefiled.”
Christianity leads us into a personal relationship with God, of course! That’s the first step. But Christianity is so much more than a mere relationship; it is “theosis” as the early Christians of the east liked to say: That we become sons and daughters of God from the inside out, swept up into the divine inner life of the Trinity. We are all to be holy, all to be contemplatives, all to be mystics. I have a “relationship” with my earthly father; my earthly pastor; even my earthly accountant: But Jesus is the only person who gives Himself to me so fully as to rest His body on my tongue, to warm my throat with His blood, to intermix the atoms of His body with mine so that we are one. It is all “relationship” because “relationship” is stage one and all the other stages of devotion build up from there.
You say, “it is all about performing many religious rituals and praying to Mary rather than having a personal relationship with God.”
That statement makes no sense. If you ask my Mom to pray for you, it doesn’t impede you from having a relationship with me! Indeed, it improves that relationship: You are not merely “my friend” but also “a friend of the family.” I accept that you already want to be Jesus’ friend; why not be a friend of His whole family? You know Him; why not get to know His mom, His cousins, His foster-father?
You say, “You can not have a strong bond with your wife when you are also having a relationship with other women as well.”
True enough, provided the “relationship” you are describing with the “other women” is even potentially a sexual one. But note: Can you, Monica, have a strong bond with your husband, and at the same time get along well with his mother, his aunts and uncles? (In this example, let us presume for the sake of argument what is not likely: That they’re all wonderful, easy-to-get-along-with people.)
It is the concern about infidelity which makes relationships with other women problematic for a man. But would your husband be upset with you for having a close bond with a grandfather or grandmother of his, whom he loves? Of course not: He doesn’t imagine for a moment you’ll be unfaithful.
“In the same way, Catholics can not establish that strong bond with God when they are so many people such as Mary and the saints interfering between you and God.”
Was Mary the enemy of God? Was John the Baptist a competitor of Jesus, even when he was on earth? No? How much less does he compete with Jesus, now that he is in Heaven!
There is, of course, a risk that a Christian (the majority of whom throughout history have asked saints to intercede for them) might focus so much on asking a saint — or even an earthly friend they know to be holy and devout — to pray for them that they forget to pray for themselves. But this is very rare, I think.
Oh, and I did once hear of some heretical nuns who violated the laws of the Church by offering sacrifice to Mary rather than God. Naturally, they were excommunicated for doing so. (One of the advantages of Jesus’ Church is that if someone goes off the rails, Jesus gave His stewards authority to correct the matter.) This, if nothing else, should illustrate to you how the Catholic Church feels about people who cross the line and offer to a saint (even Mary) the kind of worship due to God alone.
You say, “Just think about Pope John Paul, he entrusted his soul to Mary, he entrusted the church to Mary, when he died, he had the letter “M” for Mary in his coffin. So where is Jesus?”
And here, there is some excuse for you not understanding this, for your own experiences of partial-Christianity, while noble and helpful for you (even half of God’s graces are profoundly beneficial, though less so than the full dosage!), do not include the full experience of Jesus Christ.
But your question, “Where is Jesus?” is the kind of thing that ruins computer keyboards: Anyone who knew John Paul II or even read his encyclicals would spit their drink out as they burst out laughing. Wouldn’t you be lifelong friends with a faithful Christian who, when you were lost and alone, led you to Christ? Mary helped John Paul II to know her Son better; why wouldn’t he be grateful to her? Mary was an example, a trusted intercessor, and a spiritual mother to John Paul II (and all Christians, whether they know it or not). As a result, this poor little Polish boy received a fantastic blessing: He got to serve and honored Jesus daily, to receive God on his tongue literally, and to giving thanks through, with, and in Jesus as his life-calling! What a privilege! (The hassle and burden of dealing with Nazis and Communists and the burdens of the papacy came with it, of course, but Jesus more than makes up for all that.)
Anyway, what kind of motives are you ascribing to Jesus, here? Jesus does not feel cheated when we imitate Him by honoring His mother. What kind of son would resent it if you showed effusive thanks to his mom for introducing you to him?
You say, “I know that you have been trying to find every excuse to say that Mary is not becoming the focus of the Catholic Church but in fact it is.”
Sorry, Monica, she just isn’t. You’re ignorant, even if it isn’t your fault. Don’t feel bad: A lot of Arab Muslims actually believe Jews eat babies and control the world, or whatever, because they’ve been told nonsense by people whom they otherwise trusted.
But really, one needs eventually to think for oneself. Be realistic: Who knows more about it; you who hasn’t read ten serious Christian books by Catholics in your life, or someone who practices the Christian faith in the Catholic church day-in, day-out?
You say, “It really bothers me on how Catholics divide their love and devotion between God and Mary.”
Yeah, I can tell it bothers you, which is a shame because it isn’t true, so it’s a lot of bother for nothing.
You say, “God wants you 100%.”
Yes.
You say, “God does not share anything with anyone.”
Whoa! Excuse me: That is heretical, damnable, satanic nonsense.
The very nature of the love of God is life-giving, selfless outpouring. Share nothing? God offers HIMSELF, and He is EVERYTHING. When He gives us Himself, what more could He possibly share? Is there anything of greater value in all the universe or beyond it?
Or consider this: He is existence, which is why His name is “I AM”: He is the one who really IS. Our existence, our ability to be and to continue be-ing, is derivative: He is constantly “loaning” us the quality of existing. Our very ability to keep existing from one moment to the next is a constant sharing, by Him.
Likewise our ability to think: We can reason because we share in His truth. Likewise our ability to imagine ideas or invent machines or compose songs: That is Him sharing His intrinsic creativity with us. Likewise our ability to choose, and to know, and to love. We can only love (in our fitful, fallen, derivative way) because He Is Love, and graciously shares that aspect of Himself with us.
God shares with everyone, all the freakin’ time: Both the good people and the bad people: God graciously allows the sun to shine on them all. “Does not share anything with anyone,” you say? Blasphemy, madame! He rarely does anything else!
He is very specific: We are to WORSHIP (or, in more traditional language, to ADORE) Him, alone. That, He does not share.
But that rule is also the command of the Catholic Church: See the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 2084 through 2141.
Inasmuch as the Adoration God requires we give to Him alone is given, by Catholics, to Him alone, as the Church requires…your accusation is without merit.
Saints receive veneration, not adoration. (The traditional term for this is “dulia.” Mary is highest of all non-divine persons, and thus receives the highest veneration (“hyperdulia”).
And, Monica, here’s another thing you don’t get: If I venerate, say, the Apostle John…don’t you see that I’m thereby venerating Christ? According to Jesus’ own words (in the Damascus Road experience of St. Paul; it’s right there in the Bible), persecuting Christians equals persecuting Jesus. Why? Because they are members of His body. You are what you eat; Christians (when they have an orthodox eccleisiology and sacramental life) eat Jesus; and in so doing, they collectively become Jesus. The theology of Paul is rife with this idea — unsurprising since it comes from the mouth of Our Lord. How can it be a sin to venerate Jesus’ hands and feet — and is it not true (in the Bible!) that John and Paul and Matthew are “His hands” and “His feet?”
Monica, the sum of it is: Your faith-formation is like that of a Mormon; and being like a Mormon, you have a mistaken idea of what it means to be a Christian.
I don’t mean “Mormon” literally: It’s an analogy. Plenty of Mormons think their version of Christianity is real: It’s what they were raised with, so how could they know better? You were not raised in quite-so-heretical a group as that; your Christianity is at least Trinitarian. But your situation is similar: Accustomed to a truncated Reader’s Digest Abridged Version of Christianity, you see the un-abridged version and respond to every unfamiliar paragraph by saying, “Hey! That’s not supposed to be there!”
If you think I’m wrong, feel free to ask the opinion of Ignatius of Antioch…a man who learned his Christianity from, whom? (The Apostle John.) Who was a presbyter in a church “planted” by whom, exactly? (The Apostle Peter. If Ignatius’ understanding of the Bible and the Faith is not “apostolic” enough for you, whose is? Will you prefer, oh, I dunno, Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson over a guy who learned the faith from the Apostles themselves? No?)
Read what Ignatius says, in his letters, which he wrote around 107-ish AD when he was on his way to be martyred for the faith. He speaks as a man familiar with the Church that Jesus established through the apostles. Read what he says, Monica. Which Church does it sound like? Into what church did the Apostles apparently convert him, train him, and ordain him to leadership? Does he sound like a Baptist? A Methodist? A Seventh-Day Adventist? Was Ignatius a Shaker? A Quaker? A Mary-Eddy-Baker? Read his letters — they aren’t that long — and see.
You have a choice: Remain in the Christian offshoot sect where you are comfortable because you have friends and history there, even though it isn’t even a thousand years old…or, to follow Jesus Christ into the uncomfortable depths of His Kingdom.
May God grant you the grace to set your hand to the plough and not turn back.
Respectfully, R.C.
P.S. — I didn’t want to seem off-putting, so I didn’t put Scripture chapter-and-verse citations on every quote or paraphrase of Scripture I just included in this note. But careful reading should allow you to pick up on them, if you know your Bible well. There are about twenty-five; if you look hard you’ll catch ’em.
Thanks for your thoughts RC. I had prepared my own response to Monica’s comment, but I was holding off posting it because I really wanted her to try and interact with the final post in this series without distraction.
It’s quite funny to see how similar our replies were to each other…
> well, I think it is pointless that I keep answering to your messages…
I don’t know if how much “answering” has really happened. Looking over our exchange I see only minimal engagement with the six articles I wrote. This is much like your original comment which didn’t address anything mentioned in the article itself.
Unfortunately, I’m also a bit concerned as to how closely you’ve been reading the responses. I say this for a few reasons:
(a) The majority of my questions have been left unanswered.
(b) Daniel’s comment received no response
(c) You keep referring to “revelations” whereas I’ve pointed out several times (here, here and here) that the name of the book of the Bible in singular: “Revelation” (or “The Revelation of John” or “The Apocalypse”).
(d) Although I’ve asked you not to, you keep bringing up irrelevant topics (Sola Fide, Purgatory etc.)
(d) Despite my repeated requests, you keep posting single, massive comments, rather than responding on the appropriate posts and comment threads.
I’d really love for this discussion to continue, but it would be far more profitable if some of these things were taken into consideration.
> Like I mentioned to you before, I doubt you are a born again Christian, if you were you would understand what I am telling you.
Here is an example of where there has been no interaction with my replies. When you said this before, I responded to your unexplained assertion:
(a) I asked for an explanation. What makes excludes me from being born again?
(b) I explained that in my former (non-Catholic) congregation such a term was applied to me.
I received no reply.
> I agree with what the other poster said about you, it does not seem like you have a personal relationship with Jesus and if you do, you might be few of the exceptions because most Catholics DONT.
Another example of non-engagement. I contested this assertion…but received no response. It does, of course, beg the question the basis on which you claim to have knowledge of my walk with the Lord, as well as the state of the souls of 1.2 billion Catholics around the globe.
> But oh well, you know what, it is just a waste of time trying to discuss these things with you.
Well, I do hope you stick around. I’d particularly like to hear your response to the questions posed in the final post. I spent quite a bit of time assembling that post and I’m keen to hear your thoughts after reading some of the primary sources for the first time.
> You can not have a strong bond with your wife when you are also having a relationship with other women as well. In the same way, Catholics can not establish that strong bond with God when they are so many people such as Mary and the saints interfering between you and God.
The reasoning here is rather questionable. Can you have a strong bond with your father and your sister?
You’ve presented this logic quite often and I think it’s an essential blind-spot with regards to the Saints. I think you regard them as being competition with God (as if such a thing were possible!), rather than being our “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1). They are our teachers, our older siblings in the Faith, who love us and cheer us on as we strive towards the finish line and final home.
> Just think about Pope John Paul, he entrusted his soul to Mary, he entrusted the church to Mary, when he died, he had the letter “M” for Mary in his coffin. So where is Jesus?
You could only say something like that if you weren’t familiar with the MASSIVE corpus of the late Pope’s writings concerning the Lord.
> It really bothers me on how Catholics divide their love and devotion between God and Mary
How would you react if I said it really bothers me how children divide their love between their parents and their older siblings? It wouldn’t make sense, would it? If that’s the case, how does it make sense here?
> It is 50% Jesus and it is 50% Mary. God wants you 100%.
Aside from the rather worrying idea that you can represent love in percentages, you are giving an either/or proposition to a both/and situation. If you applied your logic rigorously then that would mean that you wouldn’t be allowed to love anyone else. Kids? No love. Siblings? No love. Friends? No love. Spouse? No love.
Now, our Lord used the rhetorical device in the Gospels when He said that we are unworthy of Him if we do not “hate mother and father” (Luke 14:26). However, that is a semitic idiom to indicate preference. We must love Him first…we must love Him above all. It doesn’t literally mean that we must hate our parents…or His Creation…or His beloved Saints for whom He died. You do the artist no service by ignoring his artwork.
> God does not share anything with anyone
This is a short sentence, but I think it encapsulates the problem. Now, I might jealously guard my fries when I’m at a restaurant with my friends…but God? He shares!
In the beginning, when God created Adam He created him as a son in His image and likeness. He delegated him as priest, prophet and king, to rule and guard the Garden.
After the Fall, when God wanted to save mankind, He chose a family (Noah), a tribe (Abraham) and a Kingdom (David) to prepare the way for this salvation.
During His earthly ministry, Jesus constantly involved His disciples, sharing with them His ministry, His power and His authority. When He called Saul of Tarsus He said “Why do you persecute me?”, identifying Himself with His disciples in the most radical way.
So, the Doctrine of Participation is found throughout the DNA of the Biblical narrative. It is no threat to God because He knows that what He shares with us can be used for His glory. This will all culminate in Heaven, of course, when the communion will be complete as will share in the life of the Blessed Trinity and be “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).
> Keep having your relationship with Mary and we will see if she will be able to do something to save your soul.
Jesus is my saviour and it is only through Him, with Him and in Him that I can be saved, by virtue of His blood on the cross. However, I have the Saints to cheer me on, pray for me and inspire me.
If you love Jesus, love His mother and love His family.
I have read ALL your comments but what is the point with answering to all of them when we will never come to an agreement? I do not answer all of them because I consider it unnecessary, and sorry if I dont go to every site where you post a comment but I dont really have that much to say to every point you make.
I think you have your own believes and I have mine. I personally believe God alone is worthy of our praises, worship and devotion. Yes we love our family and friends but not to the point where we begin to praise them and exalt them and feel that devotion catholics feel for Mary. I also admire Mary for being such a godly woman and it is ok to admire someone but admiring and honoring someone to the extremes on how Catholics are exalting Mary is absolutely wrong.
I have mentioned to you that many Catholics are turning to worship of Mary even though this is not the official catholic church but you fail to understand this, either you are totally blind on what Catholics are doing or you do not want to see the reality. I grew up in the catholic church and I understand perfectly the view of most catholics toward Mary.
When I hear people praying to Mary, I never hear them say “Mary ask God to heal me” or “Mary ask God to protect me”, but I always hear Catholics say “Mary heal me”, or “Mary protect me”, do you see the difference? The way you pray to Mary sounds like you are directly praying to her as if she was the one healing you and protecting you on her own. To me, these prayers do not sound like intercessory prayers like you want to suggest but rather they sound like prayers directly to Mary.
Anyways, I do not based my believes based on these sites I gave you, I became a born again Christian long time before I started reading these sites and realized that Catholicism is all about idolatry. When you start making something else other than God the center of your life then you are turning to idolatry, even if it is your wife, your kids, your job etc. I do love my mother and siblings etc and show my love to them but I never do the things Catholics are doing with Mary such as walking on my knees for long distances to ask them for a favor and then later attributing to them some supernatural godly powers. And if people die in a tragedy, people usually put candles to remember these people but that is because those people died in a tragedy, and it is only on a one time occasion. It has nothing to do with what Catholics are doing with Mary in celebrating every year her apparitions by building altars to her, singing her worship songs, carrying her statues for long distances in pilgrimages, and praying to her. I would never do something like to my mother, children etc. Singing a happy birthday song has nothing to do with singing a worship song. Celebrating their birthdays every year has nothing to do with how people are celebrating every year Mary’s apparitions (which by the way this was only Satan who can transform into anything to deceive people).
I quoted to you the the verse in Jeremiah where God was angry with the Jews because they were building altars and burning incense to the pagan goddess queen of heaven. I know I have been repeating this verse but that is because you are not understanding my point. This is what Catholics are doing today with Mary and it has nothing to do with celebrating a relative’s birthday etc.
Just let me give you an example on how you are not counteracting arguments but rather finding excuses, when Jesus said “I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” you tried to change the location of the comma where the sentence becomes “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise” but if you read the bible, this is not how it is written. It is written like this “I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”
Being born again is when you become a new creation when you become a new person. Just being immersed in water does not mean you will become a new person. What will turn you into a new person is your decision to follow Christ and the Holy Spirit changing you. So what is the point of being immersed in water (in baptism) when you are still living a sinful lifestyle? The baptism will have no meaning if you do not change who you are. You can not enter heaven if you do not change who you are (from being sinful to following Christ). Of course we will still make mistakes but making a mistake is different from living a sinful lifestyle. What Jesus was referring to baptism is about the cleansing of sins, the cleansing of sins only comes when you leave your sinful lifestyle, and not when you take a shower on holy water? Do you get it? The water has no meaning when you are still a sinful person. My interpretation makes more sense than your interpretation. Read Psalm 51:2 where David wanted to be washed of his inequity.
Anyways, I will leave it at that. I guess I can not change your worldview. I believe you are a honest believer in Christ but you are blind to what the Roman Catholic Church is really about:(
I’d appreciate it if you’d answer the questions I posed in the comments of my final post (here and here)
> I have read ALL your comments…
But can you understand why it doesn’t appear so?
> …but what is the point with answering to all of them when we will never come to an agreement?
You appear to suggest that dialogue is pointless. However, that’s clearly not true since I once believed as you did, yet I was convinced otherwise.
> I do not answer all of them because I consider it unnecessary and sorry if I dont go to every site where you post a comment but I dont really have that much to say to every point you make.
If that’s the case then why keep branching off into unrelated topics and repeating the same assertions but without explanation? I’m not expecting you to respond to every point I make, but if I ask a question, how is dialogue meant to proceed if you simply ignore the question?
> And if people die in a tragedy, people usually put candles to remember these people but that is because those people died in a tragedy, and it is only on a one time occasion
Before you claimed that lighting candles means worship. But now you’re suggesting it’s okay as long as it’s only done once? What about a yearly remembrance? Is that okay, or does that now become worship?
> I quoted to you the the verse in Jeremiah where God was angry with the Jews because they were building altars and burning incense to the pagan goddess queen of heaven. I know I have been repeating this verse but that is because you are not understanding my point. This is what Catholics are doing today with Mary…
You keep asserting that but without any substantiation as to why it’s the same.
> Just let me give you an example on how you are not counteracting arguments but rather finding excuses, when Jesus said “I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise” you tried to change the location of the comma where the sentence becomes “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise” but if you read the bible, this is not how it is written. It is written like this “I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise”
Which translation? Written in what language? The earliest Greek manuscripts contain no punctuation. In fact, all the letters are in capitals and run together. Also, if you recall, on this subject I asked you a question in response…
> Being born again is when you become a new creation when you become a new person
From where are you getting this definition?
> Just being immersed in water does not mean you will become a new person
Baptism has been the historical interpretation of the text where Jesus speaks of “being born of water and the spirit”. You don’t find any definition coming even close to yours until nearly sixteen hundred years after Christ.
> The baptism will have no meaning if you do not change who you are
I wrote a post explaining from Scripture how Baptism forgives sin.
> Anyways, I will leave it at that.
It sounds like you’re leaving, which is a shame. However, if that’s the case, I’d really prefer it if you at least answered the three questions I asked in the final post. If you don’t want to go looking for them here they are:
1. Can you affirm all the statements from the (pre-Constantine) Christians?
A yes or no answer will do here. You appeared to indicate that the answer is “No”, putting you at odds with Christians as soon as the Second Century, as well as the Christians who copied and assembled the Bible you have in your hands.
2. Can you identify anyone [between the death of the last Apostle and the Reformation] who held the same doctrines which you yourself hold?
A yes or no answer will do here. Again, I’m going to guess that your answer here is “No”, which essentially means you have to think Christians got it completely wrong for at least the first 1,600 years.
3. Is it therefore safe to conclude that the Catholic Faith existed long before Constantine?
I’m not quite sure how you’ll answer this. I’ve demonstrated without a doubt, from historical primacy sources, that the Faith of the Early Church was certainly not Protestantism, but easily recognizable as Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy…yet in your initial response you still affirmed that Catholicism was founded by Constantine… I don’t know how you can think that given the sources presented.
I answered some of your other questions in the places you told me to post them.
I will answer some of the questions you asked me in this post in this place. I will not answer all of them at once but I am hoping I can answer the rest later.
You asked me these questions
1. “Can you have a strong bond with your father and your sister?”
2. “How would you react if I said it really bothers me how children divide their love between their parents and their older siblings? It wouldn’t make sense, would it? If that’s the case, how does it make sense here?”
3. ” If you applied your logic rigorously then that would mean that you wouldn’t be allowed to love anyone else. Kids? No love. Siblings? No love. Friends? No love. Spouse? No love”
My answer is YES you can love your wife, friends, brothers, sisters equally but you do not love them equally to God. You love God more than what you love your wife, children, brothers and sisters etc. You love these people but you do not exalt them far beyond a human position by giving them titles such as holy, mediators, sinless, queens and kings of heaven etc.
Like I said to you, loving and admiring someone is not wrong, what is wrong is to the extremes on how you do that. Catholics should honor and admire Mary but not to those extremes. It seems like Catholics are putting Mary in a position equal to God (and even worse above God).
Look at the free wikipedia, John Paul’s motto was “I am all yours” referring to Mary. He had in his coat of arms the Letter “M”. He did claim to love Jesus but he was putting Jesus and Mary in an equal position which was absolutely wrong. He was giving Mary attributes far beyond a human position. Catholics call Mary the queen of heaven, holy, sinless, mediator, our hope and salvation, Mary was a human just like any of us and NO human should have these titles. Calling Mary all these names is not only admiring and honoring her but it is exalting her far beyond a human level, you are exalting Mary to almost a godly position.
The problem is that the situation in which people put candles to people who died in a tragedy is different from the situation in which Catholics put candles in front of Mary’s statues. The actions are same but the situation and meaning is different. When people put candles in front of pictures of people who died in a tragedy it is not to worship them or venerate them whatever you want to call it (that by the way I am not even sure if putting candles in front of people who died in a tragedy is ok no matter the intentions for doing that, catholics are the ones who usually put candles to people who died). Anyways, in general people put candles because other people died in a tragedy. However, Mary did not die in a tragedy, when people put candles in front of her statues they do it with the intention to exalt her and elevate her position that seems to be equal to God.
You say that God is sharing with Mary in the same way he was sharing with the disciples. God was sharing with his disciples his work in his ministry but not his glory. The glory only belongs to God. Like I said in my last post, only Jesus can be called sinless, king, mediator, holy, our hope and our salvation. We are also called holy but not in the sense that we never sinned. We are called holy because we were set apart for God. Catholics try to call Mary holy in the sense that she was sinless which is wrong. Yes there are going to be people having thrones in heaven such as the 12 children of Israel and the 12 apostles but those thrones are not the throne of God. Catholics believe Mary will be sitting in the throne of God as if she was co-equal with God.
Going back to the beginning of your comments, you say I am protestant because my friends and family, well none in my family are Christian. They don’t really follow anything at this point.
You say Mary is the Mother of Jesus, yes she is the mother of Jesus human but not the mother of Jesus God. If you say that Mary is the mother of Jesus God then you are implying Mary is kind of like a goddess. We are to exalt our parents but not to the point on how you are exalting Mary. Mary was chosen by God to bear Jesus but it does not imply that horrific devotion Catholics feel for Mary.
When you are saying that I could be adopted into God’s family and be little sister of King Jesus you are kind of trying to imply that God the father and Mary are the head of the family kind of like a mother and father being the head of all the brothers and sisters. In fact, this is a catholic believe, like I told you before, Catholics usually depict Mary sitting next to the throne of God and Jesus and God the father crowing her as the queen of heaven and angels bowing down before her. This is again exalting Mary to a godly position. This is the true message behind the exaltation of Mary but unfortunately you are failing to see this. The only head and king in the kingdom of heaven is God which consists of God the father, son and holy spirit. There is no such thing as queen or mother.
You say you grew Southern Baptist but you see, most people who claim to be atheists claim to one day having been Christians as well. Do you believe they were true Christians? I don’t think so. Probably you were not a genuine Christian. You are saying Protestanism is anti-Scriptural but so far, you have not been able to provide with bible verses to support your doctrines about Mary?
The binding and losing was applicable to all the disciples, and it was not referring to doctrines that were unbiblical. It is not like God will be submitting himself to a human’s will. The reason why Luther started to attack the RCC was because the RCC were selling indulgences to people. They were telling people they could purchase their salvation. If people would pay the priests some money, the priests were going to spare them from hell as if the priests had more power and authority than God. This is not something Jesus meant when he talked about the binding and loosing.
You say that Mary helps us and helped Pope John Paul to get us closer to Jesus but I would say that Mary is only becoming the focus of Catholics’ attention therefore driving people away from Jesus. Besides that God does not need any helpers in heaven. John 16 claims the Holy Spirit as our Helper, the one who is doing all the work of God here on earth. We have the Holy Spirit to lead us in lives and in our walk with God. They Holy Spirit alone is sufficient to help us walk in the ways of God and to help us to know God more and become more like Jesus. We do not need anyone else. We do not need Mary or the Saints. God uses and gives pastors and deacons wisdom to teach us his words but God alone is the one who does this, not mary or the saints.
I’m pretty busy this weekend but I’ll get to this when I can. Could you please answer those three questions in the final post about history – it should only take a minute.
1. Can you affirm the Early Church quotations? Y/N
2. Can you name people in the early centuries you would agree with? Y/N
3. Is Catholicism evidenced prior to Constantine? Y/N
Monica,
It looks as if “Restless Pilgrim” is here responding to most of the unfounded assertions you’ve made on theological and ecclesiological topics.
And he’s right: much of what he said is similar to what I was saying. And it’s his blog. So I suppose I’ll let him handle most of that.
But since you’re actually presuming (!) to inform me (!!) about my own biographical details (!!!) I believe I will offer something of a reply on *those* topics.
You say, “You say you grew Southern Baptist but you see, most people who claim to be atheists claim to one day having been Christians as well.”
True…though it doesn’t exactly address the argument I was making by bringing up my own background. Perhaps I should explain that argument more fully.
My rationale for bringing up my own background might be stated thusly:
“Monica’s tradition of Scripture interpretation is similar to that which I held until age 35, when I began to learn about all the gaping holes in it. Nowadays, now that I understand that tradition fully and know Scripture a lot better than I used to, I realize that my former tradition is a very recent tradition of men which nullifies the word of God.
“But, Monica, like me in my early life, is blissfully unaware of this. She really thinks the Apostles were Southern Baptists — or whatever she is, which sounds relatively similar to my own upbringing. Now all it would take would be a year or two of objective study of the question, and she would suddenly be aware how wrong this is. But it is unlikely she’ll ever study the question. Indeed, my own four-year study is an anomaly among adult Christians; I happened to be somewhat-out-of-work during that time. The lady is probably a good person, but on this narrow field of study she’s like a flat-earther raised among flat-earthers. How can I help her see the curve of the earth, here?
“I suppose the best I can do is interject a bit of my own story: I am one of the tens of thousands of persons who, having been raised within her tradition (or a similar one), became aware of its flaws and graduated beyond it. Her tradition is actually a form of LIBERAL Christianity; it pretends to be conservative but in fact adopts new interpretations of the Bible unknown to its original authors and hearers, like a bunch of left-wing judges interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
“So, if anything is likely to help Monica have the gumption to look beyond what she’s been taught — by kind, nice people, who were unfortunately in profound error — maybe it’s the realization that people who REALLY want to conserve the teachings of the Apostles have a habit of leaving her newfangled tradition for an older, more historically-tenable, one.”
Monica, those were the kinds of motives I had for bringing up my own background. It is not the people who don’t care about God, who abandon Southern Baptist-ism for an unfamiliar tradition when they realize how unfaithful to the faith-of-the-apostles the Southern Baptist ecclesiology is. If a man didn’t care about God, why would he make such a difficult, heartwrenching move?
After all, if he is a pastor, he will probably lose his livelihood. In my case, I’m a church musician, so it was less-difficult for me, but there were still challenges. And of course many friends look at me funny and can’t imagine why I did it. Family relationships were strained.
And, I can’t say that I particularly like the music at Mass in my parish. And the preaching is just not terribly skillfully delivered, despite it being sincere and orthodox.
So why would I do this? Why wouldn’t I just go to a church where I was comfortable, where I could continue serving as a musician?
One reason only: Jesus is the Way, the TRUTH, and the Life. My service to what is TRUE is, intrinsically, service to Him Who Is The Truth: And I will not — I will NOT — betray Him by doing what is comfortable when I have already discovered (to my chagrin) that it just isn’t true.
That, Monica, is why I switched. And my decision to remain faithful has brought me joy from the Lord. But I cannot say that it didn’t also bring hardship.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not bragging and I’m certainly no hero — former pastors lost more than I did and none of us American former Protestants suffered as much as the English Recusants — but I am here to warn you, Monica: Don’t pray to God asking Him to open you up to the truth about these matters. Don’t investigate the real arguments for the Catholic faith UNLESS you love Jesus more than your friends and your comforts. ‘Cause if you do, and if God graciously allows you find out what so many hundreds of thousands of investigators have learned, that the Catholic Church is exactly what she claims…then you’ll be faced with the question of what to do about it. And it’s not a comfortable question. And if, at that moment of choice, you don’t love Jesus more than all else, you’ll end up staying where you are…but now it’ll be an uncomfortable, dishonest staying, ’cause you’ll know better. I would like to spare you that.
“Choose you this day,” madam.
Anyhow, all of that is why I brought up my own biographical details.
Now, you responded to my biographical details in a somewhat unexpected fashion. You noted that I’d grown up Southern Baptist, but then you said, “Do you believe [former Christians who became atheist] were true Christians?”
My answer is, “Some of them were, and had they died before they lost their faith, they would have gone to Heaven. But, others were not true Christians but merely insincere ‘cultural christians with a lower-case-c’ and those folks were always atheist or agnostic or merely indifferent, and their declared change of religion came later than their actual change of heart.”
That is my answer to your question.
Now, Monica, I’m betting you think that answer is soteriologically impossible. I’m betting your (recent, manmade) faith tradition tells you that no “true” Christian ever abandons the faith. I’m betting that’s why you answered your own question, “I don’t think so.”
This is known as the No True Scotsman logical fallacy (feel free to look it up). But, it is also contrary to Scripture. (I can give you reams of Bible verses to demonstrate this if you like.)
Anyhow, in responding to my initial Southern Baptist Evangelicalism, you say, “Probably you were not a genuine Christian.”
Again, I am having to clean spit off my keyboard. If you keep this up, sooner or later I’m going to bill you for a new one! 🙂
Dearie, I can only say that IF, after all the stuff I have been through for the love of Jesus Christ my Savior, and all the trouble I could have saved myself by being indifferent to Him and less concerned with His Truth…IF, after all that, I was never a “true Christian,” then my only hope of ever being a “true Christian” is to go to Iran and preach to the freakin’ Ayatollah. Because if I’ve never managed to be a true Christian yet, then my only hope of achieving “true Christian status” is by getting martyred. I’m not very brave, and I don’t like pain, but I think I could become a martyr…if they kill me quickly!
(If you care much about being a “true Christian,” too, then perhaps you’ll accompany me on the trip?)
You also say, “You are saying Protestanism is anti-Scriptural but so far, you have not been able to provide with bible verses to support your doctrines about Mary?”
Well, I could, of course: The typology is quite plain if you interpret the Bible the way the early Christians did (i.e., like first-century Jews).
In fact I’m tempted right now to start talking about the prophetic foreshadowing of the Gebireh, about why the book Song of Solomon is even part of the Bible, about Mary’s visit to her cousin in Luke and why that visit is related to Revelation 11-12 and also to 2nd Samuel chapter 6. I’m willing to get into all that if you like.
But YOU owe ME something first, Monica:
You seem to have this (newfangled, man-invented) notion that all the vital doctrines of Christianity are spelled-out plainly somewhere in the Bible.
Put differently: You seem to have this (newfangled, man-invented) notion that anything that ISN’T spelled-out plainly somewhere in the Bible must NOT be an important doctrine of Christianity (i.e., either false, or true-but-not-important).
Now IF those notions are, themselves, Important Truths Of The Christian Faith, then those notions must, themselves, be plainly-spelled-out somewhere in the Bible. Right? By their own logic, that would have to be true, right?
Right?!
Show me where.
Show me where, in the Bible, it tells us that Christians are obligated to believe that all the Important Truths Of The Christian Faith are plainly spelled-out in the Bible.
Can you do that, Monica?
If you can, then it means that IF various doctrines about Mary are not plainly spelled out in the Bible, THEN those doctrines must either be false or “true-but-not-important.”
But if you can’t show me where the Bible assures us that all the Important Truths Of The Christian Faith are spelled out in the Bible…then there’s no reason I should bother showing you the typological verses about Mary, is there? I could just answer you, “Those are just some of the many Important Truths Of The Christian Faith which happen to not be spelled-out in the Bible. Some are, some aren’t.”
So: You can see why I’m asking you to prove your doctrine from Scripture **first**. If you can’t answer my question, your own question is irrelevant, isn’t it?
For Extra Credit: Show me where in the Bible there is a verse which tells us which books are supposed to be in the Bible…or which at least tells us how to distinguish a book which **should** be in the Canon of Scripture from a book which **should not** be in the Canon of Scripture.
For Extra-Extra Credit: As you probably know, the Canon of the New Testament was first set out for the Christian faithful by the bishops of the Catholic Church (Athanasius and Damasus and those guys) in the period between 370 AD and 400 AD. (Prior to that, Christians had no certainty about whether certain books belonged or not.)
Therefore, if a Christian wanted to determine whether such-and-such-a-doctrine was “true” or “false,” he had to do it WITHOUT benefit of a set “canon of Scripture.” So, for Extra-Extra Credit, Monica, perhaps you can inform me how Christians used to determine what was and wasn’t orthodox doctrine during the period 100 AD to 370 AD? (You know…after the death of the last of the Twelve, and prior to the canonization of the New Testament?)
> And he’s right: much of what he said is similar to what I was saying. And it’s his blog. So I suppose I’ll let him handle most of that
Not at all, go for it. Thanks for all your comments thus far 🙂
Pingback: This Week's Best in Catholic Apologetics | DavidLGray.INFO
Well, I will not continue to argue with you about the roman catholic church traditions and Mary because it is obvious we will not come to an agreement. Regarding you growing baptist and then becoming a roman catholic, this is what the bible has to say
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve”
The only thing that I will clarify to you is that the Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Yes the bishops did mention Catholic but not Roman Catholic which is completely different. Rome did not have any part in God’s plan of salvation but it was Israel the nation God chose. I do not see any reasons why Jesus would establish his church in a pagan nation like Rome.
Look at all the similarities between the RCC and paganism, there are countless of similarities, not only about the pagan goddess also called queen of heaven and mother of God and whose statutes carrying the baby are similar to the ones the RCC has of mary carrying the baby Jesus but about the Eucharist, and so many other things. I would suggest you read more about how the RCC is linked to paganism and you will find hundreds and hundreds of similarities, this is NO coincidence.
Something else I want to clarify to you, the reasons why the RCC is older than Protestantism is because the RCC did not allow the common people to read the bible or to protest against them. Any person who did that was burned to death. Why would you expect other views to exist when the RCC was burning people to death? that by the way they were contradicting Jesus’ teaching of loving and praying for our enemies Matthew 5:44. The apostles taught us to preach the gospel with love and gentleness, the true church of God would’ve never done what the RCC did during they Holy Inquisitions and Crusaders. The true church of God does not look for money and worldly power. The RCC burned people in the inquisitions and killed during the crusades because they did not want to lose control and power. Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world”. The RCC was starting to sell indulgences to people, so that people could pay them money in exchange for their salvation as if a priest had more power than the decision God makes about where people go after they die. They were doing this only for the money. This is one of the reasons why the reformation began, because people took the courage to read the bible and to protest against the RCC.
I am so sad on how you can not open your eyes as to what the RCC church is really about. It is the most corrupt system ever on earth.
Read revelations about the great prostitute dressed in scarlet and purple and full in gold (just the same way the priests dress in the vatican) drinking in the Calix the blood of all God’s saints, you will see how the RCC is so linked to this woman in the book of revelations.
Monica,
For people to come to an agreement, they must “engage” with one another’s positions. If the other side of a debate raises an issue and you fail to respond to it, it makes sense to assume you’ve granted them the point.
Also, for people to seek truth together, they must not merely assert “I’m right and you’re wrong” about a contested topic. Mere assertion is without value. They must give evidence and demonstrate the meaning of that evidence with logic, and if the logic and the evidence are more compelling than that of the other side, they win the point.
This is basic high-school debate stuff, but it’s important because it’s the only way people with opposing views can converse their way to a better mutual understanding of truth, and possibly achieve agreement.
I bring this up because you’ve had a pretty bad habit, here, of “dropping” points raised by me or by Restless Pilgrim, and using mere assertion without evidence or logic in your responses.
I mean, just look at your latest responses to me. I pointed out that:
1. The Bible never teaches that all the Important Truths of the Christian faith are found plainly spelled out in the Bible;
2. The Bible never teaches us how to determine whether a given Christian book should be a part of the Canon of Scripture or not; consequently, one must rely on an authority OTHER than that of the Bible to find out what does and doesn’t belong IN the Bible;
3. After the death of the last of the Twelve (John) and prior to the canonization of the New Testament by the Catholic magisterium in 370-400 AD, Christians did not have a fixed New Testament canon which they could search through to decide whether a doctrine was false or true. Furthermore, such a book-only process would never have occurred to them: It was not part of the Christian faith. Instead, they looked to the successors of the Apostles (the bishops in Apostolic Succession) to deliver the magisterial teaching of the Church. That was how they learned what was, and was not, orthodox doctrine.
Now EACH of these three points, individually, completely proves Protestantism false. Each one.
All three of them, taken together, merely prove Protestantism false three times over.
Yet you “dropped” all three points. What’s the deal with that?
Do you not care enough about Christianity to bother checking to see if you’re in a heretical faux-church spreading heresy?
Or do you avoid looking at the issue because it’s too complicated and you’re not interested enough to take the time?
Or is it because, if you engage with the arguments and find out that, whoops, the Catholics were right all along, it would be too embarrassing? Or would obligate you to change churches, which you don’t want to do?
Anyhow, “Pilgrim” has on several occasions made points which you’ve “dropped” or asked you questions which you’ve ignored. If it’s true that “we’re not going to come to any agreement,” it’s only because we’re not having an actual conversation. If we make points with logic and evidence to back them up, and you merely ignore them completely and make wild unfounded accusations (with earplugs in), the resulting mess involves both sides talking, but it doesn’t qualify as a conversation.
Now, so that I will not be guilty of the same thing, I will, in my next reply, go through your last replies to me and respond item by item.
Won’t you please “engage” with what we’re saying enough, to do likewise?
As expected, this was a busy weekend for me and I haven’t had time to keep track of things. I’ll address that tomorrow. However, I don’t see answers to my three questions in the post about Christian history. Will they be forthcoming?
Something I forgot to mention about traditions. So if the traditions contradict God then God has to submit himself to a man’s traditions?
Let me give you an example, Mary is called the “gate of heaven”, without her we CAN NOT enter heaven, this is something written in the book of catechism,
Mary is our hope and our salvation, this is another statement by the RCC
Jesus said in John 14:6 I M the way the true and the life no one comes to the father EXCEPT through me. What other way can you interpret this verse?
Acts 4:12 says salvation is found in NOONE ELSE for there is NO other name written under under heaven for which we must be saved? what other way do you want to interpret these verses?
The bible is very clear when it says, Jesus is the exception and the only way to salvation these bible verses are clearly stating that there is no other way to interpret them. The RCC is obviously contradicting these verses when they say we can find salvation in Mary.
This is a verse in which Jesus clearly states against following traditions over following the word of God
Mark 7:9 says “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Okay, here’s my reply to you point-by-point.
Item 1:
You quote, “And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.”
Well done! Outstanding: You have a Bible verse. Let’s see what it says and get down to applying it: Some folks pretend to be servants of God but are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing. They’ll go to hell as they deserve; but in the meantime we must beware of them and not get deceived by them. Right? Is that a fair paraphrase?
If so…then here’s the problem: Monica, we have two groups to whom that verse might be applied: Protestant pastors and teachers (as a whole, throughout their 500-year-old tradition), or, Catholic pastors and teachers (as a whole, throughout their 2,000-year-old tradition). They both claim to be teaching true Christianity. Yet what they teach is incompatible. One side must be wrong. One side must actually be “servants of Satan.”
Now, let’s be clear: I do not think every Baptist who argues his/her side is knowingly serving Satan by opposing Christ’s church. I would NOT accuse your pastor of such a thing: I don’t know him, but I suppose he’s just like the pastors I grew up with, good sincere men teaching what they knew as best as they could. They were wrong about certain things, but they didn’t have any clue they were wrong. They were, so far as I know, “innocently” wrong.
Yet, to the degree that they kept people away from the fullness of the Christian faith as intended by Jesus (especially receiving His body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Eucharist and having access to the benefits of Magisterial infallible teachings and the Sacrament of Reconciliation when they sinned), they were unknowingly acting as “servants of Satan”
That’s my application of the verse. Yours is the opposite, Monica. Which of us is right? The verse itself doesn’t say. You have to first determine what IS true Christianity, before you can apply the verse. Until then, the verse is irrelevant, except to remind us of the stakes.
Item 2:
You say, “The only thing that I will clarify to you is that the Catholic Church is not the same as the Roman Catholic Church. Yes the bishops did mention Catholic but not Roman Catholic which is completely different.”
Good for you, you’ve read enough history (was it Clement’s letter to the Corinthians? or Ignatius of Antioch’s letters?) to know that the early Christians had “bishops!” Well done!
Tell me, then: What makes a person a “real” bishop as opposed to a false one? Does it make sense to say that a person can’t just declare himself to be a bishop on his own say-so, but must receive his bishopric from people who are already bishops? (And they, from still-earlier bishops, and so on, all the way back to the Apostles, who received their authority to make bishops from Jesus Himself?)
I ask, because to ME it seems logical that a man cannot delegate to another man authority that he, himself, doesn’t even have! I can hire a man to paint my house because I have authority, if I wish, to paint my house. But I can’t (justly) hire a man and “delegate” to him the authority to paint YOUR house because I, myself, have no such authority to delegate. Likewise, doesn’t a man have to receive his bishop-y authority from people who’re bishops themselves?
But, to respond to your point more directly: You say “Catholic” is different from “Roman Catholic.” Sure. I grant that Jesus’ Church, worldwide, is called the “Catholic Church” and that there are various branches within the “Catholic Church.” The biggest is the “Roman” branch; there are also the “Armenian Catholic” and the “Chaldean Catholic Church” and the “Coptic” and “Ethiopian” and “Hungarian” and “Maronite” and “Melkite” and “Romanian” and “Russian-Greek” and “Syriac” and “Syro-Malabar” and “Syro-Malankara” and “Ukranian” Catholic Churches (and some other smaller ones, too). These are called “autonomous churches within the Catholic Church.” They have bishops in Apostolic Succession and various other structures like Metropolitan Archbishops. They are all in communion with the Bishop of Rome, acknowledging him as the successor of Peter, the chief steward of Christ’s stewards, prefect of priests, focus of Catholic unity on earth, et cetera. They are all “Catholic” but they aren’t all “Roman Catholic.”
Yet, what makes them “Catholic” is that…
(1.) Their bishops are real bishops, having received their bishoprics from prior real bishops who received theirs from prior real bishops, et cetera, all the way back to Christ; and,
(2.) They remain in communion with the successor of Peter, who happens to also be bishop of Rome for historical reasons (Peter was the leader of the church in Rome when he was martyred and his successors have occupied that same dual role).
Anyhow, I clarify all this to you so that you’ll know that…
(a.) Yes, all (reasonably well-educated) Catholics know that the “Catholic” church does not ONLY include the “Roman” autonomous church, even though it’s the biggest one; and,
(b.) Who cares? That distinction is not relevant to the conversation. It is an organizational distinction which has no bearing on whether what all those Catholics (that is to say: the vast majority of all Christians in all places and times) is true or not.
You assert, “Rome did not have any part in God’s plan of salvation but it was Israel the nation God chose. I do not see any reasons why Jesus would establish his church in a pagan nation like Rome.”
Hmm. Apparently you don’t see things as Peter and Paul did. Time for you to brush up on your Bible reading, Monica!
Of course God started with Israel. But God’s plan — revealed to Abraham in Genesis, but reiterated throughout the Old Testament — was to include the whole world into the plan of salvation and God’s Covenant Family. He promised that through Abraham’s descendant He would deliver a “worldwide” blessing; he thought it “not enough” that David and Solomon would have just Israel but God decided to make “all nations” his inheritance and promised that a Son of David would be on the throne “forever.”
This is why Jesus said that He, personally, in His ministry, was “sent to the lost sheep of Israel” but instructed His apostles to “go ye into all the earth,” not just to Jerusalem but to “Judea and Samaria” and “the ends of the Earth.”
Now the headquarters of world power and commerce at the time was…Rome. It made sense Peter would thus preach the gospel there, strategically. But there was another reason: Have you never read Daniel’s prophecy of the statue, Monica?
Go to the book of Daniel. In Nebuchadnezzar’s dream there is a statue. The Babylonian Empire (headed up by Nebuchadnezzar) is the “head of gold.” The Medes and Persians which later conquered Babylon (headed up by Cyrus, etc.) is the “silver.” Then comes Alexander the Great: The Greeks and Macedonians and Selucids are the “bronze” with their bronze helms and breastplates and weapons…aaaand, that takes us up to about, oh, 60 B.C.
And after that, Daniel tells us, comes a “fearful” empire of “iron” which takes over. Which empire took over Palestine and all the former lands of Alexander’s empire, Monica? Could it possibly be…the Roman?
And then Daniel’s prophetic interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream becomes Messianic: God tells us that in the time of that fourth empire, a “rock” is cut out, but “not by human hands.” It hits the statue and obliterates it.
Where does it strike the statue, Monica? Some far-flung limb? It’s pinky finger? Doesn’t it strike the statue where the statue’s foundation is, right at the feet?
And what happens to this rock? It grows to be a mountain which fills the whole earth and lasts forever: This final kingdom is not made by man, but by God; it starts from the same spot where the fourth kingdom (the kingdom of iron) stands; but it grows outward from there to the ends of the earth.
Jesus said His kingdom would be in this world, but not of this world. He said it would be filled with both wheat and tares (saints and sinners) growing up side-by-side until the end of time — so we’re warned in advance that His kingdom on earth would seem very imperfect. Yet if Daniel’s prophecy is true, this kingdom would start by replacing the earthly emperors who pretend to be gods with one everlasting kingdom headed by the only King who really is God: Jesus Christ. And, starting from where the “kingdom of iron” originally stood, it would spread outward to the ends of the earth and last forever.
Pretty good reason, then, for Peter to establish his base in Rome, wouldn’t you say, Monica? Or, rather, say that God did so for reasons of His own; but Peter (knowingly or not) went to Rome and thus fulfilled that tiny detail of Daniel’s prophecy.
…continued in my next post…
…continued from my previous post…
Item 3:
You say, “Look at all the similarities between the RCC and paganism, there are countless of similarities, not only about the pagan goddess also called queen of heaven…”;
Yes. “Ba’al” means “Lord” and was short for “Lord of Heaven.” There is a false “Lord of Heaven” which is a pagan god, and there is a true “Lord” who is Jesus Christ. Likewise, Astarte/Isis/Ishtar was a pagan goddess…you can tell the pagans regarded her as equal to their male gods because they had priestesses as well as priests. But, just as there is a false “Lord” and a true “Lord” (Ba’al and Jesus) there is also a false “Queen of Heaven” and a true “Queen of Heaven”; and the latter is Mary, as depicted in Revelation 12: She who gives birth to the male child who is to rule the nations! In John’s vision she wears regalia made of sun and moon and stars…something tells me she’s not the cleaning lady of Heaven.
But there’s a slight mistranslation here when we use the term “queen” in English; in Hebrew the correct term is “Gebireh.” This term refers to a queenly office which, for all the sons (kingly-line descendants) of David, was occupied by The Mother Of The King. (It’s in the Bible, Monica; didn’t you know about it?)
You see, following the pattern of many ancient kings, the king had many wives and concubines (God was wincing at that, I’m sure, but He planned to fix it when Jesus came). So you couldn’t have the “Queen” be the wife of the King; there were too many. Instead, the “Queen” was the Mother of the King. She had a throne, even…set up at the right hand of the King’s own throne. You can see this happening in 1 Kings chapter 2: Look how Solomon has a throne set up for his mother.
This was the pattern of the Davidic Dynasty. Jesus is the fulfillment of that Dynasty: The “son of David” who would sit on the throne forever…but not an earthly throne, but a heavenly one, seated at the right hand of His father forever.
So, Monica, in accordance with the prophecies of Scripture, when it came time to seat the King’s mom, the Gebireh of Heaven (the “queen mother” if you prefer that translation over “queen”)…just where would you expect her seat to be? At the right hand of the Son of David, the King of Heaven…just like in 1 Kings 2:19.
You can see that it really helps, when reading the New Testament, to know the Old Testament and to think like a first-century Jew who’d been waiting for 490 years for the Son of David to finally return, establish the Kingdom of God, and reign forever. All the attributes of the original Davidic dynasty would be expected to have a more-glorious fulfillment in the New Covenant — like the Gebireh and the Stewards and the “Chief Steward” (also known as the Al-Beit or “head of house”, who also had the role of “prefect of the priests” and who held the keys of both the “House of David” (the Davidic dynasty) and of the temple gates).
After that, Monica, you talk more about “about how the RCC is linked to paganism and you will find hundreds and hundreds of similarities…”
Sure. Did you know that wedding rings were used by pagans before they were used by God’s people? Also, baptisms? Also circumcision? Also, sacrifices? Also, temple buildings with altars and candles? Also, clergy wearing robes? Also, singing songs to their gods? Also, using plates and cups and trays in the worship-place made of silver or gold? Also, giving sermons? Also, the idea of having a holy book to read from? Also, kneeling? Also, consecrating marriages with a religious rite? Also, also, also….
Monica, my point is that the same accusation could be leveled not only at all Protestant churches, but at ALL the commands given by God to the Israelites about how they were to worship Him. There is nothing — except the God in question being real — in how human beings worshipped God or formed a culture around their faith in the whole Bible that didn’t have antecedents in paganism. Didn’t you know that the Greek mystery religions — prior to Jesus! — included myths about a god who died and gave life to the world through dying?
But the point of all this is not that any religious observance which has something in common with paganism is false. Quite the contrary. Human beings are human, and they do human-like-activities whether they are worshiping the real God or a false god, because God Made Humans To Worship In That Way. The devil has never really invented anything good on his own; only God can do that. The devil just takes what God invents, and warps them to his own ends. That is where all the good and healthy aspects of pagan worship get their origin.
Item 4:
You say, “Something else I want to clarify to you, the reasons why the RCC is older than Protestantism is because the RCC did not allow the common people to read the bible or to protest against them.”
I just spat on my keyboard again. Really, Monica, please: Go read some history books, will you?
The Bible Is A Catholic Book. THE BIBLE IS A CATHOLIC BOOK. The Catholic bishops between 370 and 400 AD canonized the New Testament. Prior to that, no ancient Christian writer ever had a full list of the New Testament books which agreed with any other writer. They sometimes included The Shepherd by Hermas or Clement’s letter to the Corinthians; other times they left out Revelation, Hebrews, Jude, James, 2nd Peter, or other things. Your New Testament, Monica, comes to you on the authority of Athanasius and Damasus and Augustine. Look it up.
The Catholic Church absolutely and always encouraged those who could read (a minority in the ancient and medieval world, remember) to read the Bible! Always! Again, look it up: The Church has offered **indulgences** for doing so: That is, she has ruled with Christ’s authority that study of Scripture was so meritorious that it would –when done in the right spirit — absolve you of some or all of the temporal punishments/obligations brought on by post-baptismal sins. They were basically hanging a big neon sign over the Bible saying, “Hey! All you who are literate! Read this! It’s good for your soul!”
That’s history, Monica.
Who do you think translated the Bible into Latin (which was, at the time, the common language of Europe)? That’d be St. Jerome, a Catholic. Who invented a whole alphabet so the Eastern Europeans could read Scripture? That’d be Cyril and Methodius, a couple of Catholics. Who first translated it into English, to German? Catholics.
Remember, Bibles back then were hand-copied, which took years: Very valuable items. They put them on podiums out in front of every church rich enough to have one — so that anyone who could, could read it! — but they had to chain them to the podium to keep them from being stolen.
That’s why it was such a big deal when Johannes Gutenberg made it less expensive by inventing the printing press. (Even then they cost about 3 years’ wages.) Finally! the Catholics thought…we can get more Bibles to everyone!
The reason you’ve been told this lie about Catholics not wanting people to read Bibles is because in Catholic countries during the Albigensian and Lollard heresies, authorities burned ALTERED Bibles and BADLY TRANSLATED Bibles. For example, they would burn the Albigensian modified Scriptures which had notes in them teaching Albigensianism. Or they would burn copies of what was called “The Sinner’s Bible” which had a misprint in it which had Jesus saying, “First, let all the children be killed” instead of “First, let all the children be filled [fed].” Stuff like that.
You say, “Any person who did that was burned to death.”
Ignorance. People who were burned to death (by civil authorities, but often over religious issues) were heretics. In both Catholic and — once they began to exist — Protestant lands. Didn’t you know that Henry VIII and his successors used to have Catholic priests drawn-and-quartered in England for being Catholic? And that Calvin had people who disagreed with him burned to death in Geneva?
You say, “Why would you expect other views to exist when the RCC was burning people to death?”
Uh, well, if Protestantism had been true, they would have…just like when real Christianity was able to persist and even write copious books during Roman persecution. But, if you read them, those books written by Christians while the Romans were burning them and feeding them to lions sound suspiciously…Catholic.
What would it say, if Catholic Christians were able to resist being persecuted, but Protestants weren’t? (I myself don’t think that’s true, Monica; I think even Muslim Jihadists can sometimes resist torture. But I’m just pointing out the flaw in YOUR argument.)
that by the way they were contradicting Jesus’ teaching of loving and praying for our enemies Matthew 5:44. The apostles taught us to preach the gospel with love and gentleness, the true church of God would’ve never done what the RCC did during they Holy Inquisitions and Crusaders. The true church of God does not look for money and worldly power. The RCC burned people in the inquisitions and killed during the crusades because they did not want to lose control and power. Jesus said, “my kingdom is not of this world”. The RCC was starting to sell indulgences to people, so that people could pay them money in exchange for their salvation as if a priest had more power than the decision God makes about where people go after they die. They were doing this only for the money. This is one of the reasons why the reformation began, because people took the courage to read the bible and to protest against the RCC.
Monica, I’d like to continue but I’m out of time…I have to get to Mass at 2pm. They’re having an outdoor Mass and a big church picnic, celebrating the canonization of John Paul II and John XXIII. Complete with Eucharistic Adoration, yay!
So, I’ll have to get back to you later.
…
Okay, Monica, I’m back.
Mass “on the Grass” this afternoon was glorious, by the way. Bi-lingual, alternating between Spanish and English, which was a little confusing sometimes.
But I suppose bilingual bemusement what you get, sometimes, when you celebrate the divine liturgy in a Church which is truly universal: One which is in every nation on earth, and can truly claim to fulfill the Messianic prophecy from Malachai 1:11: “For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, My name shall be great among the Gentiles. And in every place incense shall be offered unto My name, and a pure offering; for My name shall be great among the heathen,” saith the Lord of hosts.” It is a good thing for the faith of a Christian, to see himself or herself living in a visibly-fulfilled prophecy.
But back to business….
When I left off you were pointing out that Catholic secular rulers (European kings, magistrates) sinned by having those whom the Church courts ruled to be unrepentant heretics executed in various ways (e.g. hanging, burning at the stake).
And you know what? I agree, up to a point.
Likewise, I agree that wealthy Christian households in the time of the apostles like Philemon’s were sinning by owning slaves (like Onesimus). It took Christianity’s doctrine of the intrinsic dignity of the Imago Dei (man made in the Image of God) centuries to seep into the culture and people’s way of thinking about humanity. In the end, the Pope condemned it (1532) and the Portugese (in 1537) were the first European country to abolish it even in colonies…but it went on illegally. And of course you know that Protestant countries like England and the U.S. didn’t get around to abolishing it until much later.
I mention the slavery thing because I believe that both slavery and failure to respect the right of persons to practice their faith without molestation (provided that faith doesn’t oblige them to violate the rights/dignity/conscience of others) are sins. But I believe it took time for Christianity to sink into human civilization sufficiently well that our legal systems recognized these as sinful and abolished them.
And, consequently, I believe that there were people who thought they were being good Christians despite owning slaves (e.g. Philemon) or participating in the execution of heretics (e.g. John Calvin).
So, when you say, “…by the way they were contradicting Jesus’ teaching of loving and praying for our enemies Matthew 5:44”; I agree. But you see of course that this in no way argues against the truth of the Catholic faith.
You say, “The apostles taught us to preach the gospel with love and gentleness, the true church of God would’ve never done what the RCC did during they Holy Inquisitions and Crusaders.”
Oh, how wrong you are! The true church of God would have done EXACTLY that, and worse!
You seem to have this mistaken notion that Jesus’ Church, if it’s real, will (a.) never have bad sinners in it, (b.) never make boneheaded organizational or strategic decisions, and (c.) will be able to remain utterly pacifistic even when Christians are more than 50% of the police force and military and government, and thus become responsible for things like arresting murderers and repelling invasions.
That’s just a wrong point-of-view, Monica…and it’s utterly anti-Scriptural. Look at all of Jesus’ “Kingdom” parables. Jesus makes it clear that Satan will sow “tares” in the Church, side-by-side with the good people. And what are we to do about it? Are we supposed to schism? …to go found a new church that has no sinners in it? No! Jesus says to let them grow side-by-side until the judgment, and the angels will throw the weeds into the fire then. In the meantime, you can expect that your fellow parishoner, or pastor, or bishop, or pope may well be a sinner.
Now, there’s more to it than that. When sin or heresy becomes obvious, what does Matthew 18 say you’re supposed to do about it? Go start a new church? No! You’re supposed to take it to the person privately. If they don’t listen, then you go with “two or three witnesses.” If they still don’t listen, you’re supposed to Take It To The Church.
And the Church, according to Matthew 18, will be able to infallibly settle the matter. Yes, infallibly: Note what Matthew 18 says which is the whole context of this process of Church Discipline: “What you [the Church] bind on earth shall be [funny Greek verb usage; a better sense of the translation is ‘already has been’ or just ‘is’] bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be [same Greek weirdness] loosed in Heaven.”
What do we see here? When the Church decides this dispute, Christians are supposed to regard the Church’s final decision as infallible. Why? Because Heaven agrees with the decision. Does Heaven make mistakes? Does God decide in error?
Item …uh, what are we on, now? 5? Call it Item 5:
You say, “The true church of God does not look for money and worldly power.”
Well, Jesus doesn’t; he already has all authority on earth and in Heaven. But sinful men (“tares”) sometimes will, even clergy, sadly.
Remember: Jesus Himself picked the Twelve Apostles, and what happened? John stayed with him, Peter cut a guy’s ear off and fled and had to be reconciled later; all the others fled, and Judas betrayed Him!
What that goes to show you is: Even when God Himself chooses who’ll be in the clergy of Jesus’ Church, human sinfulness means there’ll be a 1-in-12 failure rate of clergy betraying the faith…and only a 1-in-12 rate of maximum Godloving excellence, and the rest, while not necessarily traitors, will not always shine.
That’s what the Bible’s telling us to expect Monica.
You say, “The RCC burned people in the inquisitions and killed during the crusades because they did not want to lose control and power.”
Whoa, dearie. The Inquisitions? Which ones? And which clergy in the Catholic Church, specifically?
And don’t get me started about the Crusades. Dear, the Crusades were responses to the Muslim Conquest. Don’t you know that the whole Mediterranean basin and the lands as far east as modern Iraq were majority Christian before Satan raised up Mohammed? All of a sudden here comes this corruption of Judaism and Christianity — a sort of hodgepodge of redacted Christian and Jewish liturgical texts claiming Ishmael was the son of promise instead of Issac, claiming Jesus didn’t really die on the cross, and stuff like that — and it glorifies conquest. It instructs believers to subjugate others and enslave, kill, or at minimum make them pay a tax for being any other religion. Mohammed, if that was his actual name, was less like Moses and more like Shaka Zulu.
At any rate, the Muslim invaders conquered Jerusalem, conquered Constantinople and renamed it Istanbul, swept North Africa, were miraculously defeated at Lepanto, kept coming, took over the southern half of Spain until Charles (“the Hammer”) Martel pounded them back across the Straits of Gibraltar, and nearly conquered VIENNA, AUSTRIA. Twice.
Christians — which is to say, Catholics — were the members of the armed forces and the rulers in government while all this was going on. Are you a pacifist, Monica? A Quaker, perhaps?
If not, then I ask you: Are Christians supposed to repel invasions of their lands (e.g. Jerusalem) or not?
Please be aware: I am not defending war crimes done during the Crusades by soldiers who got out of control (e.g. the sack of Constantinople). But when the Pope finds out about such disciplinary problems only YEARS after they’ve already happened (because the news takes that long to travel from the front-lines…remember, now, they didn’t have cellphones!) there’s only so much he can do.
But I am defending the Crusades as an attempt (well-intentioned, if possibly misguided) by Christians to reconquer the Holy Land which had been invaded by non-Christians who, whenever they took over a region, treated non-Muslims pretty brutally in hopes of stamping out non-Muslim religions. Just ask the Copts! Egypt used to be a 99% Christian country, you know!
You say, “The RCC was starting to sell indulgences to people, so that people could pay them money in exchange for their salvation as if a priest had more power than the decision God makes about where people go after they die.”
Baloney. You have been told lies.
First, the sale of indulgences was always forbidden; however, some local priests didn’t get the message and violated Church teachings on such subjects. The most famous, of course, is the scoundrel Tetzel in Germany, whose little jingle about purgatory so offended Martin Luther. (And me.) Tetzel was properly chastized, and reforms introduced to prevent that kind of thing happening again.
BUT,
You are dead wrong — ignorant — about what indulgences were supposed to do. They had nothing to do with eternal salvation, Monica!
Look: In the Bible, God forgives sins. And only a person whose sins are forgiven can go to Heaven. And when a person’s sins are forgiven, he **CAN** go to Heaven. Free gift! Right?
But you’ll notice, that when God forgives, He also usually disciplines or “chastens” those He loves. How so? Well, He allows lesser consequences of sin to impact that person. The person is still forgiven; the person still has Eternal Salvation. But, there are temporal (non-eternal) consequences nonetheless. (God does this because He is a Good Father. Parents forgive children, but parents also allow some punishment to remain even after the kid apologizes, so that the kid will mature.)
Now, “indulgences” apply only to the temporal consequences of sin. Only, that is, to the things that remain to be dealt with AFTER forgiveness is obtained, a state of grace is restored, and eternal salvation is again the soul’s destination.
That means nobody can benefit from an indulgence unless they’ve already repented from some sin and have been reconciled to God and the Church. Then, and only then, may they do some penance to alleviate the temporal consequences of sin.
Now one such is an “indulgence”: A particular meritorious act which, through the authority given to her by Jesus Christ, the Church proffers as good for healing the bad effects of our sins on ourselves or others. Bible-reading (30 minutes a day, I believe) is a classic example of something for which the Church offers an indulgence.
You say, “They were doing this only for the money.”
Tetzel? I dare say he was. And anyone else who was selling indulgences in a crass, money-oriented way.
But in Judaism and Christianity, this authority of the leaders of the People of God to encourage righteous living is not, generally, about money at all. Obviously Tetzel couldn’t get rich by having his parishoners read the Bible 30 minutes a day!
In short, Monica, you’ve been told lies about the history of the Middle Ages. They have just enough truth in them to seem plausible; they refer to names of people that really existed and issues that were really debated. But your details are all wrong and the conclusions kind of silly. Read some history books for yourself! Serious ones! Gibbons and Rosenwein and Johnson and people like that. Don’t just take some Baptist preacher’s word for it, when he probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about either! Read what sober, non-polemical Protestants had to say…and then read what sober, non-polemical Catholics had to say. Or some disinterested third parties, like Orthodox or Jewish folks.
You’ll find the picture folks have painted for you is very distorted.
…continued in my next…
Okay, Monica, we have a few more to go.
Item #6:
You say, “Read revelations about the great prostitute dressed in scarlet and purple and full in gold….”
Ah, yes, the old canard, that the Church whose home is Vatican City, a hill outside the city of Rome, across the Tiber river from Rome, is “The Whore of Babylon.”
I suppose you know that Jerusalem and Rome both are equally good candidates for being identified with “Babylon” in John’s Apocalypse?
But set that aside. The vestments worn by Roman clergy are, if anything, a mite less ornate than those of the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Thomasite Churches in India. Same colors, same gilt. Are they all the Whore of Babylon, too?
And of course the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is WHITE. Purple and red are used as indicators of bishops or cardinals, or worn in vestments on special occasions (red is used for Pentecost because of the fire of the Holy Spirit coming down, for example). But white robes are the main garment. Who wears white robes in Revelation, Monica?
The difficulty for you here, Monica, is that the Catholics were the Christians getting martyred by the Romans (headquartered in Rome) and the non-Christian Jews (headquartered in Jerusalem until the destruction of the temple in 70 AD). The Catholics weren’t “drinking the blood of the saints” — if “the saints” means “Protestants” — until the 1500’s! But in the Early Church, they, the Catholics, were the ones whose blood was being drunk: They were the ones being killed.
Please read the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, which he wrote while Roman soldiers were escorting him to Rome to be eaten by lions in the Coliseum. Does he sound like a Baptist or a Catholic to you, Monica?
Item #7:
You say, “I forgot to mention about traditions. So if the traditions contradict God then God has to submit himself to a man’s traditions?”
Not at all. Please make an effort to know what Catholic teaching is, before you criticize it.
Here’s the way it works: Jesus gave the world The Church, with leaders in it who, in addition to their sacramental duties and preaching, were supposed to “teach them [all nations] whatsoever I have commanded you.” These leaders (the Apostles and their successors) were granted authority by Jesus (“as the Father sent me, so I send you”) which is a share in His own divine authority as High Priest, Ultimate Prophet, and Universal King. Their share is lesser: He is High Priest; they are priests. He is the Ultimate Prophet, the Word Of God Himself; they have a prophetic ministry to teach “whatever He has commanded them.” He is the King; they are stewards in the kingdom.
Now, in order to teach all nations whatsoever Jesus commanded them, the bishops are supposed to preach something called the “Apostolic Tradition.” This is Scriptural, in case you’re wondering: Paul commends his readers for “holding fast to the traditions” he gave them. (Some Protestant Bibles have been intentionally mistranslated to use “teachings” for the good traditions Paul commends, but “traditions” for the bad traditions of the scribes and Pharisees, but that’s merely denominational bias: In Greek, it’s the same word.)
The tradition from the Apostles is called the “Apostolic Tradition” and is otherwise known as “The Word of God”: Paul commends his hearers for receiving these traditions “for what they really are, not the word of men, but the word of God.”
The Apostles preferred to preach their Apostolic Tradition to hearers, just like it says in the Bible: Paul often complains to his readers that he wanted to come to them, but couldn’t, so he’s writing this letter, instead. Jesus told them to go out preaching; Jesus never told them to write a book.
Nevertheless, the four gospel authors wrote gospels and Paul and John and Peter and Jude and the author of Hebrews all wrote their letters, and John wrote his Apocalypse. Since they were Apostles, anything they were trying to teach to the faithful in these writings qualifies as “The Apostolic Tradition” in written form.
Thus the “Apostolic Tradition,” which is “the Word of God,” came to the early Christians in two media: Spoken word and written text.
These never disagree, for how could the Word of God disagree with itself?
Now there are other traditions which are evil. They are the “traditions of men which nullify the word of God.” Jesus criticizes the scribes and Pharisees for one such: The practice of declaring one’s money Korban so that one could keep control of it oneself instead of using to care for one’s own elderly relatives.
And, there are other traditions which are good because they’re spiritually helpful or at least neutral, and don’t nullify the word of God…but which aren’t part of the Apostolic Tradition, either.
Christmas trees, spouses wearing wedding rings, Wednesday Night potluck dinners in the Fellowship Hall, and stuff like that are perfectly fine traditions. They aren’t “The Word of God” like the Apostolic Tradition is; but they don’t “nullify the Word of God,” either.
The job of the Church is to teach us the Apostolic Tradition: The truth we have to know so that we can be set free. We’re fortunate that the early writings of the Apostles and some of their friends are available to bear witness to that Tradition; but even if there was no New Testament collection of books, the Church would still be responsible for “teaching all nations whatever Jesus commanded them.”
Now do you understand, Monica?
The New Testament IS Apostolic Tradition, in written form. That’s WHY it’s “The Word of God.”
The New Testament IS inerrant. Why? Because it represents the earliest writings of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church…and Jesus doesn’t allow the Magisterium to teach false doctrine to the faithful. Instead, He gives them a special charism, a “gift of the Holy Spirit” to lead the Church “into all truth.” And if there is ever a dispute about what is true, Jesus gives the Church a special gift that, once the process of deciding the case is completed, “whatsoever they bind on earth is bound in Heaven.”
That’s how it works.
Item #8:
You say, “Let me give you an example, Mary is called the gate of heaven….”
Ah, yes. Some of those florid Marian devotional writings. Yes, I wish those authors — St. Louis de Montfort comes to mind — would be more cautious in their phrasing too. But, you see, they are expecting readers to be orthodox faithful Catholics who’ll interpret what they say in an orthodox, first-presume-innocence kind of way. They aren’t expecting their books to be read by Protestants and bigots spoiling for a fight, jumping on every unguarded phrase.
So, yes: Without Mary’s fiat, there would have been no birth of Jesus. (God is not a rapist: She could have said “No” to His plan.) Therefore, she is the gate through whom Jesus — and with Him, salvation — entered the world.
Moreover, like a good Mom, she’s always praying for us, and great mercy and grace are showered on the Christian faithful as a result of her faithful intercession on our behalf before the throne of her Son. She is truly the Gebireh of Heaven, just like a good Queen Mother of a Davidic King would have served the kingdom in a vaguely “First Lady”-like capacity, advocating for school lunches and help for orphans and things of that kind.
Item #9:
You say, “Jesus said in John 14:6, ‘I am the way the true and the life no one comes to the father EXCEPT through me.'”
I believe that verse 100%, just as the Catholic Church requires me to do. Where’s the contradiction?
You say, “Acts 4:12 says salvation is found in NOONE ELSE for there is NO other name written under under heaven for which we must be saved?”
Ditto. I believe that 100%. You seem to have this weird idea that Mary and Jesus are alternative divinities, or even enemies. Where’d you get that idea. Salvation comes to me through Jesus Christ. Obviously! And probably some of the blessings — Christian parents, good Sunday School teachers — which came to me which allowed me to know Jesus were the result of my spiritual mom, Mary, praying for me — and of Jesus, King of the Universe, granting her prayers for my benefit. They’re on the same side, don’t you get that?
You say, “The RCC is obviously contradicting these verses when they say we can find salvation in Mary.”
Oh. I see. You think the Catholic Church is teaching that Mary can die on the cross for our sins and thereby win forgiveness of sins and rise from the dead as the firstfruits of resurrection to eternal life, and that the Church tells Christians to pick one or the other.
Well, that’s not what they say. Never has been. Glad I could clear that up for you.
Anything else?
Oh, you also cite Mark 7:9: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!”
Yes. That’s Jesus’ condemnation of the Pharisees re: that Korban tradition. Though, if you like, you could also apply it to Protestant churches which invented (about 500 years ago) a tradition of having churches which aren’t led by bishops in Apostolic Succession in communion with the successor of Peter, which don’t even have a proper Lord’s Supper with the Body and Blood of Jesus on the altar, and which use the New Testament the Jesus’ Church gave them to make arguments against Jesus’ Church.
If you’d like to apply it that way, it would make a lot of sense. But we must keep in mind that the original context was the Pharisees.
Sincerely,
R.C.
First let me start by saying that I believe you are a true believer in Christ as well as Restless pilgrim, and it has never been my intention to spiritually attack the RCC. I believe that the priests have a true desire to serve God and that there are many honest believers in Catholicism (I know many of them) however this does not spare the RCC from having many false teachings. I have read your comments and doing my best to answer your points.
You say
1. The Bible never teaches that all the Important Truths of the Christian faith are found plainly spelled out in the Bible;
So if the bible is not our only source of revelation then in that case we should believe in Mormonism. Mormons base their religion on additional books such as the Pearl and the book of Mormons. They believe these books contain additional teachings in addition to the bible and we are to believe them because they are God inspired.
You are saying that the RCC was the church Jesus established but you are only giving me a circular reasoning. You are only telling me what the RCC teaches. Of course, that is what they will say, they will say that they were the church founded by Jesus. Mormons also claim they are the true church and if you question them why they have those doctrines that contradict the bible they will defend themselves by saying that the bible is not our only source of revelation. The way we know religions are false religions is when they start deviating from the bible.
I do not think that the bible has to explain something that is obvious or self-explanatory. Why would God write the bible if we can rely on other teachings such as traditions created by the popes? The fact that God inspired people to write the bible is proof that he wanted it to be our source of revelation so that we could protect ourselves from false teachings. Romans 3:4 says that God is true but man a life. The bible is there to protect us from what Jesus called wolves in sheep’s clothing.
You say in the beginning Christians did not have the bible and they had to rely on what the apostles were teaching them, well now we have it, and now we can compare whether what people teach us comes from the bible to distinguish whether it is a false or true teaching. What the apostles were orally teaching to people (before the New Testament was written) came from the old testament because everything about Jesus is a fulfillment of the old testament. People did not have the new testament but they did have the old testament with them. Acts 17:11 claims “they (the Jews) received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”. Do you see how they were not relying only on what Paul was orally telling them? Everything the apostles were teaching them came from scripture(may be not from the new testament but from the old testament), what the RCC is teaching DOES NOT come from neither the NT or the OT.
How about if the popes start teaching you a false doctrine? How can you 100% entrust your soul into the hands of man? Don’t you think it is better to be on the safe side and just follow what the bible is teaching you?
When the apostles mentioned Catholic they were referring to universal salvation, but they were not referring to the roman catholic church. You say that the Roman Catholic Church is only a branch of Catholicism but still the RCC branching off from Catholicism does not mean it is the true church. Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons also derived from Christianity but just because they derived from Christianity does not mean they are the true religion. In fact a cult is defined as a religion that branches off from a main religion but starts distorting the teachings from the main religion. Roman Catholicism could have branched off from the Catholic Church but they are certainly distorting scripture.
When the apostles talked about traditions they were talking about traditions that came from scripture. They said that in Galatians 1:8 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse”. In this verse the apostles made it clear that we are only to follow what they taught us, most of the RCC teachings are not teachings from the disciples.
Yes there are many traditions we as Christians follow that are not biblical but those traditions are not concerning salvation or the gospel. If there was something else we need for salvation such as Mary then God would’ve written it in the bible, God does not play us tricks.
You also stated in another post that your church is older than Protestantism which is only 500 years old. So does age have to make something more real than the other? I explained to you the reasons why the RCC was the dominant church and that is because the common people were NOT reading the bible. You are wrong, the RCC DID NOT allow the translations of the bible for the common people to read them, anyone caught translating them was burned to death. You saying that the RCC encouraged the people to read the bible is a complete lie. Now they do but not in the old times. The RCC believed that only them could interpret scripture (contradicting what Jesus said in John 16 that we have the Holy Spirit teaching us the things of God and 1 John 2:27 which says that we have the Holy Spirit with us and we don’t need anyone to teach us). Read about the reformation. This is a historical event that you even learn in history books in schools. It was until people began to read scripture (because Luther translated them while hiding) that they began to see the false teachings and they began to depart from the RCC.
I do not know why you would accuse a Pastor such as a Baptist pastor to be wrong in his teaching when the pastor is teaching straight from the bible (contrary to the priests from the RCC who don’t do that). The bible is self-explanatory, there is no room for mis-interpretation. Anyways, contrary to the RCC which believes that we are to follow the traditions of the Popes (which are not biblical), in Protestantism it is believed that we are to follow the bible alone (sola scriptura) and not a man or religion. I am not believing just because my pastor says so (like in your case where you are believing only because the priest and the popes say so) but I am believing only the things the pastor teaches from the bible (and like I said, it is very self-explanatory, there is no room for mis-interpretation). No one is deceiving me (the bible does not deceive) but you are being deceived because you are not relying on the bible but you are relying on a human who can deceive others.
You said
“Does it make sense to say that a person can’t just declare himself to be a bishop on his own say-so, but must receive his bishopric from people who are already bishops? (And they, from still-earlier bishops, and so on, all the way back to the Apostles, who received their authority to make bishops from Jesus Himself?)”
You also said this
“I ask, because to ME it seems logical that a man cannot delegate to another man authority that he, himself, doesn’t even have! I can hire a man to paint my house because I have authority, if I wish, to paint my house. But I can’t (justly) hire a man and “delegate” to him the authority to paint YOUR house because I, myself, have no such authority to delegate. Likewise, doesn’t a man have to receive his bishop-y authority from people who’re bishops themselves?”
To answer this:
All people are qualified to teach the bible because we all have the Spirit living within us. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit as our helper(John Chapter 16). 1 John 2:27 says that we have the Holy Spirit with us and we don’t need anyone to teach us. Saying that only certain people can interpret scripture and teach is like saying that the Holy Spirit only lives in certain people. Of course, we need to have knowledge in the bible and that is why pastors attend seminary school, all pastors who teach have a degree in Biblical Studies, anyways, you do not need a degree to teach the bible. The apostles did not have a degree, they were all very poor people working as fishermen. The catholic church tries to imply that only people in hierarchy can do the work of God but anyone can do the work of God because we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to do that. God does not call on the qualified but he qualifies the unqualified.
You say this
“(1.) Their bishops are real bishops, having received their bishoprics from prior real bishops who received theirs from prior real bishops, et cetera, all the way back to Christ; and,
(2.) They remain in communion with the successor of Peter, who happens to also be bishop of Rome for historical reasons (Peter was the leader of the church in Rome when he was martyred and his successors have occupied that same dual role)”
To answer this: there is no apostolic succession written in the bible(once again to trying to prove apostolic succession just because the RCC says so is circular reasoning). Peter was a leader along with the other disciples (Peter did not have leadership over the other disciples, you can find this in the book of Acts). There is no evidence that Peter was the first Pope. Jesus never gave the name of a church when he told Peter he would build his church on the faith Peter had expressed when he declared Jesus was the son of God. There can be leaders in the church (we find this in the bible) and with the early disciples but not in the terms you are implying when you declare apostolic succession (such as the Pope having authority over everyone and over everything).
And since you have mentioned the statue of Nebuchadnezar, did you know that the Roman Empire was one of the empires that was destroyed in this statue? The feet of the statue which consists of the union of different pieces all clayed together is a symbol for the roman empire which was broken (by the rock which is God’s kingdom) into all the European nations we have today. Even though they are still together in some form because they all share the same currency and form the European union, the Roman Empire is gone. A godly kingdom would never cease to exist (Israel has never ceased to exist because it was founded by God, but the Roman Empire is gone because it was not a kingdom established by God). The interpretation of this statue was that all wordly kingdoms (including Rome) would be destroyed except for the kingdom established by God. Yes God can use any nation like Rome, the USA, China, Korea etc to do his work but to say that Rome was God’s chosen nation is simply not the true. Israel was the nation chosen by God, this goes back all the way to the old testament.
Regarding Paganism, yes you are right, people can have many traditions together and there can be some similarities but how about when there are hundreds and hundreds of similarities? The catholic church can have few similarities to paganism (which could be forgiven and spare the RCC from being accused as a pagan church) but the problem is that there are not only few similarities in paganism and the RCC but there are hundreds and hundreds of them. This is too much of a coincidence. I do not deny that there are honest believers in Christ like you and Restless pilgrim but it is a fact in history that the RCC derived from paganism.
I explained to Restless pilgrim about the woman in the book of revelation with the moon under her feet and giving birth to the child. If you read the bible you will find that the church and Israel are referred as a female. That by the way getting into the Marian doctrine again, it really bothers me on how Roman catholics are sharing the glory of God with other people such as Mary. Honoring and revering someone such as Mary is not an excuse for calling that person queen/king of heaven, sinless, mediator, our hope and salvation. When you give Mary these titles you are putting her in an equal position to God which is just wrong. I do not believe you when you say I am mis-intepreting the word “queen”. Looking at the way how catholics depict Mary sitting next to the throne of God (I have seen these pictures in catholic churches) to me sounds more like a position equal to God. You are trying to compare Mary and Jesus to Solomon and his mother. The mother of Solomon can sit next to Solomon’s throne because both of them were mortal humans but Mary cannot sit next to Jesus’ throne because Jesus is God and Mary isnt. Mary is the mother of Jesus human but not the mother of Jesus God. God has no beginning or end. Mary was only the vessel chosen to carry the Messiah but it does not imply her having some kind of godly privileges. You say Jesus gave the apostles authority to bind and loose but the popes are preaching false doctrines such as idolatry (an abomination to God) and I see no reason why we should follow these doctrines.
To be honest, I have not seen any benefits in praying to Mary and the saints, but all the opposite. Just look at all Hispanic countries which are highly catholic, all the population of people are Mary followers but you can see the mess in these countries. On the other hand, people in the USA tend to be protestant who only pray to God. You can see this nation in a much better condition because God has blessed it. Yes there are all kinds of people everywhere and all nations have their good and bad things but in overall, you see the USA (a country founded by protestants such as the pilgrims) in a better situation than those catholic countries who follow false idols such as virgin Mary. You Catholics are praying to people who cannot listen nor hear.
Let me give you my personal experiences, I have a personal relationship with God. God has blessed my life in every way. He has listened to all my prayers and when doesn’t it is because I was asking for something that was not for me. God has been guiding my life according to his plans. I never pray to Mary or the saints but I only follow God and the bible. I do not see what difference it would make to be praying to Mary? I used to be Catholic, and I can see the difference. This is something I have been talking to Restless Pilgrim, when I was a Catholic I did not have a personal relationship with God because I was only doing religious rituals and praying to people other than God. Yes I have met many Catholics who have met the Lord personally but this is not a common thread in Catholicism. I tell you this because all people around me are Catholics. I grew up Catholic, most of the people I know are Catholics so you can not say I am ignorant in Catholicism. I grew up in this church and know this church very well.
I have also been talking to Restless pilgrim about what Jesus said in John Chapter 3 that you have to be born again of the water and Spirit to see the kingdom of heaven. Catholics interpret this as baptism but baptism in reality is a symbol for repentance that is why John in the book of Mark chapter 1 was baptizing people after they repented from their sins and accused the Pharisees as being hypocrites because they wanted to be baptized but yet were not repenting. There is no meaning to baptism when you don’t repent. What Jesus said in John chapter 3 of being born again of the water and holy spirit is that you become a new creation when you repent (baptism is a symbol) and accept Jesus as your savior. Just being baptized as a baby does not mean you have met Jesus and that you have repented from your sins (a baby can not make such decision). You become a new creation when you leave your sinful life and meet Jesus personally. How can you enter heaven when you are still cursing, hating, and doing bad to others or when you have not personally met Jesus? Do you believe a baptism will enter you into heaven if you are still living this lifestyle or that it will help you to meet Jesus as your personal savior just because some water was sprinkled on you? I do not understand how catholics can believe such thing.
Yes there is always a consequence to sin but while we are alive and if we repent while we are alive God will forgive us. If you read about king david, david was forgiven by God because he committed adultery and murder and God forgave him but David paid the consequences of his sins while alive. I told Restless Pilgrim what Jesus told the criminal in the cross next to him “I tell you, TODAY (and not after few years of being burning in purgatory), you will be with me in paradise”. Restless pilgrim tried to re-interpret this verse by changing the comma, “I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise” but I have no clue where he got this from because every bible I have been reading the comma does not appear after the word today but before the word today. Anyways, saying we still have to purge in purgatory is saying that what Jesus did in the cross was not enough.
I will not bring the issues of the crusades because every church has done bad things and I don’t think it is fair to judge Catholicism in general only because of what some people did. Anyways, the crusades were to stop the spread of Islam. Neither I will keep bringing the issue of the Whore of Babylon because this can also be applicable to other nations.
And regarding those verses in John 14:6 and Acts 4:12 they are contradicting the RCC doctrines because the RCC has made Mary co-redemptrix with Christ (this is an official created by a pope in the late 13th century) but these verses clearly state that there is NO exception. Jesus is the ONLY way. Saying that Mary is co-redemptrix with Christ and our mediator is implying that there is an exception to these verse but if you read them you will realize there is no exception.
And yes Mark 7:9 is applicable to the RCC because the
RCC is setting aside God’s commands to follow their own traditions. This is a proof that God values more following his word than following traditions. Traditions do not have more power than the word of God.
> First let me start by saying that I believe you are a true believer in Christ as well as Restless pilgrim
Really? You’ve asserted a couple of times (1, 2) that you don’t think I’m “born again” (according to your own definition of the phrase). What distinction do you make between the two?
> So if the bible is not our only source of revelation then in that case we should believe in Mormonism.
I don’t really understand the logic here. Why do you think we’d pick Mormonism rather than, say, Islam or Baha’i? It seems to me that you’re using the same logic you used with regards to “Queen of Heaven”:
1. Paganism had a “Queen of Heaven”
2. Catholicism calls Mary “Queen of Heaven”
3. Therefore, Catholicism is basically Paganism.
RC and I have demonstrated the problem with this kind of reasoning:
1. Paganism had a “Son of God”
2. Christianity calls Jesus “Son of God”
3. Therefore Christianity is basically Paganism
However, let’s take a moment to address the question of Islam and Mormonism, since it is relevant to some of things we’ve been discussing….
So, why do I reject Islam? There are a lot of reasons, but here’s a short answer – it claims to be the same faith as Jesus and the Apostles, yet appears six hundred years later with no trace of historical continuity.
What about Mormonism? Again, I could give a lot of different answers as to why I reject it, but a simple one is that it claims to be the same faith of Jesus and the Apostles, yet appears eighteen hundred years later with no trace of historical continuity.
I reject Protestantism for the same reason.
> The fact that God inspired people to write the bible is proof that he wanted it to be our source of revelation so that we could protect ourselves from false teachings
Please explain this statement. Why would the presence of written revelation automatically mean that God wanted that to be the only form of revelation? I don’t see how one implies the other. You need some justification here.
As an aside, if your assertion is so plain to see, do we find the same idea in other religions? Islam has a sacred book, the Qur’an. Muslims even make claims about the Qur’an which (most) Christians would never assert about the Bible (coexistent with God, strict dictation, no trace of the human author etc). However, Muslims also hold to the Hadith as authoritative and as a means of interpreting the Qur’an. Your assertion therefore, doesn’t appear to be that obvious, even when applied to other religions.
I think there are other problems with your assertion. In fact, I think that if we applied your logic strictly, you actually inadvertently call the Bible into question! The Church existed prior to the Bible. Authoritative apostolic preaching pre-dated the Bible. Apostolic Tradition was passed down orally for many years before a single syllable of the New Testament was written. So, with that, let’s apply your logic:
“The fact that God…gave Apostolic Tradition</strong…is proof that he wanted it to be our source of revelation so that we could protect ourselves from false teachings"
If we apply your logic then, because Apostolic Tradition existed first, we must conclude that God never wanted us to have the Bible!
> What the apostles were orally teaching to people (before the New Testament was written) came from the old testament because everything about Jesus is a fulfillment of the old testament
Erm…not exactly. It was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, in was prophesied in the Old Testament, there were “types” in the Old Testament which would find fulfillment in the New… However, there’s no way that someone could have put the story of the New Testament based on the Old Testament alone. It needed something else…a completion of the Revelation…otherwise what would be the point of even having a New Testament (Hebrews 1:1-2)?!
> Do you see how they were not relying only on what Paul was orally telling them?
Paul was giving them new revelation, the testimony of the things Jesus said and did. What the Bereans were doing was confirming that the things which Jesus said and did were the things that were prophesied of the Messiah.
> Everything the apostles were teaching them came from scripture(may be not from the new testament but from the old testament)
That’s incorrect. Everything the apostles were teaching came from Jesus Christ. The Apostles taught in light of the Old Testament, as well as the sayings and acts of the Messiah. We call this the Deposit of Faith. The portion of that deposit which was later written down we call Sacred Scripture…the portion of that deposit which was not codified in the canon we call Sacred Tradition.
> How about if the popes start teaching you a false doctrine?
The Church has not been without its heretical popes, bishops and priests. However, Conciliar and Papal teaching (“ex cathedra”) cannot be false, based on the promises of Christ (Matthew 16:19).
> How can you 100% entrust your soul into the hands of man?
We already spoke about this with regards to Mary. I entrust my soul to Christ.
> Don’t you think it is better to be on the safe side and just follow what the bible is teaching you?
I get to be the final interpreter of the Bible? If so, then I choose Catholicism!
So I get to have my own interpretation regardless of what anybody else says? It doesn’t matter if I believe things which are directly contradicted by the earliest Christians, the martyrs and confessors of the Early Church? I get to rely on my own, fallible interpretation of the Bible? Or should I put my own interpretation aside and adopt your interpretation? Or should I go with John MacArthur’s? Joel Olsteen’s?
Actually, even before I start the job of becoming my own Pope, I have to choose which Bible to interpret for myself… Do I go with the canon historically used in the Church (73 books) or do I go with the reduced canon from the 16th Century (66 books)?
> You are wrong, the RCC DID NOT allow the translations of the bible for the common people to read them
Monica, I’m getting a little tired of saying this: you can’t just assert something, you have to prove it. RC gave you historical data to disprove this statement. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to respond to his data, not simply re-assert your original position.
If the Church didn’t allow translations, then why on earth was the Vulgate commissioned? Who first translated the Scriptures into English, German etc?
> You saying that the RCC encouraged the people to read the bible is a complete lie
I’m sorely tempted to do an entire post on this statement, demonstrating from history (rather than baseless assertion) how wrong this statement is. However, since I’m short on time, here’s just a few quotations from various points in the Church’s history:
“To become adult Christians you must learn familiarity with the scriptures” – St. John Chrysostom (4th Century)
“The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage — and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys.” – Pope St. Gregory I (6th Century)
“The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.” – St. Bernard of Clairvaux (11th Century)
“…you judge exceedingly well, that the faithful should be excited to the reading of the Holy Scriptures : for these are the most abundant sources which ought to be left open to every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine, to eradicate the errors which are widely disseminated in these corrupt times : this you have seasonably effected, as you declare, by publishing the sacred writings in the language of your country, suitable to every one’s capacity”… – Pope Pius XI (18th Century)
> I do not know why you would accuse a Pastor such as a Baptist pastor to be wrong in his teaching when the pastor is teaching straight from the bible
He’s not just reading it, he’s interpreting it as he goes.
> The bible is self-explanatory
If that’s the case, why do virtually all denominations send their ministers to Bible College? After all, the Bible is self-explanatory! In fact, why do you even need a pastor to teach you?
> …there is no room for mis-interpretation
Really? The thousands of different Protestant denominations in the world would beg to differ. In fact, even St. Peter would disagree:
“…our beloved brother Paul wrote… There are some things in them hard to understand”
– 2 Peter 3:15-17
We have proof of this even at the dawn of the Reformation, when Luther and Zwingli couldn’t agree on the meaning of “This is my body”. If two of the founders of the Reformation couldn’t agree on such a crucial passage then clearly:
(a) Scripture isn’t that clear
(b) Well-meaning, Bible-believing Christians will also come up with contradictory interpretations over vitally important passages
(b) There will be other serious disagreements concerning other passages
> Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons also derived from Christianity but just because they derived from Christianity does not mean they are the true religion
Both of these groups believe in either a great or total apostasy, effectively demanded a re-establishment of the Faith. Catholicism denies this and claims continuity with the primitive Church.
> In fact a cult is defined as a religion that branches off from a main religion but starts distorting the teachings from the main religion
From where are you getting this definition?
> Roman Catholicism could have branched off from the Catholic Church but they are certainly distorting scripture
I have already offered you evidence of Catholicism from the very beginning of Christianity. Can you give me the names of any “real” Christians in those early years?
> All people are qualified to teach the bible because we all have the Spirit living within us
My Bible says differently…
“And his gifts were that some should be apostles, …some pastors and teachers“ – Ephesians 4:11
“And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers… Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?…. But earnestly desire the higher gifts.” – 1 Corinthians 12:2
“Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness.” – James 3:1
> there is no apostolic succession written in the bible
That is incorrect. Many examples could be given, but if we look in 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul speaks about his apprenticeship of Timothy and calls Timothy to do the same. So, that’s at least a chain of four:
Paul -> Timothy -> “faithful men” -> “others”
> Regarding Paganism, yes you are right, people can have many traditions together and there can be some similarities but how about when there are hundreds and hundreds of similarities?
Which you have yet to name. You’ll be shooting yourself in the foot if you try this because it’s easy enough to do the same thing for the basic Christian faith. As I said before – you have to demonstrate a causal link – you can’t just assert it.
> I explained to Restless pilgrim about the woman in the book of revelation…
And I already responded to all of this…as has RC…yet here you just repeat yourself, failing to engage our arguments.
> I do not believe you when you say I am mis-intepreting the word “queen”
You need to do more than simply assert. RC and I have given you historical, Scriptural explanation of the term.
> Mary is the mother of Jesus human but not the mother of Jesus God
Mothers give birth to persons, not natures. Mary gave birth to Jesus, the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity. Or do you think Jesus is two people?
> I grew up Catholic, most of the people I know are Catholics so you can not say I am ignorant in Catholicism. I grew up in this church and know this church very well.
You know, I would have said the same thing when I embraced Protestantism.
My Catholic credentials were pretty impressive. Catholic educated, I had attended Mass faithfully for twenty-three years, received my sacraments, been an altar server, participated in lay apostolates, … Yet, looking back, I was woefully ignorant of the Faith. Like you, I incorrectly articulated various Catholic doctrines (e.g. Eucharist, Assumption) and knew nothing of the Early Church.
In my infinite wisdom, I believed that certain doctrines were wrong, but if you’d have asked me why Catholics believed that, I wouldn’t have been able to explain to you the case that an educated Catholic would make to defend the belief.
> the RCC has made Mary co-redemptrix with Christ (this is an official created by a pope in the late 13th century)
This is unfortunately an example of your deficiency in both Catholic teaching and historical knowledge:
1. “Co-redemptrix” is not official Catholic dogma.
2. The notion is rooted in the writings of the Early Church Fathers since we find Mary referred to as “causa salutes”, even prior to AD 200.
Being a believer is not the same as being a born again Christian. Please follow up with RC on what I explained to him/her what it means to be a born again Christian. I know that you have true intentions to follow what you believe to be true but the true is that what you believe to be true is simply not the true
> Being a believer is not the same as being a born again Christian
So you believe I’m a heretic (“believer”)…but also that I haven’t been interiorly transformed (“born again”).
How do you know the state of my soul?
You said this “I reject Protestantism for the same reason” (because it is only 500 years in the same way Islam and Mormonism are young religions etc)
So lets apply this logical fallacy of yours. It was believed for thousands of years that women determined the sex of the baby (whether it is boy or girl, in fact queens were decapitated for not providing Henry VIII with the male son he wanted so much). However It was recently discovered, in the late 1900s that men determine the sex of the baby and not women. So because this is a recent believe we should not believe it? We should only believe what was first believed for thousands of years?
I will ask you the same question that I asked RC, does something being older proves that it is more real than something that is new? A lie being older does not stop it from being a lie!!!
So if you say that we should not believe something that was recently created then you should not believe most of the RCC doctrines which were recently created, let me give you examples:
Pope Pius IX, December 8, 1854, decreed Mary to be free from sin
The Bodily Assumption of Mary was created in 1929
I have to do more research on the RCC allowing people to read the bible in the ancient times. So far I know the RCC did not allow the translations of the bible but I will have to do more research on it. Anyways lets suppose that your assertions are right, the RCC did allow the common people to read the bible, still, no one could protest against the teachings of the RCC. Lets say people were reading the bible and learning that scripture contradicted the RCC, the RCC church persecuted anyone who opposed them (apparently for being heretics). When people took the courage to do that, that is when the RCC started burning people at the stage, and this is something everyone knows and something that you can not deny.
All those evidences you gave me for the RCC existing from the beginning are teachings that clearly contradict scripture so there is no reason for me to believe in the RCC. The RCC being older than all other religions DOES NOT prove the RCC the real religion. Like I said, a lie being the oldest lie does not stop that lie from being a lie.
> However It was recently discovered, in the late 1900s that men determine the sex of the baby and not women…
This is a terrible example. My argument wasn’t “It’s old therefore it must be true”. My argument was that if some group wishes to assert that they have historic continuity…there must be some evidence of it! Mormons and Muslims both claim that Jesus and the Apostles, but since they can’t demonstrate this claim, I reject it.
> I will ask you the same question that I asked RC, does something being older proves that it is more real than something that is new?
In general terms, no. However, when attempting to demonstrate that something was a historic belief, yes it does.
> So if you say that we should not believe something that was recently created then you should not believe most of the RCC doctrines which were recently created, let me give you examples:
This is yet another example to which I’ve already responded, but which you ignored. As I said before, the full divinity of Christ was proclaimed in Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Was it not believed before then? Many similar examples could be given.
> I have to do more research on the RCC allowing people to read the bible in the ancient times
Excellent. Thank you for reconsidering what you have been told. I can send you some books if you like.
> So far I know the RCC did not allow the translations of the bible but I will have to do more research on it
That’s incorrect, as we’ve pointed out (here and here). I think you need to do some more research on this subject. I’d invite you to begin your study by looking at who translated the Bible into Latin, English, German and Slavonic.
> Lets say people were reading the bible and learning that scripture contradicted the RCC, the RCC church persecuted anyone who opposed them
1. Historical proof please. You can’t just argue from silence.
2. If everyone was so terrified of the Church, how then could the Protestant Reformation ever take place?
3. Were these early Christians really this cowardly? Did they not love Jesus enough to stand for the truth?
4. As I’ve said before, we have many examples of different heresies the Church fought over the years. These groups were not afraid to challenge the Church! Objections were raised…it’s just that none of the objections looked anything like Protestantism.
> All those evidences you gave me for the RCC existing from the beginning are teachings that clearly contradict scripture so there is no reason for me to believe in the RCC
…it’s one piece of the puzzle, but not the whole thing, sure. However, from the evidence that I’ve presented we can establish a few facts:
1. The Catholic Church was in existence prior to Constantine
2. You cannot affirm the ancient Christian faith of the early centuries
3. The theological beliefs you hold weren’t believed by anybody until 500 years ago
Do you dispute any of these points?
You make these comments
“The Church existed prior to the Bible. Authoritative apostolic preaching pre-dated the Bible. Apostolic Tradition was passed down orally for many years before a single syllable of the New Testament was written”
You also say this:
“The Apostles taught in light of the Old Testament, as well as the sayings and acts of the Messiah. We call this the Deposit of Faith. The portion of that deposit which was later written down we call Sacred Scripture…the portion of that deposit which was not codified in the canon we call Sacred Tradition”
To begin with the apostles did not teach any traditions about Mary, all Marian doctrines are recent doctrines created by the popes, I gave you examples. The traditions created by the apostles have nothing to do with what the Popes are teaching today. In either case, lets say the Popes have the authority to continue adding traditions (besides the traditions created by the early disciples). This does not justify the false doctrines the Popes are creating today. The first apostles would’ve never taught things that were an abomination to God:
1. Using images during worship (even if those images represent God like you said)
2. Sharing the Glory of God with false idols like Mary by saying things such as
a. God submits to her will (as if Mary had more authority than God)
“But now, if God is offended with any sinner, and Mary undertakes to protect him, she restrains the Son from punishing him and saves him (God is basically submitting to her will)” [Liguori,Glories of Mary, page 133]”
b. Sharing the Kingdom with God (queen of heaven)
“Mary whom He has made SOVEREIGN (an attribute that only belongs to God) of heaven and earth, general of His armies” [DeMontfort, True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin, page 15]
“She possesses, by right, the whole kingdom of her son (basically sharing the throne of God as if Mary was equal to God)” [Liguori, Glories of Mary, page 280]
Hence, the “power thus put into her hands is all but unlimited (as if Mary was almighty like God)”
[Pope Leo XIII, Rosary of Mary, page 113, 130]
c. mediator , co-redemptrix, and bringing salvation (contradicting what the disciples said in Acts 4:12 that salvation is found in NO ONE ELSE for there is NO other name written under heaven through which we can be saved), this also goes along with what you told me in your last post that Mary is not Co-redemptrix, well read these official teachings from the catholic church
“The devils have presented my sins before the tribunal of the Lord, and already they were dragging me to hell, but the holy Virgin came and said to them: ‘Where are you taking this youth? What have you to do with one of my servants who has so long served me in the congregation?’ The devils fled, and thus I have been saved from their hands” [Liguori, Glories of Mary, page 667]
This union of the mother with the son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death.” [Vatican II, Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Chapter 8, “The Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God in the Mystery of Christ and the Church,” pages 380-381]
In fact, Mary’s role as CO-REDEMPTRIX did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [Pope John Paul II, Allocution at the
Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guayaquil, Jan. 31, 1985]
“Whoever asks and wishes to obtain graces without the intercession of Mary, attempts to fly without wings” [Liguori, Glories of Mary, page 189]
You can clearly see all the devotion, passion and fervor Catholics feel for Mary not only in these official writings from the catholic church, (and please note how they refer to Mary as the “Mother of God” as if Mary was divine) but also when Catholics pray to her, sing her worship songs, walk on their knees before her statues, carry her statues during pilgrimages. I know we have been talking about this, you have been saying that we also celebrate our relatives birthdays etc but we never do with our relatives things that Catholics do with Mary, this is elevating a human to a divine level which is pure idolatry.
THE APOSTLES WOULD’VE NEVER TAUGHT SUCH THINGS EITHER ORALLY, TRADITIONALLY OR WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
> To begin with the apostles did not teach…
This entire comment starts with the presupposition of Sola Scriptura and your own interpretation of Scripture – both of which are things which we dispute.
You say that the Popes are infallible, well when they are creating doctrines that obviously go against what God teaches to me they sound like fallible people. I will keep repeating myself, I do not know how you can trust what the popes are teaching you outside the bible when the popes are humans just like you and me and can make mistakes. Matthew 16:19 is not only applicable to Peter but it was applicable to all disciples. Read the book of Acts and the rest of the epistles written by Paul, all disciples had authority and leadership (you are basing your religion out of a verse from the bible which is wrong, you have to read the bible into a greater context). Besides that, Matthew 16:19 in no way suggests that Peter would be infallible. Matthew 16:19 is not an excuse for the popes creating doctrines that go against what God has prohibited people to do.
> Matthew 16:19 is not only applicable to Peter but it was applicable to all disciples
That’s incorrect. The “you” in that verse is singular. The Jewish background and biblical typology points back to the prime minister in the cabinet of ministers in the Davidic Kingdom. Please see here for more details.
> Besides that, Matthew 16:19 in no way suggests that Peter would be infallible.
Do you think that something can be “bound in Heaven” which is false?
Regarding my comments about interpretation of scripture and having the Holy Spirit to help us interpret scripture, you responded to me about there being different denominations in Christianity (on how Christians can not interpret the bible correctly and all of them disagree in the different denominations)
To let you know, ALL Christian denominations share the most major essential believes such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, etc. The only differences between denominations are minor non-essential things such as speaking in tongues etc. There is not that much of different between denominations.
Yes all people have different gifts (the verses you quoted to me clearly state so), not everyone can have the same gifts such as teaching the bible, speaking in tongues, prophesizing, etc but many people can have the same gifts at the same time. It is not like only ONE person will have a certain gift. The Catholic Church implies that ONLY the Popes and priest in the high hierarchy can have the gift of interpreting scripture etc but if you read the bible other people (although not everyone) can have these gifts as well, and not only the popes.
> To let you know, ALL Christian denominations share the most major essential believes such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, etc.
That’s incorrect. Some have concepts of Sacred Tradition, some will contest the classical definition of Sola Fide…
Anyway, all you’ve done is set an arbitrary standard and then affirm that all Christians believe the same. Who gets to decide what’s “essential” and “non-essential”? You?
Is the belief about baptism, Eucharist, salvation etc. the same across these denominations? No, that’s why those denominations exist – because they couldn’t agree!
> The Catholic Church implies that ONLY the Popes and priest in the high hierarchy can have the gift of interpreting scripture etc
Also not true, at least, in the sense that I think you mean.
Hey, Monica,
Just a quick reply to a particular item. You say,
“To let you know, ALL Christian denominations share the most major essential believes such as Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, etc. The only differences between denominations are minor non-essential things such as speaking in tongues etc. There is not that much of different between denominations.”
Nope, sorry, that’s just not true.
First, Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura have only ever been believed by Protestants. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorian Christians and Miaphysites and whatnot, have always rejected both. That means that 100% of the known Christians prior to 1500, and about 80% of the Christians that have existed since 1500, and the majority of all the Christians in existence today, regard Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura to be heretical.
So…not a lot of agreement about those.
Please also notice that some Protestants disagree with others about the meaning of Sola Fide to the point that they cannot be said to be holding the same doctrine even when they call it by the same name. This is also true for many other terms of doctrine: First you find two people who both profess to believe in “The Communion of Saints” and then you find they mean entirely different things by it! Or they have theories of the “atonement” which reveal that they hold different definitions of the word “atonement.”
To constitute real agreement, they must not merely claim the same formula, but define the terms used in the formula the same way…or at least in ways that don’t contradict one another. But this is not the case in the Protestant world, on many topics.
And, it’s just not true to say that the Protestant denominations “agree about the essential stuff and only disagree about non-essentials.”
For example: Can you lose your salvation? Why do you think so? If so, how? Why does that produce a loss of salvation? If you have lost it, what does it take to get it back? Why does that bring it back?
Ask ten different kinds of Protestants that question and you’ll get, at minimum, ten different answers. (Possibly fifteen or twenty!) Sure, there will be overlap, but there’ll also be disagreement.
Disagreement. About salvation. A doctrine related to salvation is obviously a pretty doggone critical doctrine, isn’t it?
Yet Protestants disagree about it. Some are 5-point Calvinists. Some are 4-and-a-half-point Calvinists. Some are “Once Saved Always Saved.” Some are Arminians. Some fall into nuanced positions between one or more of these.
And you know this is the case, Monica, if you’ve participated in conversations about such topics with any Evangelicals outside your own denomination…possibly if you’ve had conversations with Christians outside your own local congregation!
Go to a collection of Protestants and offer them a hypothetical scenario, wherein a person is sincerely in love with the Lord right now, but ten years later (after some personal crisis, perhaps) he foreswears his earlier belief and becomes an atheist.
Ask these Protestants to analyze the state of the person’s salvation in that story. They won’t all say the same thing, will they? Some will say “He apostasized, rejected salvation, and unless he repents he’s likely to go to hell” but others will say, “No, he was reborn a child of God and God never abandons his children even when they abandon Him; so he’s heaven-bound whether he believes it currently or not.” Still others will say, “He was never a real Christian; he was faking it all along.” And still others will say, “No, he wasn’t faking it; but God didn’t grant him the gift of persevering to final salvation. This means God never intended him to be one of the Elect because he was never Predestined to receive that particular grace-gift. Damnation was always his lot, from the foundation of the earth.”
That’s the reality of division. On critical doctrines.
And it’s not just salvation. It’s who gets baptized. It’s what baptism means. It’s what baptism does. It’s what are the proper modes of baptism. It’s how the Eucharist is performed. It’s who may consecrate the Eucharist. It’s what the Eucharist is. It’s whether the Eucharist is a true sacrifice or not. It’s what does receiving the Eucharist do. It’s who may partake of the Eucharist.
Now you, Monica, may regard doctrines related to Baptism and the Eucharist to be non-essential…but in that case you’re showing that you disagree particularly strongly with the Early Christians, because they considered these two items in the Christian faith to be among the top few most-important topics!
Which goes to show us yet another essential doctrine on which Protestants disagree: The doctrine of which doctrines are or aren’t “essential!”
(Surely THAT can’t be a “non-essential” doctrine!)
Aaaand the list goes on: Christians disagree wildly on who gets to be ordained to clergy status, what it means to be ordained, and who has authority to do the ordaining, and what authority an ordained person has once ordained! Not a small matter!
And then we get to moral issues. Do all Christians agree about those? Do even all Protestants agree? Do even all *conservative* Protestants agree?
And — here’s an interesting point — do all of the same kind of Protestant agree with their predecessors who were the Exact Same Kind of Protestant a mere few decades earlier?
No, they don’t.
The easy example is artificial contraception. Prior to 1930, all Protestants held something pretty close to the current Catholic view on the matter. Luther and Calvin both considered artificial contraception on-par with witchcraft or blasphemy: a horrifying perversion of God’s plan for human procreation. Then the Anglicans bailed out first; then all the other groups over the following 20 years or so. The Catholics are the only remaining Christian group with a “conservative” viewpoint on this topic; all other groups have become theologically “liberal” about it.
Another example is marriage. According to Jesus in Matthew 5 and 19 and elsewhere, “Moses allowed divorce because your hearts were hard” but under the New Covenant, there is NO SUCH THING as a real divorce from a valid Christian marriage. It’s a metaphysical impossibility. A person can ask for a **civil** divorce, but if their original marriage was a real Christian marriage then their **civil** divorce is just a civil lie; in the eyes of God they’re still married. If they “re-marry” according to civil law, all they’re doing in God’s eyes is committing adultery against their original spouse, who is still their real spouse.
That’s the original Christian teaching on marriage. As a consequence, most Christian groups tended AT FIRST not to admit divorced-and-remarried persons to communion.
But what about now, Monica? Do current Christians agree, or disagree, with Jesus’ original teaching — and, usually, their own denomination’s original teaching! — on Christian marriage? Or do they disagree — in various ways — about this important topic?
What about charging interest on loans? What about how to determine whether a war is a “just war” or not? What about how to determine which wrongs a government may justly oppose with police power, and which ones it is immoral to outlaw? What about abortion? What about masturbation or in vase indebito? What about ordaining women? What about headship roles in marriage? What about the “unforgivable sin?” Whether government welfare programs should be considered a valid way of fulfilling our duty towards the poor, or if only our voluntary almsgiving qualifies? What about the obligation to tithe? What about the proper Christian attitude towards persons with homosexual tendencies? Homosexual practices? Long term homosexual cohabitation relationships? What about the morality of in-vitro fertilization? Transhumanism? Genetic alteration of humans?
Are any of THOSE things “essential?” How much better would the world be if Christians were unanimous about them, and behaved in accord with their unanimity?
Here are some other things Christians have disagreed upon: Is God a Trinity or not? Is Jesus truly God or not? If so, was He always God, or did He become God at some point? Is the Holy Spirit truly God, or just a power coming from God? Was Jesus “fully God and fully man?” Or half-and-half? Or God disguised to resemble a man?
Christians have disagreed about all these things, Monica. They still do, some of them, even in our present day.
So it’s just not true that Christians all agree about the essentials, is it? Protestants of the exact same denomination often disagree with one another about essentials. And they disagree about what IS essential. And they disagree with one another about HOW TO DETERMINE what is essential.
Don’t they?
The only “escape hatch” on this point, Monica, is if you DEFINE “non-essential doctrines” to actually MEAN “doctrines that I can’t get other Christians to agree with me about.”
In fact I think that’s what most Protestants really mean when they talk about “essential” doctrines and “non-essential” doctrines. But it turns out that they don’t really mean what they’re saying; they mostly are just trying to be polite to other Christians in social situations.
For example, if you’re in a church that doesn’t baptize infants and your friend invites you to the baptism of their newborn child, what do you do? You typically say, “Well, you know, my church only practices believer’s baptism. But that’s a non-essential; we agree about the essentials.”
But that is mere whistling past the graveyard, for the sake of avoiding uncomfortable conversations and hurt feelings. You don’t really mean it.
Here’s what proves you don’t really mean it: How many churches which DON’T practice infant baptism are going to willingly, knowingly hire a pastor who DOES believe in infant baptism? Or even allow a Sunday School teacher to teach infant baptism in a Sunday School class?
None, that’s how many. They will actually exclude a person from denominational ordination over it. They will, to use the more ancient terminology, “schism from” another Christian group over it…which goes to show that they think it’s essential.
Enough said.
I think I’ve amply demonstrated that even Protestants of the same type disagree about the essentials, especially when compared with other Protestants of the same type in different eras…and certainly when compared with Protestants of different types…and CERTAINLY when compared with the majority of all Christians in all times and places (who were either Catholic or something very close to Catholic like Eastern Orthodox).
That’s the lay of the land, when it comes to Christian doctrinal unity.
I decided that I will be drop off my arguments about paganism and the RCC
Good to hear it.
Sorry, just saying “good to hear it” is entirely too brief a reply; I’d actually meant to say more before posting but got distracted and submitted the comment early.
Monica, you made a serious effort on a point-by-point basis to engage with what I’d been saying. Thank you for doing so.
I’ll reply in kind as soon as I can. However, at the present I’m a bit occupied: It’s after midnight and tornadoes are predicted to be in the area through the “wee hours” of this morning so I’m having to clear a space in my basement to move my kids into should the weather get rough as the night continues. (And of course I’m going to try to get some sleep, too!)
God’s blessings to you and to “Pilgrim,” here; I’ll get back to give due care to my reply, when I can.
Monica,
You say, “First let me start by saying that I believe you are a true believer in Christ as well as Restless pilgrim, and it has never been my intention to spiritually attack the RCC.”
Thanks for saying so. I have always assumed in this conversation that your intentions were good. After all, aren’t you mostly holding to opinions that I used to hold? I was entirely well-intentioned when I was holding them; why shouldn’t you be?
(I say that you’re “mostly” holding opinions I used to hold, because while I suspect you’re either a Baptist or something very similar, I don’t think you’ve explicitly stated your denomination. And anyway, even if you did, Baptists widely disagree among themselves about certain important doctrines…even core doctrines of salvation. For example, many Southern Baptists hold “Once Saved, Always Saved” but other Baptist groups (e.g. Freewill Baptists) do not and hold a Christian can willfully apostasize. Some allow women to be pastors; others only deacons; others neither pastors nor deacons. Some have a strong Calvinist streak; others don’t. Most are dispensationalist in some form, but there’s great variation about whether they’re pre-millennial, post-millennial, pre-trib, post-trib, or mid-trib, and so on.)
You say, “I believe that the priests have a true desire to serve God and that there are many honest believers in Catholicism (I know many of them) however this does not spare the RCC from having many false teachings.”
Fair enough. The “false teachings” part, of course, is the point of contention here. I think you’re honestly mistaken about that part. But you think I’m honestly mistaken, too. Both of us can’t be right. Either I’m wrong, or you are…or we both are.
Now IF in fact there is good basis for believing that Jesus’ Church can officially teach false teachings, I would certainly want to know about it and it would certainly be your moral duty to let me know. So that’s all to the good.
You say, “I have read your comments and doing my best to answer your points.”
Yes! Excellent. And I’ll do likewise.
But…I’ll do that in my NEXT response. In THIS somewhat long response I want to show you a roadmap of how I and so many other Evangelical Protestants wound up where I am.
And I do want to be fair to you, Monica, which includes not being impatient.
For, even if I prove a point so well that any unbiased observer would call it “proven,” I can’t expect you to immediately say, “Yep, you proved me wrong.” Firstly, people usually have a bit of ego involved in “being right,” so it’s hard to embrace the humbling statement right away. But there’s an even better reason than that: Human beings take time to reason through all the implications of a complicated topic. “Pilgrim” and I have kind of dumped on you more thoughts, challenges, and information than I would expect you or anyone else to be able to absorb quickly. Human beings need time to “ruminate.”
It would be unreasonable to ask you, after a few days of debating a topic, to change your strongly-held views. It would be unreasonable for me to expect that, because I, myself, took much longer than that!
Now, I hope eventually I can get you to admit that, on certain topics, I have successfully pointed out a flaw or gap in how you were thinking about Christianity, or in your preconceptions about Catholics or Catholicism.
I mean, if I point out a logical flaw in Protestant thinking about Scripture, you may not immediately agree with MY solution to that flaw! …but at least I want you to be able to see that the problem exists.
Even if you become aware of the logic-problems of Protestantism, or the Scripture-problems of Protestantism, or the Early Church history problems of Protestantism, I would be shocked if you immediately concluded, “Oh, so I guess Catholicism is right.” Human minds can’t sort through all the issues THAT quickly. Certainly I didn’t change MY mind that quickly. Nowhere near it!
Let me give you a bit of a roadmap: For me, the process took about four years, in which I found myself debating every side of the argument at different stages.
The first thing to change was my view of the logic of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is defined in different ways, but I think it can be summed up as follows: “Sola Scriptura” is the theory that the way God intended us to choose which church/denomination to belong to was by comparing the teaching of any prospective church to our own interpretation of Scripture. According to this theory, if we agree with a church on every interpretation point we consider important, then we can join that church; but if not, we can refuse to join (literally, be in schism from) that church.
Now this theory has some noble aspects to it. First, it makes it an individual necessity for a person to know something about the Bible so they can make a decision about church membership…and it is always good to encourage Bible-literacy. Second, a person who holds “Sola Scriptura” is choosing a church for good, doctrine-oriented reasons. This is far better than choosing a church because it has good music, or you like the preaching style, or it has a good youth program, or because it doesn’t preach against a besetting sin you struggle with, or reasons like that.
So, I used to believe “Sola Scriptura.” And I still give it some credit for being well-intentioned.
But I now believe it was never God’s plan for the Church.
There is certainly no evidence in Scripture that it ever was — and if this plan had been God’s plan, it would be logically required to be clear from Scripture. (Otherwise the whole concept contradicts itself.)
There is likewise no evidence for such a method being used or commended to us by the early Christians who received their Christianity from the Apostles. Yet they did have a method of determining true Christianity: They relied on what we now call “The Magisterium of the Church” (though that term would not be invented until later) to deliver the true “Apostolic Tradition” — including the true interpretation of hard-to-understand parts of Scripture, or the answers to questions which Scripture doesn’t address — to them.
Also, nobody **could** practice “Sola Scriptura” during a period when they didn’t yet know exactly what was and wasn’t part of “Scriptura!” That means that in the period 100 AD to 370 AD, this method could NOT have been how Christians were supposed to do things.
Now when I held my former opinions I simply had not considered the logical contradictions of the Sola Scriptura view. Once they were pointed out to me, they became obvious after a few weeks of thinking about it…but the question was, if “Sola Scriptura” (as I understood it) was wrong, what was right? Could “Sola Scriptura” be “rescued” by reformulating it somewhat? I went through several stages, and THAT took time: a matter of years.
In the end, the conclusion I came to was that Scripture was always meant to be used “In The Assembly,” as a part of the living Tradition of the People of God — the way the Jews had used the Torah and the Prophets in the Old Testament. (The Jews always held that there was a “written Torah” and an “oral Torah” and that the latter was more voluminous and existed in order to make the former correctly understood.)
If Scripture was meant to be used THAT way, then that meant that “The Church” could provide a “living voice of authority”; a sort of “oracle of God” like Moses and the twelve judges and seventy sub-judges which (at the suggestion of his father-in-law) Moses set up to deal with disputed issues during the Exodus. This structure was strongly suggested by the fact that Jesus first selected Twelve, then Seventy, apostles in the Gospels, and by the way Jesus granted them authority to “bind and loose” — terms used in the Old Testament for three different kinds of authority involving making judgments (priestly, stewardly, and rabbinical).
I reasoned that if the Church had a “judgment structure” like that described in the Old Covenant, then a Christian who needed to choose between two competing interpretations of Scripture could just “take it to the Church” and ASK. If the answer was guaranteed to be correct, then this would “rescue” Scripture from being mis-used. By clearly identifying correct/incorrect interpretations, the judging-system of the New Covenant would prevent the People of God from schisming into competing groups.
Or…at least, it would give them free-will to schism if they chose, but it would allow those who didn’t want to schism to know which interpretation was the true “teaching of the Church” and submit to the right one. Far from reducing free will, such a structure would make it POSSIBLE to submit to Jesus’ authority…by making it possible to know what, exactly, Jesus wanted you to think/do/believe. Without that, you can’t be sure WHAT to submit to, even if you want to!
Anyway, all that took a long time to settle in.
Once it had settled in, however, the question was: Okay, if Jesus has a Church, is it a visible Church with certain hallmarks that allow you to distinguish it from all the other ones? Well…it must be! If Christians dealing with disputes are supposed to “take it to the Church” they have to know which one! If the Church is an invisible reality but not an organization you can find on earth, how could anyone ever “take it to the Church” like Matthew 18 says?
Okay, so it’s a visible Church. And, moreover, it would have to have a visible hierarchy of people within it to exercise the role of judging and decision-making. This is required by Scripture, too: Matthew 18 says “take it to the Church” and seems to assume that we know WHICH PEOPLE in the Church we’re supposed to take it to! Who do we ask? Just whoever’s in the pew beside us? Everyone in a monthly meeting? The pastor? The deacons?
And what if two pastors disagree? How can something be “bound in Heaven” if two different pastors disagree? There needs to be a tie-breaking vote, or something, in the Church, to indicate which pastor is right. So the organizational structure can’t merely be one of the local church; you have to be able to “appeal” a decision beyond your local congregation, to a higher court, just as (in the Old Testament) people in Israel could appeal the decision of the seventy, to one of the twelve, and a decision of one of the twelve, to Moses.
All this is implied by the “church discipline” procedure outlined in Matthew 18. But that still doesn’t settle the question. Any old group of churches could conceivably set up a hierarchy and establish procedures by which a disputed issue could be appealed above the local-church level and eventually settled in a worldwide decision. (Oddly, very few have done so…but they *conceivably* could.) So if there are several such hierarchical Churches in the world, which one is Jesus’ Church?
I can think of no way to settle that except to look for the Church which the persons with “hierarchical judging authority” received it from earlier persons with the same authority, who received it from earlier persons with the same authority, et cetera, all the way back to Jesus. A person can’t just show up an CLAIM the authority; he has to have it delegated to him. And he can’t have it delegated to him by someone who doesn’t even have it (you can’t delegate authority you don’t even have!); instead it has to come from someone who already has it.
In other words, you need a church whose hierarchy is made out of bishops in Apostolic Succession. Without having been ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop (etc., etc.) who was ordained by an Apostle who was ordained by Jesus, all you’ve got is a guy claiming to be a bishop because a bunch of people who don’t even HAVE bishop-y authority claimed to have made him one! That doesn’t make any sense.
Okay: So what we want is a Church where decisions are made by bishops ordained by bishops in Apostolic Succession. That eliminates everyone but the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, and the Anglican Church. But how to choose between them?
Well, the Early Christians considered one particular bishop in Apostolic Succession to have a special authority: The Bishop of Rome, because he was the successor of Peter, and this gave him the role of resolving disputes between bishops who were otherwise equal. This system has two important aspects: (1.) It’s the only thing which makes it possible to come to a final decision in a worldwide Church when bishops disagree; and, (2.) It’s Scriptural, because in Matthew 16 Jesus — the Messiah, the Son of David — gives Peter a special office of having “the keys of the kingdom.”
This office was known to all Jews: It’s the “chief stewardly” office of the “Al Beit” or “Head of House” in the “House of David” (where the word “house” means not a building but a dynasty, like the “House of Tudor” or the “House of Hapsburg”). For of course the Davidic Kings always had many stewards, who might disagree about matters of kingdom policy. But there was always one steward who — if the King was out-of-town or otherwise occupied, perhaps engaged in duties at the Temple — could resolve disputes between stewards. He was the “chief steward,” the “Al Beit.” The special symbol of his office was that he was given “The Keys of the House of David.” He served as the “prefect” of the priests of the Temple, second only to the High Priest. He could “bind” and “loose” with the authority of the King, just like the other stewards, but with one additional ability: What another steward “loosed,” the “Al Beit” could “bind,” and vice-versa: In other words, this “chief steward” had authority to reverse the decisions of the other stewards, but THEY did NOT have authority to reverse his decisions. What he “locked” none could “unlock”; what he “unlocked” no other could “lock.”
There are reverences in Jewish commentaries which explain this role. Isaiah 22 also contains a prophecy of judgement by God against an unfaithful chief-steward named “Shebna”: God condemns “Shebna” for embezzling funds from the treasury of the kingdom and using them for his personal glorification. God (through Isaiah) tells Shebna: “You are going to die; and I’m going to give one of the other stewards a promotion to chief-steward, and he will take your place. I’m doing this because you’ve been faithless and greedy and not using your office properly. But Eliakim son of Hilkiah is faithful, so I’m going to make HIM the new Al Beit. I’ll give him the robe of your office, and the throne of authority you currently sit in…and he’ll receive the symbol of your office, the Keys of the House of David. He’s going to be like a securely-placed main-tent-peg for the House of David, holding the whole structure together in unity. He’ll help and unify the people for the king: He’ll be like a father to the people of Jerusalem. In short: He’ll be a good Al Beit, in all the ways you aren’t.”
That’s a paraphrase, Monica, but that’s the gist of it. It’s all there in Isaiah 22, go read it for yourself. This office of authority always had successors, of course: Shebna was the Al Beit for David’s great-great-many-times-great grandson Hezekiah. And when Shebna died, naturally the office had to be filled, and sure enough, Eliakim was picked to replace him and did a better job, just as Isaiah had prophesied.
When I learned all that, Monica, I realized I had the answer:
YES, Jesus’ church has a visible, worldwide authority structure to keep doctrinal unity and to make binding decisions, just like Matthew 18 says.
And, YES, those with authority in that structure hold “offices” which, when they die, are not left vacant but filled by successors, just like in Isaiah 22 and Acts 1.
And, YES, the authority has to come from others who already had that authority, like when Paul bids Timothy to “lay hands on” (that is, ordain) trustworthy mature Christians who aren’t divorced-and-remarried (“husband of only one wife”).
And YES, the apostles are stewards, but only one of them has the symbolic indicator of Chief Stewardship, the Keys of the Kingdom. That’s Peter (and by extension, his successors).
And THAT means that if, at any point, some bishops disagree with other bishops, and if the two groups split into different churches, you always know which church is the “real” one: The one which stayed with the Al Beit of the Kingdom of God. For God has granted the occupant of that office authority to “lock what other stewards unlock” and to “unlock what other stewards lock.” So if some bishops want to hold a certain doctrine, and others want it declared wrong, the Al Beit can step in and say: “Group X is correct; Group Y is incorrect; and this judgment is now required to be held as an item of faith by all the faithful.” As soon as he does that, if the two groups break communion with one another, whichever group the Al Beit sided with is the correct one, and represents the ongoing unity of Jesus’ Church.
That’s the Biblical answer to resolving squabbles in the Church about how to interpret the Bible. And all it takes to know about it is to read the Bible the way first-century Jews did…and not get mad at the bishops in communion with the Al Beit if, on some occasion, they tell you that one of your ideas about the Bible is wrong! 🙂
I say again: This is the Biblical answer: It gives us a Biblical ecclesiology. But it is also the historical answer: It’s what the early Christians used from 100 AD to 370 AD. And it is the answer which explains why the people who canonized the New Testament had authority to do so: They were bishops in communion with the Al Beit (the successor of Peter). It all fits and it’s HOW WE GOT the Bible.
The only problem is…it means that fullness and reality of Jesus’s Church is…the Catholic Church.
A tough sell, for a Baptist-raised guy like me. But what’s a guy to do? Stay with what’s comfortable when he knows it’s wrong? Or go where Jesus says go, even when it’s uncomfortable and weird and the music is different and often bad, and the preaching sometimes less skillful than what I’m used to?
I think the Catholic Church is a thing of great joy…but that doesn’t mean it didn’t take some adjustment!
Anyhow, that was the path I followed, Monica.
It took a long while. So, I’m not expecting instant agreement from you. But I do hope you can see some of the problems in Sola Scriptura…and that seeing those problems will prompt you to dig deeper.
Sincerely, R.C.
P.S. sorry for the long note. I’ll reply point-by-point to your most recent notes in a separate post.
Hey RC, this is a great walk-through, thanks.
I do not oppose following traditions what I oppose is people following traditions that clearly contradict scripture.
I am going to say what I told David (Restless Pilgrim) lets say you are right, lets say besides Sola Scriptura we can also rely on traditions, I do not think that this is an excuse for following traditions that go against biblical teachings.
Let me give you an example, if the Pope decided to state that Jesus is not God (when the bible clearly teaches Jesus is God) then because we are not to rely on the bible alone but also on the traditions of the Popes, then should we accept the Pope saying that Jesus is not God? Do you understand my point? Yes we can rely on traditions besides the bible as long as those traditions do not contradict scripture (lets say we make it a tradition to eat turkey during Christmas) but if someone is coming with a tradition that obviously contradict scripture, I do not think we are to follow it. I have been telling David on how the Popes are raising Mary to a deity position and I quoted to him many official teachings from the bible where Mary is being raised almost to a deity position, and not only that, I have witnessed Catholics doing things that we could say are worshiping Mary. As much power as the Popes have and it does not matter if we are also to follow traditions, I do not think this is right. It is not so much following traditions what I oppose but what I oppose is following traditions that are obviously wrong do you get my point?
Lets say you are right, the Roman Catholic Church was the church established by God (that by the way, I will hold on to my opinion that you dont have evidence to state so, so far you guys have been quoting verses from the bible to me that I do not think exclusively imply Apostolic Succession) but I will pretend to agree with you, the RCC was established by God, this is neither an excuses for the RCC engaging in idolatry.
Yes David quoted to me some quotations apparently from early church fathers (100AD-200AD) where they state Mary being the new Eve, sinless etc, but you know what, there were already many false teachings circulating after the death and resurrection of Jesus. If you read the bible, Paul in many of his letters rebuked churches who were already following false practices.
I will repeat to you what I told you before, I believe that there are many genuine believers in Christ like you and David, but the catholic church can not convince me because of all the idolatry practices I see Catholics doing. No matter how much authority the popes have, or whether this church was established by God, there is no excuse for doing things that God hates. I do not think that a church or man should have more power than God (like when you state that whatever popes bind or loose on earth then that has to be bound and loose in heaven). I do not think God will have to submit himself to a man’s will.
I will continue to pray for you and for me. I will continue to pray for God to reveal me the true, if there is some true in Catholicism like you state, then I pray God will help me to see the true, but for now, the RCC does not convince me. Thank you:)
> I do not oppose following traditions what I oppose is people following traditions that clearly contradict scripture.
Clear to whom though? You’ve raised a number of issues, none of which I would say contradict Scripture. Who’s call is it?
From the very beginning of the Reformation, reformers disagreed with one another on this issue concerning a whole host of doctrines…and these were all Sola Scriptura believers who were no lovers of Rome. If the teaching of the Bible is as clear as you suggest, why wasn’t this easily resolved?
Doesn’t deifying Mary and using images for worship sound contradictory enough for you?
> Doesn’t deifying Mary and using images for worship sound contradictory enough for you?
We don’t deify or worship her – those are your assertions which we deny. So, the two questions remain:
1. Clear to whom?
2. If the Bible is so clear, why couldn’t the reformers (and their successors) speak with a united voice when it came to doctrine?
> Lets say besides Sola Scriptura we can also rely on traditions
You have to rely on Sacred Tradition, otherwise how do you decide upon the canon of Scripture?
> if the Pope decided to state that Jesus is not God
You’re starting with a logical contradiction. It’s like the Atheist’s argument against God because He could create a rock too heavy for Him to lift.
> because we are not to rely on the bible alone but also on the traditions of the Popes
I think we might have to look at infallibility, the Magesterium and Sacred Tradition as I think you’ve got some things mixed up here.
> Yes David quoted to me some quotations…there were already many false teachings circulating after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
I don’t think you’re grasping the force of what I presented. Those quotations are representative of the Christian Faith in the early centuries. This is not the same Faith which you profess. This presents a problem.
Where are all the “real” Christians? i.e. Where were the people who held Protestant values? I’ve previously pointed out the problems with your attempted explanation. If you can’t find anyone in those early centuries who shares you values, doesn’t that suggest very forcefully that your theological opinions are the innovation here, that the problem lies with your understanding of Scripture?
Also, if the Scriptures contradicted the faith of the Early Church in such an obvious fashion as you suggest, why did this heretical faith not only prevail, but obliterate the “true” Christian faith? Where was the Kingdom? Where was the opposition to this heretical Faith? We have evidence which shows us the opposition the Catholic Faith gave to Docetism, Marcionism, Judaizing etc… Where was proto-Protestantism?
> If you read the bible, Paul in many of his letters rebuked churches who were already following false practices.
And who were the people who preserved the letters of Paul and canonized them? They were the very same Early Church Fathers whose faith you’re rejecting as “against Scripture”. How could you trust people so devoid of orthodox faith and Scriptural understanding to assemble the canon?
Were these Early Church Fathers malicious? What did these martyrs and confessors have to gain from a lie? Or were they just dumb, ignorant of the Scriptures?
I have pointed to you several reasons why people were not protesting against the RCC.
Anyways, people do not act on their own but it is the Holy Spirit the One who drives people to do something. Today there are many nations that are practicing false religions like Buddhism, how come Christians have not evangelized those nations yet? The reason for that is because the Spirit of God has not led them to do so yet. It is not like we will just say “ok I will go there to evangelize people” but we have to wait until God begins to lead us there by opening doors to us. It was until the 1500s when the Spirit of God finally began to move in the lives of people like Luther to preach the true gospel. I believe that even though the RCC has wrong teachings there are positive sides to it, the RCC became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire (which was broken into all the European nations of today), England, and Spain Evangelized all America, as a result Christianity became the #1 religion in the world. Even when a church is doing something wrong God still uses that church to accomplish something. I grew up Catholic and I believe God used this church to make me receptive to the gospel. God has his own timing and way of doing things. He waited til the 1500s for some reasons.
> I have pointed to you several reasons why people were not protesting against the RCC.
C’mon Monica, I’ve rebutted the reasons that you put forth and my rebuttal has remained unchallenged. You can’t just say you’ve given reasons when those reasons have all been shown to be unreasonable.
What you’re suggesting here is something quite untenable:
1. You’re making an assertion about history with absolutely no evidence to substantiate your claim. There is nothing which remotely suggests that there was anyone in the early centuries who held the same distinctive Protestant doctrines which you yourself hold.
2. You’re asserting that the “true Christians” were terrified of the Catholic Church. If the real followers of Jesus were such wusses that they wouldn’t speak up, why is it that other people were, in fact, brave enough? The Marcionites, Docetists etc. all challenged the Church….and these are all groups which you would consider to be heretical! Doesn’t really say much for “real Christianity”, does it?
3. You’re implying that the Catholic Church had some kind of titanic power to control the world prior to the 3rd Century. Yet, as I pointed out in my penultimate post, Christianity was an illegal religion and actively persecuted until AD 313! How on earth would the Church have so early on the kind of power you’re suggesting?
That argument makes little sense, particularly when compared with the worldly power of the Church in the 16th Century, the period in history when the Church was actively challenged in the Reformation.
You can’t just make up a fictitious history to avoid the conclusions of the historical record:
1. The Catholic Church was in existence prior to Constantine
2. You are unable to affirm the ancient Christian faith of the early centuries
3. The theological beliefs you hold weren’t believed by anybody until 500 years ago
The theological believes I have are theological believes that have been held from the beginning but the people were hiding from the RCC. Are you going to deny to me that the RCC persecuted and killed people who opposed them (whether these people were or not allowed to read the bible)? This is a fact in history everyone knows about it, how can you deny something that has been proven already?
> Are you going to deny to me that the RCC persecuted and killed people who opposed them (whether these people were or not allowed to read the bible)? This is a fact in history everyone knows about it, how can you deny something that has been proven already?
Please explain how we have a historical record of the Catholic Church opposing all kinds of teaching in the early centuries (99% of which you would also oppose)…yet nothing that shows the persecution of any group which would be recognized as Protestant.
> Today there are many nations that are practicing false religions like Buddhism, how come Christians have not evangelized those nations yet?
That’s irrelevant. We are not talking about why other religions in the world still exist, we are addressing whether Protestantism has any place in historic Christianity.
> It was until the 1500s when the Spirit of God finally began to move in the lives of people like Luther to preach the true gospel.
Wait, are you now conceding that Protestantism has no place in the Early Church? If so, are you asserting that “the true gospel” was lost before the end of the First Century and then didn’t re-appear until 1,500 years later?
> I believe that even though the RCC has wrong teachings there are positive sides to it, the RCC became the dominant religion in the Roman Empire
What’s the good of that if it’s teaching a false Gospel? What’s the good of that if it’s telling people crazy things like baptism washes away sin, that bread becomes Jesus’ body, that we should pray to Mary, the Mother of God…?
> God has his own timing and way of doing things. He waited til the 1500s for some reasons.
You appear to be suggesting that the Apostles completely messed up, the promises of Jesus failed and thousands upon thousands of souls were enslaved to a false religion and false Gospel, full of pagan superstitions.
Do you think that’s a more reasonable explanation for history and God’s loving providence? I don’t.
The true gospel has always existed but for a period of time many people were not practicing it because the RCC persecuted them.
Yes other nations practicing false religions can be an example on how God can allow a nation to practice a false religion for a certain period of time, God is allowing it today isnt he? there are many nations that today still do not know the Gospel, it in no way suggests Jesus failed but simply, it is not God’s timing to start preaching the gospel in those nations. Like I said, God has his own plans and just because he doesnt do things in our way does not mean he is failing. And yes even when a false gospel is being preached God can still bring something good out of it. I was being preached the false gospel in the RCC but somehow God still used it to make me receptive to the true gospel in the future.
> The true gospel has always existed but for a period of time many people were not practicing it because the RCC persecuted them.
As I’ve said countless times now, you can’t just assert, you have to demonstrate. So, with that in mind, please name me just a single “true Christian” of the Second Century who was persecuted by the Catholic Church. That’s a reasonable request, right?
Also, do you recognize that you’ve changed your position three times now? Initially, you asserted that the Catholic Church didn’t appear until Constantine…but I conclusively demonstrated it’s existence in the three centuries prior to the Emperor’s rise to power. You then asserted that I was misinterpreting the texts of the Church Fathers. When that proved to be an untenable claim, you changed your position again and asserted that Catholicism did exist prior to Constantine, but that it persecuted the “true Christians”…despite all the logical problems with that claim and, most importantly, absolutely no evidence to back up the claim.
> Yes other nations practicing false religions can be an example on how God can allow a nation to practice a false religion for a certain period of time, God is allowing it today isnt he?
This doesn’t prove what you need. We are talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ effectively vanishing from the face of the earth within the first generation of Christians, being replaced with a soul-damning counterfeit, and the situation not being rectified for fifteen hundred years! Even then, when the “true gospel” is recovered in the 16th Century, it was hidden somewhere among the every increasing number of divergent denominations and conflicting teaching.
> And yes even when a false gospel is being preached God can still bring something good out of it
Fifteen hundred years of praying to Mary, being told that works are involved in salvation, committing idolatry, … This is a gospel that saves?
> it is not God’s timing to start preaching the gospel in those nations
I’m pretty sure Jesus gave the green light for the preaching of the Gospel to “all nations” (Matthew 28:18-19).
> No matter how much authority the popes have, or whether this church was established by God, there is no excuse for doing things that God hates
Is there any possibility that you are misunderstanding what is going on and misattributing condemnation?
> I do not think that a church or man should have more power than God (like when you state that whatever popes bind or loose on earth then that has to be bound and loose in heaven)
Hang on, the power to “bind and loose” is straight out of Scripture. How can you object to that? If Jesus didn’t blush at giving that power to the Apostles, how can you complain?
I think this returns to the doctrine of participation again. After all, consider the scandal of the words of Christ: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained”!
Dont you think you are giving your own interpretation to this verse of binding and loosing?
Yes we share the work with in evangelizing people but it does not mean that humans will have the same power and authority as God. You are interpreting this verse of binding and loosing as if humans had the same authority as God which is wrong.
> Dont you think you are giving your own interpretation to this verse of binding and loosing?
Not at all. Earlier I referred you to an article I wrote where I trace the rabbinic origin of the phrase and its application in the oversight of the Davidic Kingdom. I’m using Scripture to interpret Scripture. RC has also explained this phrase across several of his comments.
How do you interpret “bind and loose” and “keys of the kingdom” and on what in the Bible do you base your interpretation?
Before I go on to answer your points in your comments, let me point this out to you and to David as well,
you are saying that 80% of Christians? So when you say Christians are you referring to Catholics? Sorry but Roman Catholicism is not Christianity 🙁 Now this is not a spiritual attack against your faith, I don’t know you, and it is not my right to judge you but I am going to be talking about Catholicism in general. There are completely different teachings in Protestantism and Catholicism which makes Christianity and Catholicism two different religions.
I could say that the Christ the catholic church worships is a different Christ. The RCC follows a dead Christ who keeps re-sacrificing during mass over and over again when the bible states clearly he only sacrificed himself once and for all (Hebrews 7:27). Jesus instituted communion with his apostles during the last supper while he was alive, so how could the apostles have been eating him his flesh and drinking his blood literally when Jesus was still with them? Are you really making a doctrine out of single verse of the bible (John 6:53)? If you keep reading scripture into a greater context you will realize that this was symbolic and not that we were to eat Jesus literally.
And not only that, it goes even further, the RCC follows a Christ who failed to do his work at the cross and that is why you have to purge in purgatory and do lots and lots of religious rituals to obtain salvation. If you want I can quote to you an official teaching from the RCC which states that Christ sacrifice in the cross was not enough.
The RCC does not adhere to the Solo Christo doctrine but they also follow the Pope, the Saints, Mary, etc. to the point where it seems like Christ is completely out of the picture. You have commented that the RCC has never excluded Jesus out of the picture and that Christ continues to be the focus of the RCC. However, based on the things I have seen in Catholicism it does not seem like this is the case. Just look at the recent canonization of John Paul II, so far I have not heard the lady that supposedly was healed by this pope to thank Jesus as well for her healing, but so far all I have seen is this lady being thankful to this pope as if Christ was completely out of the picture. Even atheists like Richard Dawkins (who is the worst antichrist on earth ever) mocked John Paul II (when he was alive) because he thanked virgin Mary (instead of God) for supposedly saving him when someone tried to murder him. Even the most ardent atheist can recognize how Catholics have been slapping God in the face (the catholic church is the one responsible for all the blasphemy and hate against Christianity).
When supposedly virgin Mary does a favor to a catholic, I never hear the catholic thanking God (because ultimately he did the favor) but all I hear the catholic is thanking virgin Mary for the favor. I never hear Catholics asking Mary to intercede for them, but I always hear Catholics directly praying to Mary. I never hear Catholics say “please Mary ask God to heal me” but all I hear is “Mary please heal me” as if Mary was the one responsible for all the healing. Catholics say, I bow down before Mary, I sing her worship songs, I pray the Rosary to her, I am a Mary devout, and I call her the queen of heaven but this is not worship. It is like you saying, “I take money from the cash register without my manager’s permission but this is not theft it is only borrowing money”. It does not matter how much you try to change the definition of the words, the actions are still the same. It is so ridiculous how Catholics have tried to water down the word worship to veneration when it does not make a difference, it is pure idolatry.
To make matters even worse, the RCC removed God’s commandment where he clearly stated not to use graven images. God gave two commandments, one where people were not to worship other gods and the second one where they were not to create any graven images. But ahhh, the catholic church just confined these two commandments into one “you should have no other gods” to justify themselves by saying that as long as we do not use any images of other gods then it is ok to use these images because we are not breaking God’s commandment of not worshipping other gods. Do you see how the RCC can also be accused of heresy?
Revelations 22:19 says “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll”
> I don’t know you, and it is not my right to judge you
…yet you feel able to discern the state of my soul?
> The RCC follows a dead Christ who keeps re-sacrificing during mass over and over again
You have been corrected about this before. That’s not Catholic teaching.
Now going back to Protestants disagreeing in their doctrines, does it make the RCC any more real? I don’t think so. One thing it is for sure, the RCC is pure idolatry.
The bible is very self explanatory, if people disagree with things it is because they want to believe whatever is more convenient to them. 2 Timothy 4:3 says “For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” but it is not that the bible can not be interpreted correctly but people are the ones who want to interpret it according to their own desires.
I am non-denominational Christian. I attend Calvary Chapel which is a non-denominational church. If you read the creed of this church, they don’t oppose to denominations but only to how people overemphasize teachings which cause the division of the body of Christ. We do not have to follow a religion to be saved but all we have to do is read the bible and follow God’s commandments.
Now what made you stop being a Baptist? Let me talk about my personal experiences. When I was a catholic I was approached by Christians but I did not want to be part of their church for the reason that being in their church required me to leave my life behind and completely give my life to Christ. As I have been telling you, Jesus requires you to be born again (to become a new creation) which means leaving your life behind, denying your flesh and living a more restricted life. Unfortunately this is not something easy for many people, as it was not being something easy for me because people tend to follow the flesh rather than the Spirit. But ahhh again, here comes the catholic church with their re-interpretation of being born again to just being baptized as a baby to give people an easier entrance into heaven. The Catholic church does not interpret being born again in the same way protestants interpret it and the catholic interpretation of being born again sounds more plausible because in this interpretation it does not require you to become a new creation and leave your life behind. This is the reason why I was refusing to leave Catholicism (because it would give me an easier way into heaven by just doing religious rituals such as baptism and communion) and I have found that many catholics are the same way I used to be when I was a catholic, now what about yourself?
> Now going back to Protestants disagreeing in their doctrines, does it make the RCC any more real?
It certainly makes the claims of Sola Scriptura rather laughable, particularly this idea of perspicuity of the Scripture. It also demonstrates the clear need for the Church to have some kind of authority to stop this chaos, such as the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.
> The bible is very self explanatory
You’ve made all these points before and I’ve given my response.
> We do not have to follow a religion to be saved but all we have to do is read the bible and follow God’s commandments.
I find this sentence troubling.
> But ahhh again, here comes the catholic church with their re-interpretation of being born again
Wait, which interpretation came first? I can demonstrate conclusively with solid evidence that it was the Catholic interpretation. If someone is doing re-interpreting here, it’s not Catholics…
> This is the reason why I was refusing to leave Catholicism (because it would give me an easier way into heaven by just doing religious rituals such as baptism and communion)
This is not representative of Catholic teaching. Rather…
He calls his disciples to “take up [their] cross and follow [him]”,454 for “Christ also suffered for [us], leaving [us] an example so that [we] should follow in his steps.” – Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 618
I do not know if you have been reading my messages because it does not seem like you are.
The bible is very self-explanatory, there is no room for mis-interpretation, the problem is not that people mis-understand (God did not write abracadabra in the bible to hide things from us and to confuse us, God does not play tricks) but the problem is that people do not want to accept what the bible teaches because it does not suit their own desires. Now this is a different story.
If you say that we can not interpret scripture then you are denying that we have the Holy Spirit with us to guide us in our life. I will repeat what I told you before, Jesus said in John 16 that we all have the Holy Spirit as our helper,
1 John 2:27 says that we have the Spirit with us and we dont need anyone to teach us. When Jesus told his disciples the Parable of the Sower he told his disciples that all the secrets of the kingdom of heaven have been revealed to us, but only the outsiders (atheists) are the ones to whom Jesus speaks in parables (because atheists do not the spirit of God to understand spiritual things 1 Corinthians 2:14) but to us who are Spiritual beings we can all understand the things of God because we all have the spirit living within us.
Again going back to the differences in Christian denominations, so far I know the majority of atheists used to be Catholics, did you know that?
Regarding losing or not losing salvation, Jesus said in John 10:28-29 “I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand”. In this verse, Jesus is clearly stating that no one can snatch us out of his hands. If a person loses salvation that is because in reality that person was never saved.
Yes baptism and communion are important in the Christian faith because they are symbols of our repentance and acceptance of Christ into our lives but we do not believe that some religious rituals are the ticket to heaven but rather repentance and accepting Christ as our Lord and savior (communion and baptism are symbols)
Divorce in the Christian church is only allowed in case of adultery or death of the spouse (this is stated in the bible). We believe that marrying the divorced man or woman is adultery as well, so no we don’t support divorce and re-marriage (not even having sex before marriage). There have been many couples who have divorced and re-married in the church but unfortunately the church is made of imperfect humans and people mess up all the time. God recognizes this.
Regarding ordaining women, leadership in the home, obeying the government etc etc etc we adhere to the bible, the bible is very clear when it says ONLY men are to be leaders in the church (this does not exclude women from also serving God) but men alone are to be the leaders in the church and the head of the house (in a home), women submit to men (not in the sense that men must abuse and humiliate women) but in the sense that men are to be the heads. We obey what Paul said about obeying the government’s laws (as long as these laws do not violate following biblical teachings such as supporting gay marriage), we are completely against gay marriage, and most organizations dedicating to helping the poor are Christian organizations. The bible is very clear in these teachings, there is no way to mis-interpret them, yes there are denominations that have different views but that is because like I said, they want to follow their own desires.
If you read the bible, all cases of baptism in the bible point to adults being baptized and not babies. No Christian denomination believes infant baptism is required for salvation. Some denominations Christianize their infants but this is more like a dedication of their children to God, no denomination about baptism has the same views as that of the RCC.
> Again going back to the differences in Christian denominations, so far I know the majority of atheists used to be Catholics, did you know that?
I’d like to see a source for that please. However, two points must be made:
1. Catholicism is the largest Christian group in the world and therefore has the largest pool of people available to apostatize, particularly those who are only raised “culturally Catholic”
2. Even if this assertion is true it proves nothing.
> Regarding losing or not losing salvation, …
Monica, we’re not asking for you to give your defense of every doctrine, RC was demonstrating your assertion that all Christians believe in the “essentials” is false. However, if you do want to defend the newly-invented 16th Century doctrine of “Once Saved, Always Saved”, I have written about it a couple of times (here and here).
> …communion and baptism are symbols
Again, many Protestants would disagree with you on this one…thus disproving the assertion concerning general agreement about “essentials”.
> Divorce in the Christian church is only allowed in case of adultery or death of the spouse
Well, death of a spouse doesn’t result in a divorce, but does allow the surviving parter to remarry. The issue of “adultery” is your interpretation, but it has some issues, particularly given the wide range of meaning in the Greek word used. Having said that, I’m pleased you take a serious view of divorce.
But again, RC wasn’t asking for your opinion about divorce, it was raised to demonstrate that Protestants are far from united on the essentials of Christian faith and morals.
> …the bible is very clear when it says ONLY men are to be leaders in the church
Then why do so many Protestant denominations ordain women? You said they all believe in Sola Scriptura, right?
…we are completely against gay marriage
Again, many non-Catholic groups are not. Is morality concerning sexuality essential or non-essential?
> No Christian denomination believes infant baptism is required for salvation
Are you sure about that?
“Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” – Martin Luther, Large Catechism 4:6
I am not a history or social science person, I am a science person. I do not know that much about history so I can not really give you an answer to all the questions you are asking me about where were people with Protestant believes before the 1500s.
I am only telling you what I have read about the RCC. I have done research on the RCC and this is what I have learned from these sites:
During the first 300 years Christianity (the Christianity that Jesus founded) was prohibited, Christians were highly persecuted by the roman pagans but it was not until about 300AD when Constantine converted and he legalized Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church in specific was born. He made Christianity the only legal religion and now the situation was switched, it was the RCC persecuting the pagans for not converting. Constantine allowed Christianity to be mixed with paganism in attempt to persuade the pagans to convert (because they did not want to leave their idols)
Now this is what I have so far learned and based on the things the RCC is teaching and the things I see Catholics doing, to me this sounds like a plausible explanation about the pagan origins of the RCC, however I WILL NOT assert that this is the true.
You have told me that I am incorrect. You have done your best effort to diligently provide me with an answer and thank you for doing that. I am still skeptic about the true origins of the RCC (not so much because of what I read) but because I do not think that there is enough evidence that Peter was the first pope and that Jesus established the RCC. You have provided me with a verse from the bible which I dont think it necessarily points to Peter being the first pope. The quotations you gave me about the early fathers do not prove the RCC right either because Satan was already hard at work from day number 1 at circulating false teachings.
Anyways, I can be wrong as well. Probably the RCC was established by Jesus. Lets suppose that you are right. The RCC was founded by Jesus, I will repeat this again, I dont think that this justifies many things the RCC is doing now. I have already stated the things I object from the RCC.
Think about it, the RCC is made up of fallible human beings, what makes you think that a fallible human being will never make a mistake? Being a servant of Christ does not mean we are going to be perfect. If peter had been infallible, why did he desert Jesus and deny him three times? If the popes are infallible why did they disobey Jesus’ teachings of preaching the gospel with love and burning millions of people at the stake? do you see how the popes can not be perfect in their teachings? I am not trying to judge the popes or Catholics for doing things wrong. I understand that they are human beings and all human beings mess up (even people in protestant churches have messed up) but my point is that you can not be saying that a Pope is infallible.
> I am only telling you what I have read about the RCC. I have done research on the RCC and this is what I have learned from these sites
Would you care to name your sources? I’m afraid you’ve been tremendously misled by whatever sites you’ve been trusting. I suspect they’re anti-Catholic, so you can hardly expect much of a balance treatment.
If they don’t quote primary sources (and in context!), I’d suggest you steer clear!
> it was not until about 300AD when Constantine converted and he legalized Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church in specific was born
This is incorrect and I’ve clearly demonstrated that. I gave you a list of 21 distinctly Catholic doctrines which were all taught prior to Constantine’s birth.
> He made Christianity the only legal religion
Also factually incorrect. I gave you the timeline for all this in my post.
> to me this sounds like a plausible explanation about the pagan origins of the RCC, however I WILL NOT assert that this is the true.
Well, I guess that’s progress that you’re not willing to hold to these opinions as dogmatically as before. However, look at my posts – I’ve disproved these assertions. The Church was Catholic from Day #1.
> I do not think that there is enough evidence that Peter was the first pope
There is ample evidence from both Scripture and history on this subject, but you don’t have to get to that point just yet. What I want you to start doing is to start reading the historical sources for yourself, rather than simply regurgitating what someone else has told you about the Early Church. I warn you though, if you go into history the Church you’ll find is not Protestant…
> You have provided me with a verse from the bible which I dont think it necessarily points to Peter being the first pope.
It demonstrates that Peter was singled out and had a special authority given to him of the same kind that the Prime Minister had in the Davidic Kingdom.
> The quotations you gave me about the early fathers do not prove the RCC right either because Satan was already hard at work from day number 1 at circulating false teachings.
Again, the problem you have to encounter is when you find no opposition to such doctrines in the Early Church. You have to keep asking yourself – where were the “real” Christians?
Also, why not flip it around? How do you know it’s not Satan circulating false teaching that Peter doesn’t have a special role in the Kingdom?
> [if] the RCC was founded by Jesus, I will repeat this again, I dont think that this justifies many things the RCC is doing now.
The reason that you object to some of these things is because: (a) you’re still applying a Sola Scriptura standard rather than embracing Sacred Tradition and (b) your knowledge of Catholic teaching is incomplete in some areas and incorrect in others. Both of these issues are easily remedied.
> Think about it, the RCC is made up of fallible human beings, what makes you think that a fallible human being will never make a mistake?
Do you think Peter was infallible when he wrote his two epistles? How could that be?
> If peter had been infallible, why did he desert Jesus and deny him three times?…
I’m afraid this is what I mean about your knowledge of Catholicism being incomplete or incorrect. You misunderstand infallibility – you’re confusing it for impeccability.
I also don’t think you realize the restrictions of infallibility. I’d invite you to read this exchange I had with Jerry where I explain something of this.
Sorry, I misquoted something in my last post,
this is what I misquoted
“I have been telling David on how the Popes are raising Mary to a deity position and I quoted to him many official teachings from the catholic church where Mary is being raised almost to a deity position”
Monica:
I gotta get my backside in to work, so I’ll have to be brief.
1. There were no persons practicing Christianity as practiced by modern Protestants until the 1500s. This includes a period of time in which the Christians did not yet have political power and were still being persecuted by the Romans. It also includes a period of time after Roman persecution ended but before Christianity became the official religion of the Empire. (A lot of people think that happened with Constantine; not so: Constantine’s Edict of Milan promoted equal tolerance of paganism and Christianity; the empire continued to fund construction and repair of pagan temples but added construction and repair of Christian churches into the mix. Look it up.)
This means that your explanation that the Catholics were persecuting all the proto-Protestants, preventing them from writing about their faith and providing us evidence of their existence, is disproven. The Catholics didn’t have power to do that until Theodosius’ time at the earliest; that is to say, nearly the year 400. Yet by that time thousands of pages of Christian writings had been produced, all of which reflects a Catholic understanding of Christianity.
Those thousands of pages of Christian writings often include condemnations of (and item-by-item refutations of the beliefs of) those whom Catholics considered heretics. Yet not a single condemnation exists of anyone whom the Catholics describe as having “heretical beliefs” matching those of modern Protestants. Why? Because people with modern-Protestant beliefs were unknown to the Catholics.
Oh, I don’t mean you can’t sometimes find a person who claims to be a Christian and to disagree with the Catholic bishops in the early years. Tertullian started out Catholic and eventually became first a Montanist, then started his own splinter from Montanism (Tertullianism!). But the only thing he has in common with modern Protestants is disagreeing with Catholics…in this case, he felt that some sins could not be forgiven if committed after baptism. If that makes him a “Protestant” then the definition of Protestantism is “anything but Catholicism.”
2. YES, I am saying Catholicism is Christianity. Of course! Why would I be a Catholic, otherwise? I want to practice the faith given “once for all to the apostles” by Jesus. Logic applied to the available historical, patristic, Scriptural evidence says that’s Catholicism.
The question is, if Catholicism is Christianity, what the heck are all these other things claiming to be Christianity? My answer: They are the “Readers Digest Condensed Abridged Version” of Christianity. You’re getting a lot of the faith, but not all of it. And some of the bits left out are, if not vital to salvation, then at least vital to having a stable moral code. I will not call non-Catholic Christians “non-Christian”; I say that they practice as much of the Christian faith as they’re aware of. Some (like the Orthodox) are aware of 99% of it. Some are aware of far less. But whatever they’re aware of comes to them from the Catholic Church.
Put another way: The reason non-Catholic Christians are Christians is because they are, in a partial way, Catholic. You are a partial Catholic, Monica: You were baptized (I presume) in a Trinitarian formula and you revere Scripture: These and other hallmarks of your faith come to you from the Catholic church although you don’t know it.
3. I think you really (a.) aren’t aware of the variation among Protestant Christians outside the narrow couple of churches you’ve personally participated in, and (b.) don’t grasp the implication of all that variation.
For example: NOT baptizing infants is a MINORITY view even in Protestant Christianity. Look it up.
You say, “the Bible doesn’t talk about baptizing infants”: Yes it does. It talks about baptizing “whole households.” A “household” in the ancient world (especially for a wealthy family like that of the “seller of purple,” Lydia, in Acts) would consist of: Husband and Wife, children, spouses of adult children, household servants, their wives and children, and household slaves, and their wives and children. If the leader of a such a “household” became a Christian, his “whole household” would be expected to follow suit.
It is only our modern notion of a nuclear family isolated from other family members — and in which most of the children of a healthy couple have been contracepted out of existence — which makes us imagine otherwise.
Moreover, there WAS, in the Early Church, a controversy about baptisms, Monica. Do you know what it was?
It was about whether, if the infant looked in danger of dying, Christians were required to wait until “the 8th day” to baptize the infant. That was the controversy.
Which shows you (a.) they were baptizing infants even before Christianity was legalized; and (b.) they did so because baptism was the New Covenant parallel to circumcision, which was done to infants on the 8th day.
Oh, by the way, are you aware of a 1st-century Christian text called “The Didache?” It contains rules for baptizing new Christians. Among these rules are the command that the new Christian profess an early version of the Creed, followed by: “If the person to be baptized is not old enough to speak for himself, let his parents speak for him.”
These were the order-of-worship rules being followed by Christians while the Apostles were still alive, Monica.
And this strong evidence is why most Christian denominations baptize infants.
So this is an instance of variation among Protestants.
In an important area.
And, in my previous note, I documented lots of others. In your personal experience you may not have encountered all this variation because you’ve stuck close to churches with similar teachings. But I assure you if you ask around you’ll find all the variations I listed, and more, among Protestants who (a.) live holy lives, (b.) consider Scripture their sole authority for doctrine, (c.) regard the correctness of their doctrine to be provable from Scripture, and (d.) are more-than-adequately trained in Greek and Hebrew so the misunderstanding can’t be written off to lack of scholarly credentials.
Do you see what this means, Monica?
It means that for 500 years (ever since Sola Scriptura was invented) we’ve had a big running experiment about whether it was possible to correctly derive the full content of important Christian doctrine by using the Bible alone.
The hypothesis was that if we use the Bible alone, only sinners who intentionally want corrupt interpretations to justify their sins, or ignorant people who don’t understand Greek and Hebrew, would misinterpret what the Bible was teaching them. Everybody else, guided by the Holy Spirit, would interpret it correctly because the Bible was “perspicuous” and (to quote Luther) “even a ploughboy can understand it.” As a result, everybody (of good will and decent education) who interpreted the Bible — it was hypothesized — would come up with the SAME ANSWER, the SAME INTERPRETATION.
That was the hypothesis. The experiment has now been going for 500 years.
The result?
The result is that the hypothesis has been utterly disproven.
There are now, depending on how you count them, anywhere from a several hundred to thirty thousand Protestant denominations, ALL of them claiming that their doctrines (which are different from others’ doctrines) are taken by correctly interpreting Scripture with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (just like all the others say).
Monica, if this methodology worked, Luther and Calvin wouldn’t have even disagreed on so many fundamental issues.
Certainly, if this methodology worked, there wouldn’t be thousands of disagreeing denominations with competing interpretations.
The problem is this: The methodology doesn’t work, because Jesus never intended Christians to derive doctrine by such a methodology.
That is the clear conclusion of the 500-year experiment.
The churches you’ve been in Monica are a tiny sliver of the wide variation of doctrine among Christians. Take a step back and ask yourself: What do all these different Protestant Christian groups believe different from me, that we aren’t all in the same denomination or group?
Here are the largest groups of Protestant (excluding non-Trinitarians like Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses) Christians, in just the U.S. alone (in no particular order):
Anglican/Episcopal
Baptists
Church of Christ
Church of God
Methodist
Pentecostal
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Assemblies of God
Congregational
Evangelical Free
Disciples of Christ
Dutch Reformed
Church of the Brethren
Quaker
Independent Christian
Foursquare Gospel
Seventh Day Adventist
Salvation Army
Non-Denominational
Now, Monica, inside each of those categories are dozens of subcategories. For example, here’s what you get if you break out the Presbyterians:
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Cumberland Presbyterian Church in America
Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches in America
ECO
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian Church in America
Presbyterian, Calvinist
Presbyterian Church in Canada
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
…none of whom agree with one another sufficiently on doctrine to be able to remain united as one group.
And that’s leaving out a lot, of course: I’ve excluded all the smaller groups from that list, which is only a list of North American presbyterian groups. And I’ve excluded language-specific or nationality-specific groups, like the four or five “Korean Presbyterian” groups which can’t agree with one another enough to remain united despite catering just to Koreans.
And all the other broad groups — Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists — have similar plethoras of sub-groups.
There’s your “agreement on all the essentials” Monica.
Gee…maybe they’re using the Bible the wrong way?
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that Catholic book. I do not think it does what you think it does.”
I will tell you what I just replied to David, supposing that the RCC was established by Jesus, does it justify the things the RCC is doing now? Have you read my comments where I pointed how the RCC is not only engaging in idolatry practices but also this church has removed God’s commandments to justify their use of graven images?
I am not sure either if you have been reading all my comments because it does not seem like it.
I do not know the answer to all things you have been pointing me about Protestantism and Catholicism because I do not know that much about history but what I do know for sure is that the RCC is slapping God in the face and I would never want to be part of this no matter if this was the Church that Jesus first established. Even a church created by God can turn to doing evil things. Churches are made of human beings and all human beings mess up.
The variations in Christianity exist because people do not want to accept the teachings of the bible. It is not that the bible is hard to understand (and people mis-interpret it), people can understand the bible clearly but they do not want to accept the teachings of the bible because these do not suit their desires and they begin to distort scripture.
If you say that we can not read scripture on our own you are denying that the Holy Spirit can work on us as well.
1 John 2:27 says that we have the Spirit with us and we dont need anyone to teach us. If you keep repeating that people can not understand scripture on their own (without the authority of a pope) then you are denying that God can work in our lives as well. The concept that the Holy Spirit only works on some people (and not on everyone) is an old testament concept where only certain people like the prophets received the Holy Spirit to do the work of God but now is different, we ALL have the Spirit indwelling within us.
Now, you have pointed to me a list of all Christian denominations, but so far I know there are many denominations in Catholicism or am I wrong? you have stated this to me before where there are different branches of Catholicism, so if you are using the different denominations in protestant Christian to point a fallacy in protestantism, in that case shouldn’t we also point a fallacy within Catholicism?
and going back to the issues of baptism, if you read all those verses in the bible that talk about baptism, in all those verses, a person was being baptized after repenting and accepting Jesus as Lord and savior.
I gave you an example of John the Baptist in Mark chapter 1 where he was asking the crow to repent from their sins and be baptized. In the book of Matthew, the Pharisees also wanted to be baptized and John the Baptist accused them as being hypocrites because they wanted to be baptized but yet were not repenting. If you do not repent there is no meaning to baptism.
If we baptize a child, a child can not make a decision to repent and to accept Jesus.
Yes there are many Christian organizations that baptize their children but this is not in the same sense as Roman Catholicism. This is more like a dedication of their children to God or Christening, did you see how Prince William and his wife christened their son? This kind of baptism does not have the same meaning as the one from the RCC (where the RCC believes that if children are not baptized and die, they will not enter heaven).
and like I told you before, if there is any true in the RCC I pray to God that he will help me to find it but so far, there are not plausible reasons for me to believe in this religion(because of all the things I have seen the RCC doing). The RCC being the church established by Jesus is not enough to convince me to follow this church. It still does not convince me.
> Have you read my comments where I pointed how the RCC is not only engaging in idolatry practices but also this church has removed God’s commandments to justify their use of graven images?
Again, this is something which you assert, but which we would deny. It’s rather like your comments about infallibility, objecting to an understanding which actually isn’t Catholic belief.
> I am not sure either if you have been reading all my comments because it does not seem like it.
What don’t you think I’ve read? I think I’ve responded to pretty much every post.
> do not know the answer to all things you have been pointing me about Protestantism and Catholicism because I do not know that much about history
I’d invite you to set about fixing this. If you want to read the Bible the same way as the first Christians, then it’s time to start finding out about these first Christians. Please check out this link for some ideas. I’m more than happy to send you some free books if you’d like.
> it is not that the bible is hard to understand (and people mis-interpret it), people can understand the bible clearly but they do not want to accept the teachings
There are two problems with this statement. Firstly, as I’ve pointed out previously, St. Peter says that some of the things St. Paul says are hard to understand! That’s exactly what you’re denying. Secondly, you are attributing misinterpretation of Scripture to malice on the part of the interpreter. In doing so, you’re condemning virtually every Christian who doesn’t share your exact beliefs.
> 1 John 2:27 says that we have the Spirit with us and we dont need anyone to teach us.
You’re interpreting this verse in an overly literalistic fashion. After all, as we have established, there are teachers in the Church. What’s the point of teachers if nobody needs to be taught? Also, if nobody needs to be taught, why did the Apostles have to convene the Council of Jerusalem? Why didn’t everyone just know because they had the Spirit inside them?
> If you keep repeating that people can not understand scripture on their own
I have never claimed that since that is not Catholic teaching.
> The concept that the Holy Spirit only works on some people (and not on everyone) is an old testament concept where only certain people like the prophets received the Holy Spirit to do the work of God but now is different, we ALL have the Spirit indwelling within us.
As above, I have never claimed that the Holy Spirit only works on some people. However, you would agree that some people are given a particular gift/charism in the Church? The gifts are not all uniformly given?
> Now, you have pointed to me a list of all Christian denominations, but so far I know there are many denominations in Catholicism or am I wrong?
That is incorrect. There are different Rites, there are different religious orders…but no denominations. If you wish to assert that you will have to first define what you mean by the word.
> I gave you an example of John the Baptist in Mark chapter 1
Do you think that the baptism of John and Christian baptism are the same thing?
> Yes there are many Christian organizations that baptize their children but this is not in the same sense as Roman Catholicism.
Did you read my quotation from Luther?
Where are my sources? just type the Constantine Word in Yahoo or Google and you will find enough information about this emperor from secular sites.
I also pointed to you that I am not basing my believes about the RCC just based on what I read from these sites but also based on the things I have personally seen catholics doing. What I have read about Catholicism seems to match what I have observed (with my own eyes) them doing, but I will not keep arguing this issue with you because I can not assert things for which I have no proof. I am only telling you what my impression is.
You say how come the true Christians were not opposing those false teachings in the early times? So what did you want these true believers to do? did you want them to go and chase these false teachers and burn them at the stake? Today there are also many false religions and we as true believers what are we doing? We are just doing our best to preach the true gospel and leave the rest in God’s hands.
There have always been many false believes about Jesus, there are many fake gospels that teach that Jesus was married and had children, and all kinds of blasphemy. There have always been many false teachings among the true teachings. We as true believers do as much as we can to stop those false teachings by teaching the gospel but unfortunately we can not solve things on our own all the time. Like I said to you, God has his own timing for doing things.
You say that I keep adhering to Sola Scriptura to judge what the Popes are doing and in this way you again are trying to justify the false teachings of the Popes. I dont think I have to use Sola Scriptura to point how worshiping Mary is absolutely wrong. Sorry but you will never convince me about that idea that you are not worshiping Mary but only venerating or honoring her. You want to change the words but the actions are still the same.
I have finals right now sorry that I can not keep discussing these matters with you at this point. Anyways, I dont even know if it is worthy to keep spending my time discussing these matters.
> Where are my sources? just type the Constantine Word in Yahoo or Google and you will find enough information about this emperor from secular sites.
Really? I would hazard a guess that you’ve relied less on secular sites and received most of your misinformation from the anti-Catholic sites you mentioned earlier.
If you’re reading a site and it doesn’t quote primary sources to back up its assertions, I’d suggest closing that browser window and moving on. You wouldn’t trust a preacher to just tell you what the Bible said without you checking it out yourself, right? If that’s the case, why not do the same with history?
> I also pointed to you that I am not basing my believes about the RCC just based on what I read from these sites…
Good, because most of what you’ve been told has been either partial or incorrect.
> …but also based on the things I have personally seen catholics doing
So it’s much more based on perception, a thing which I think we can all agree can be rather unreliable. For example, in the early years of Islam when Muslims encountered Christians, they thought that they worshipped the cross and believed the Trinity was the Father, Mary and Jesus. They were wrong about this, but its hardly surprising they thought this given their background.
> What I have read about Catholicism seems to match what I have observed (with my own eyes) them doing, but I will not keep arguing this issue with you because I can not assert things for which I have no proof. I am only telling you what my impression is.
Great. All I’m asking you to do is set aside some of these preconceptions for a bit and then just follow the evidence where it leads. Many have done this, including a large number of former ministers and the trail took them to a place they did not expect…
> You say how come the true Christians were not opposing those false teachings in the early times?
I’m actually asserting that these “true” Christians didn’t exist because we find no evidence of them, no reason to think they existed.
> So what did you want these true believers to do?
I would expect them to do exactly what other groups did (Marcionites, Seballianists etc). I would expect them to oppose the Church, try and convert people and write tracts against Catholic belief. If these are the faithful followers of Jesus then I would expect them to shine like a city on a hill that cannot be hidden, planting seed and yielding a great harvest.
In response to this, I would expect the Catholic apologists (Irenaeus, Justin etc) to rebut these arguments and demonstrate the veracity of Catholicism. After all, they did this for countless other groups, why not these “true” Christians?
However, if we don’t see evidence of this…
> Today there are also many false religions and we as true believers what are we doing?
Well, I can’t speak for you, but if you look through my site you’ll see that I address many of the beliefs held today which I think are incorrect. Some of these regard morality (e.g. abortion), religion (e.g. Islam) and modern Christian belief (e.g. OSAS). I am responding to claims made, debunking them and then putting forward the positive case for Catholicism. In doing so, I am leaving a historical footprint as to what I believe, as well as what other people believe and the Catholic response to those opinions.
> There have always been many false believes about Jesus, there are many fake gospels…
Since you bring up these fake gospels, who was it that sorted through them and said that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the real deal? Who was it that said Thomas, Mary, Judas etc. were not? It was the Catholic Church and the Early Church Fathers I quoted in the last article.
> You say that I keep adhering to Sola Scriptura to judge what the Popes are doing and in this way you again are trying to justify the false teachings of the Popes
I keep pointing out your use of Sola Scriptura because it’s a doctrine fraught with problems logically, historically and Scripturally. Also, you can’t even try to hold to Sola Scriptura until you know what “Scriptura” is…and for that you have to rely upon the witness of the Catholic Church which immediately undermines the claim that the Catholic Church is unscriptural.
I’d invite you to read this article as to why Christianity requires an infallible authority by Douglas, a convert to the faith.
> I dont think I have to use Sola Scriptura to point how worshiping Mary is absolutely wrong
Indeed you don’t, since worshipping her is wrong.
> Sorry but you will never convince me about that idea that you are not worshiping Mary but only venerating or honoring her. You want to change the words but the actions are still the same.
Well, that’s a shame because you’re missing out on something really beautiful by refusing to accept our own testimony about what we believe.
For all the actions you’ve cited as “worship”, I’ve given examples of when those actions are certainly not worship, thus demonstrating that the actions themselves are not intrinsically bound to worship.
I recently wrote a comment to another reader explaining the difference in the conception of “worship” between Catholics and Protestants.
> I have finals right now sorry that I can not keep discussing these matters with you at this point.
Fair enough. My parting suggestions are these:
1. Read up on history. I link to a bunch of free resources here.
2. When you encounter a Catholic belief, first find out what Catholics actually believe by consulting authoritative sources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Don’t just rely upon a Catholic you know – he or she may not be that well formed in the Faith. Next, find out why Catholics believe that – you can pretty much always find an explanation for a belief by searching Catholic Answers.
3. Finally, because Sola Scriptura is the linchpin to all this, I’d invite you to consider my Canon Questions. I assert that these questions can’t be answered from within a Sola Scriptura worldview. Instead, they demonstrate the reliance upon Catholic Church, the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15).
God bless,
David.
Just because someone is silent does not mean that person is not real. The early Christians were highly persecuted so they did not have the same freedom we have today to oppose certain teachings. You have mentioned on how Christians from today are doing something to stop false teachings but in those times Christians did not have the freedom to do so.
I can continue to do more research on the RCC and find out that this was the church established by Jesus. You can convince me of this but one thing you will never convince me is that I should engage myself in all the idolatry practices the RCC is following now. I have a zeal and jealousy for the things of God and I would never engage myself in such thing.
> Just because someone is silent does not mean that person is not real.
I’d suggest that it’s reeeeeallly bad history to start arguing like this. You need at least some evidence. If you require no evidence, well, then you can just rewrite history in whatever way you see fit!
Also, consider the particular group we’re talking about here. We talking about “true” Christians. You are suggesting that the followers of Jesus, those filled with power by the Holy Spirit…leave no trace of their existence after the death of the last Apostle? I thought a “city on a hill cannot be hid”?
> The early Christians were highly persecuted so they did not have the same freedom we have today to oppose certain teachings. You have mentioned on how Christians from today are doing something to stop false teachings but in those times Christians did not have the freedom to do so.
To respond to this, I’d simply invite you to read the sources from those early centuries. If you do this, you’ll see how problematic it is what you’re suggesting. Read Justin’s First and Second Apologies. Read Ignatius of Antioch concerning the Docetists. Read Irenaeus’ words against the Gnostics. These were the first apologists of the Church and they all lived during periods of persecution…
> I can continue to do more research on the RCC and find out that this was the church established by Jesus.
That’s great. All I ask is that you don’t simply restrict yourself to Protestant material on this subject. If you are to give a reasoned, informed decision on this matter you also need to read what the Catholic Church says about herself and how she explains what she believes.
You are asking me how come there were no Christians holding protestant believes such as sola scriptura but like I said I dont think they had to explain something that was obvious. In a classroom, the teacher does not to teach the students that cheating is wrong, I am sure that this is something obvious that everyone knows alrelady. I dont think the first Christians had to be explaining things that were self-explanatory.
> You are asking me how come there were no Christians holding protestant believes such as sola scriptura but like I said I dont think they had to explain something that was obvious.
I don’t see where you’ve used this argument before. Up until now you’ve tried explaining the early Church…
(a) …by saying Catholicism didn’t exist
(b) …by saying that I was misinterpreting the Fathers
(c) …by saying that the the true Christians who were too afraid to speak up because of the Catholics
I’ve shown each of these to be highly problematic, but let’s look at this final suggestion:
(d) They didn’t need to write about Sola Scriptura because it was obvious
This claim has two real issues:
(i) You are asserting that there was a commonly-held belief which the early Christians didn’t feel compelled to write down. Rather ironically, by saying this you’ve just opened the door wide for the Catholic understanding of Sacred Tradition. Not everything was written down, but preserved in the Living Tradition of the Church.
For example, the Bible contains little detail on how the Early Church celebrated the Eucharist. However, that wasn’t a problem for new Christians – they didn’t need to guess. These new Christians were brought into a living faith community, where it was understood how the Sacraments are celebrated.
So, if you want to say that Sola Scriptura was too obvious to write down, you will be in a difficult position when you try to object to Catholic Tradition.
However, was Sola Scriptura really too obvious to mention?…
(ii) As you’ve seen, from the very beginning of Christianity, we have people believing many, many Catholic doctrines: Jesus is really present in the Eucharist, that baptism washes away sin, that praying to the Saints, prayer for the dead, and that Sacred Tradition is authoritative. Now, how have you responded to these things?
“That’s not in the Bible!”
Do you find anyone in the early centuries making this kind of argument against the Catholics? Nope.
Do we find the Catholic apologists writing against any group who was going around telling everyone that all you needed was Scripture? Nope.
If Sola Scriptura was an apostolic belief, the true Christians would have had all the reason in the world to write about it as they saw their pure, undefiled religion become tainted, even within the first generation of Christians.
I have mentioned to you that I do not know that much about church history, I can not provide with an answer as to where those true believers were and why they did not oppose these false teachings. I can give you suggestions but I can not be certain. Probably a theologian or someone who knows more on the subject could answer your question.
What I do know for sure is that these are false teachings not because they are a tradition that is not written in the bible but because these traditions are contradicting scripture. Like I have explained, it is not wrong to follow a tradition that is not in the bible as long as this tradition does not contradict scripture. The RCC is following practices that contradict scripture
The RCC removed God’s commandment of not using graven images (which I would say is heresy)
The RCC is turning into idolatry something forbidden by God
The Eucharist contradicts scripture, Jesus said “do this in remembrance of me” Jesus never talked about literally eating his flesh and drinking his blood. John 6:53 was only symbolic. You can not be making a doctrine out of single verse of the bible. If you keep reading the bible into a greater context you will realize that this was only symbolic. Based on what I have read about the Eucharist from Catholic Sites, the Eucharist is an ongoing bloody sacrifice of Jesus. If you read the verses I gave you, they clearly teach that Jesus died only once.
In all verses of the bible that talk about baptism (and not only the verses where John the Baptist was baptizing people) baptism was performed on adults after they had made a confession of faith in Christ.
There is no reason for me to follow these teachings you quoted to me, if they were not contradicting scripture I would have no problem with them (even if they are not written in the bible) but since they are contradicting the Word of God, there is no reason for me to hold on to them even if they came from the church that Jesus established.
If you want to keep relying in the RCC just because it was the true church established by Jesus (and ignore the false teachings) then I will respect your decision, but for me, I rather follow the Word of God.
> Based on what I have read about the Eucharist from Catholic Sites, the Eucharist is an ongoing bloody sacrifice of Jesus.
Name the site please.
> The Eucharist contradicts scripture…
I still don’t think you’ve quite grasped the problem that history presents to you. There is no Christian of the Early Church who believed what you believe about the Holy Communion.
None
Zip
Zero
Nadda
The same is true for your personal interpretation on Baptism. You can keep saying you think it’s against (your fallible interpretation of) Scripture, but that apparently never occurred to any Christian in the generations immediately following the Apostles.
> If you want to keep relying in the RCC just because it was the true church established by Jesus
If the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus established then it is the pillar and foundation of the truth, its leaders have authority, it is the household of God and the only place to be.
> … but for me, I rather follow the Word of God
Which you have received courtesy of the Catholic Church which, according to your understanding of history, has been unscriptural and heretical since the First Century. Does that really make much sense?
> I have mentioned to you that I do not know that much about church history, I can not provide with an answer as to where those true believers were and why they did not oppose these false teachings.
Okay, this is a good point on which to end. In your very first comment you made various assertions about history, so if nothing else, we have moved to the point where you’re aware that there’s perhaps an awful lot more to the historical record than you previously assumed and it’s maybe time to examine the actual sources of the Early Church.
> I can give you suggestions but I can not be certain.
That’s fine, but your suggestions have to hold to some basic tests of logic. I think I’ve demonstrated above that there are serious problems with each of your suggestions to date.
> Probably a theologian or someone who knows more on the subject could answer your question
It’s not a theologian, but a historian that’s needed…and I don’t think you’ll find any serious scholar who will speak about the existence of a group for which we have no evidence.
Just to be clear, I was asking you these questions about the “true” believers to highlight problems with history as you’ve described it. The answer is simple – the first Christians were Catholics. If you ever come across evidence to suggest otherwise, please feel free to come back and we’ll examine it.
God bless,
David.
Ok God Bless:)