Protestantism & Catholicism

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

I used to know a Lutheran who always insisted on 2) which (if true) does not make Roman Catholicism much different from Lutheranism at least in terms of the methodology used. Interpretation of certain passages (and therefore teachings) can differ of course but don't they differ among denominations in Protestantism?

1) is the answer. Of course, if we had Christ or the apostles here with us, we could rely on their word.

We do have religious leaders who teach for doctrine the commandments of men - but the Lord Jesus warned about them:
Matthew 15:1 Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, 2 “Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.”
3 He answered and said to them, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God”— 6 then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. 7 Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
8 ‘ These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
Andhonor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
9 And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

Is that from Trent? I'm a bit uneasy with the central theme there, but am comfortable with the idea that the more one loves God and lives in Christ, the closer one bocomes to Christ and the more Christ makes Himself known to the practicing believer. However, the idea that this is done as a reward for our virtue is wrong - it is more likely that while living in Christ we are more perceptive and sensitive to His presence around us. Would you agree with that?

Yes, it's Trent. Sorry for not giving the link:
http://everyseason.org/modules/mediawiki/index.php/Council_of_Trent_-_The_Sixth_Session#CHAPTER_X._On_the_increase_of_Justification_received.

And, Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with your comment.

JimiTime

wolfsbane wrote: »

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

No matter what reasons, praying 'at', 'intercession' etc etc. At the very least its not wise, at the very worst its idolotrous. From all the elders of our faith, Abraham through to Paul and Jesus himself, none encouraged praying to anyone but God for intercession or anything else. Same with statues and images. Again, at the very least its lacking in wisdom.

santing

homer911 wrote: »

One of the other style differences is the general absence of crucifix symbology in the Protestant faith *. Protestants tend to focus on the empty cross ("we serve a risen saviour...") whereas Catholics focus on the sacrifice and suffering of Jesus on the cross and hence the crucifix. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are just different.

I think this is quite an important difference. In Christianity we are called to focus on the risen Saviour and remember His life. The crucifix but also presentations (or remembrance) of the "holy family," "Madonna with child," and even the "host" are directly linked with the Saviours life before His resurrection. Of which Paul says "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
(2Co 5:16)"

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image.

What about the bronze serpent? (Imagery aside)

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Are the saints dead? I know we might have different ideas of what is a saint, but let's allow that anyone who dies in Christ is a saint. Are they now dead? Is St Paul dead? (not an attack, curious about your view)

For what it's worth, I understand that all prayer is to God and that the Catholic practice of seeking intercession is problematic. I rarely engage in it myself, and don't intend to until I fully understand it.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

This is ridiculous (agreeing with you). But this is before Christ came.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

Well in the Catholic tradition, the veneration goes further than the person behind the image but on to Christ, to whom His saints are pointing and who lived through Him, with Him and in Him.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

This is a valid criticism and these practices can often dominate Catholic worship, and if misunderstood can remove Christ from the focus of all worship, rendering them hollow. However, the pagans had many means of touching beyond the material world. Human nature can worship in many ways and I'm sure you have beautiful prayers, liturgy and music in your worship of God. That pagans did likewise does not belittle your prayer.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

Agreed, but I'm sure you pray on behalf of others. You intercede with Christ for them. People may even ask you to pray for them. If a saint is living, then why can they not do likewise?

PDN

postcynical wrote: »

What about the bronze serpent? (Imagery aside)

An interesting example indeed! Are you aware that the bronze serpent ended up being destroyed by Hezekiah because the people had started worshipping it as an idol?

He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan. (2 Kings 18:4)

postcynical

PDN wrote: »

An interesting example indeed! Are you aware that the bronze serpent ended up being destroyed by Hezekiah because the people had started worshipping it as an idol?

I am now:) That's why I post here and read here.

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Are the saints dead? I know we might have different ideas of what is a saint, but let's allow that anyone who dies in Christ is a saint. Are they now dead? Is St Paul dead? (not an attack, curious about your view)

Although the Bible uses the word "asleep" to describe a conscious presence with the Lord for those who have died, they are "dead."

1Th 4:16 (ESV) For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.

postcynical wrote: »

For what it's worth, I understand that all prayer is to God and that the Catholic practice of seeking intercession is problematic. I rarely engage in it myself, and don't intend to until I fully understand it....
Agreed, but I'm sure you pray on behalf of others. You intercede with Christ for them. People may even ask you to pray for them. If a saint is living, then why can they not do likewise?

The Saints under discussion have died, they are waiting for their resurrection and not conscience of what happens on earth.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

By what authority does one decide it is OK to use images in our worship/devotions? The Bible expressly forbade such things. The people of God in the OT never prayed at/to any image. The images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant were hidden from sight of the congregation, and only the high priest would have seen them, once a year, when he entered the Most Holy place to sprinkle the blood on the ark. Even he did not pray at/to them.

In fact, it was forbidden to pray to anyone but God, or to commune with the dead.

Let's picture a home in Israel around the time of Christ's birth. The mum is kneeling before a statue of Abraham and asking him to intercede for her kids. The father is in the attached carpenter's shop, finishing off a chair. He raises his eyes to the statue of Moses on the wall and asks him to intercede for his sick brother. Other homes in the street have images of Isaac, Jacob, Job, David, Daniel. A procession of the image of Isaiah is scheduled for tomorrow.

Would that have happened? In Samaria, maybe, but not in Israel. Anyone doing so would have been stoned as an idolater, no matter if they claimed it was directed at the persons rather than the image.

But the Roman church imbibed paganism and developed a priesthood, sacrifices, images, prayers to the dead, etc.

The NT Scripture is as empty of such practises as the OT. God alone is to be prayed to, and we are not to use images of Him.

We use images in all of our worship and devotions. We use imagey in teh songs we sing, the Bible uses imagery of Christ types. One is an audio artform the other is a literary artform.

Statues are a visual art form. When the churches were built, the Bible was not readily accessible, nor could people read it as they couldn't read.

We expect our congregations to come to worship through song, which I can never do and am made to feel less than, because I dont play an instrument nor can I sing, does thsi mean I can't worship? However when I see a visual presentation of something God has done, especially being crucified, it spurs me to worship the God of the universe as I gaze in awesome wonder at what He has done.

I do not advocate the praying to anyone but God, but also I can not begrudge the artist who creates a visual representation of what God has done in order to spur a closer understanding of teh character and love of God.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

No matter what reasons, praying 'at', 'intercession' etc etc. At the very least its not wise, at the very worst its idolotrous. From all the elders of our faith, Abraham through to Paul and Jesus himself, none encouraged praying to anyone but God for intercession or anything else. Same with statues and images. Again, at the very least its lacking in wisdom.

So if someone chooses to pray to God beside a statue of a saint they are unwise/idolotrous PDN once pointed out he prays while cutting the grass... is that unwise or idolotrous? I may kneel and pray in front of a statue of a saint...but I'm praying to God. Don't Jews go to the Wailing Wall to pray? Are they idolising a wall? As for intercession/prayer requests.. well we have a whole sticky thread on this forum looking for people to pray for others... I fail to see the difference tbh.

IMO people should use their God given talents to acknowledge their creator, be they writers, musicians, painters, sculptors etc.

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

So if someone chooses to pray to God beside a statue of a saint they are unwise/idolotrous

'Beside'? I assume you mean 'at'. And yes, I think it unwise at the very least. People start making the image or statue etc sacread when all it is is stone or paint. Then you have things like 'holy' medals and all this kind of trinketry spawning from such things. People putting idols in their cars etc. Whether it started out with such meaning or not, the outcome of allowing such practice causes what can only be described as a type of witchcraft to come into being. Whether the official line is something different or not, people hang 'holy' pics, crosses, keep trinkets as 'protection' etc. They become a 'christian' version of the rabbits foot. At the end of the day, they are of absolutely NO benefit, and there are many downsides to such practices, so at the very least it is unwise.

PDN once pointed out he prays while cutting the grass... is that unwise or idolotrous?

? how is that related? If he prayed 'at' the grass maybe, but I certainly don't believe he does.

I may kneel and pray in front of a statue of a saint...but I'm praying to God.

Then you are not praying 'at' the statue are you? Did you go to that statue as part of a prayer ritual or something? If so, I'd ask, why you feel the desire to go to an artists impression of a saint in order to pray to God?

Don't Jews go to the Wailing Wall to pray? Are they idolising a wall?

I don't know what the ritual entails. If they pray 'at' the wall, then the same applies IMO.

As for intercession/prayer requests.. well we have a whole sticky thread on this forum looking for people to pray for others... I fail to see the difference tbh.

I do. Praying to dead people, to ask them to pray for you does nothing. Unless of course the dead are omnicient? Also, once again its a practice which is never seen nor encouraged biblically.

IMO people should use their God given talents to acknowledge their creator, be they writers, musicians, painters, sculptors etc.

I agree. When we sing uplifting songs, the song is the commnication with God. Praying at statues or images is not an equivalent though.

santing

prinz wrote: »

I may kneel and pray in front of a statue of a saint...but I'm praying to God.

You are kidding right? Compare with the request of Naaman the commander of the Syrian army who was cleansed by the Lord of his leprosy:

2Ki 5:18 ESV In this matter may the LORD pardon your servant: when my master goes into the house of Rimmon to worship there, leaning on my arm, and I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, when I bow myself in the house of Rimmon, the LORD pardon your servant in this matter."

Or take Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who could have bowed down and worshipped God rather than the image set up on the plains of Babylon, but it was their not bowing down that put them into trouble:

Dan 3:16-18 ESV Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up."

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. When we sing uplifting songs, the song is the commnication with God. Praying at statues or images is not an equivalent though.

The prayer is not at the or to the statue, it is to God.

As I sat on a dock in Northern Ontario one summers night admiring a display of the Northern Lights, all I could do was thank and talk to God.

After watching Mel Gibsons "The Passion", all I wanted to do was thank and praise God for His sacrifice.

As I gazed upon a statue of Jesus hanging on the cross at a church on campus at Notre Dame University in the States, I just wanted to drop on my knees and talk to God.

Some old hymns spur the same reaction: an understanding of and appreciation for the love of God that spurs me to worship. and communion with God.

I agree to bring an object to the point of thinking it can bring protection or some sort of 'good luck', then no. But to decry an prganisation and its adherants, also not a good idea.

santing

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The prayer is not at the or to the statue, it is to God.

That might be true for some, but the common perception is different. What do you make of the prayer to saint Anne? If I search further on catholic.org I guess I will find multiple examples of prayers not to God but to the statue.

BrianCalgary

santing wrote: »

That might be true for some, but the common perception is different. What do you make of the prayer to saint Anne? If I search further on catholic.org I guess I will find multiple examples of prayers not to God but to the statue.

You are talking about prayers to someone other than God. I am not. I do not condone the practice of praying to any saint.

I am disputing the claim that the statues in churches are idols.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

'Beside'? I assume you mean 'at'. And yes, I think it unwise at the very least. People start making the image or statue etc sacread when all it is is stone or paint. Then you have things like 'holy' medals and all this kind of trinketry spawning from such things. People putting idols in their cars etc. Whether it started out with such meaning or not, the outcome of allowing such practice causes what can only be described as a type of witchcraft to come into being. Whether the official line is something different or not, people hang 'holy' pics, crosses, keep trinkets as 'protection' etc. They become a 'christian' version of the rabbits foot.

Witchcraft? Next you'll be telling me the RCC is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the antichrist. It's little wonder we have such an issue with people showing no respect for Christianity on this forum when we have an issue with people showing little respect for denominational differences. I wouldn't identify myself as Catholic by the way so I am not just getting defensive.

JimiTime wrote: »

At the end of the day, they are of absolutely NO benefit, and there are many downsides to such practices, so at the very least it is unwise.

Downsides such as..? The only downside I see is that frequently the artwork is substandard, or that the creator seemed to dwell on/enjoy suffering etc (Mel Gibson's Passion says this to me - a cross between one of the Saw movies and The Greatest Story Ever Told) I find the crucifixes in some Catholic Churches needlessly gruesome, as well as depictions of the deaths of martyrs.

JimiTime wrote: »

? how is that related? If he prayed 'at' the grass maybe, but I certainly don't believe he does.

Because prayer to God is not dependent on where it takes place?

JimiTime wrote: »

Then you are not praying 'at' the statue are you? Did you go to that statue as part of a prayer ritual or something? If so, I'd ask, why you feel the desire to go to an artists impression of a saint in order to pray to God?

I find that especially in a lot of the larger Catholic churches that the side side 'chapels' or the smaller alcoves off the main area, not sure of the correct word, are actually much better for praying. So yes, I have entered a RCC and just gone to one the side areas and prayed. Usually these have artwork, or statues and are often dedicated to a saint/the life of that saint.

JimiTime wrote: »

I do. Praying to dead people, to ask them to pray for you does nothing. Unless of course the dead are omnicient? Also, once again its a practice which is never seen nor encouraged biblically.

Does asking living people to pray for you have any greater benefit?

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree. When we sing uplifting songs, the song is the commnication with God. Praying at statues or images is not an equivalent though.

Praying to God is not communication with God now? So if I pray in front of a crucifix it is not as worthy as a prayer said while cutting the grass, or coaching a football team etc? I could pray to God while I'm sitting on the bus in front of a poster for Pepsi... does that not count? Or does it mean I am automatically idolising Pepsi?

JimiTime

prinz wrote: »

Witchcraft? Next you'll be telling me the RCC is the whore of Babylon and that the Pope is the antichrist. It's little wonder we have such an issue with people showing no respect for Christianity on this forum when we have an issue with people showing little respect for denominational differences. I wouldn't identify myself as Catholic by the way so I am not just getting defensive.

Take a breath, then lose the drama. then use your gift of literacy to read what I wrote. What I said was that it 'becomes' a type of witchcraft. As in, when people start using trinkets for 'protection' etc etc. the 'Holy' medal, becomes a 'Christian' equivalent of a rabbits foot etc. People 'kissing' the crucifix around their necks etc. Its all just trinketry. Notice how I didn't say that this is what it started as, but this is what it has become. 'Holy' water anyone?

Downsides such as..?

Such as people putting creedence into having pics or crosses or other trinkets etc. I.E. they 'bless' the house, or keep you safe etc etc. That is what most catholics I know feel about such things and its not discouraged. Holy water again anyone?

Because prayer to God is not dependent on where it takes place?

I agree, why do you think I feel differently?

I find that especially in a lot of the larger Catholic churches that the side side 'chapels' or the smaller alcoves off the main area, not sure of the correct word, are actually much better for praying. So yes, I have entered a RCC and just gone to one the side areas and prayed. Usually these have artwork, or statues and are often dedicated to a saint/the life of that saint.

Which means you are praying, and there happens to be something in the room. You do understand that I am not for one moment suggesting that you cannot pray where there are statues etc present don't you?

Does asking living people to pray for you have any greater benefit?

Of course, they hear you when you ask them to pray for you. Dead people don't.

Praying to God is not communication with God now?

What the hell are you reading???

So if I pray in front of a crucifix it is not as worthy as a prayer said while cutting the grass, or coaching a football team etc?

Ehhh, no. That is nothing even close to any point I'm trying to make.

I could pray to God while I'm sitting on the bus in front of a poster for Pepsi... does that not count? Or does it mean I am automatically idolising Pepsi?

You certainly are confused, as am I Not once have I said praying at a crucifix makes a prayer unworthy, or the prayer idolotrous. Its all about whats in ones heart. I see the lack of wisdom in encouraging statues, trinkets and religious images though. The proof is in the pudding, and in hindsight, anyone who does not see what such practices have brought are wearing blinkers.

You raise a great point though. All these places we converse with God. We see his creation all around us, and its a steady reminder of his Glory. Yet we have people, who feel the need to put Padre Pio pics in their car, or wear 'holy' medals as a type of protection etc. Such practices come about when all this statue, image and trinket reverance is encouraged IMO. There was wisdom in Israel when they did not do such things. There was also wisdom in the Apostolic times when they encouraged none such practice neither. All the pagan nations had such things. Statues of gods etc etc, yet never were Gods people moved to share in such practice in the worship of The Living God. I think it wise to consider this, and take the biblical approach. Even if its 'just in case' we don't see the issue. I personally see some issue, as I described above, but even if you don't, you could do worse than to follow the biblical lead.

BTW: Please note, that I never said it was idolotry. i said, at worst it can be idolotry, at best its unwise.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote: »

The prayer is not at the or to the statue, it is to God.

As I sat on a dock in Northern Ontario one summers night admiring a display of the Northern Lights, all I could do was thank and talk to God.

After watching Mel Gibsons "The Passion", all I wanted to do was thank and praise God for His sacrifice.

As I gazed upon a statue of Jesus hanging on the cross at a church on campus at Notre Dame University in the States, I just wanted to drop on my knees and talk to God.

Some old hymns spur the same reaction: an understanding of and appreciation for the love of God that spurs me to worship. and communion with God.

I agree to bring an object to the point of thinking it can bring protection or some sort of 'good luck', then no. But to decry an prganisation and its adherants, also not a good idea.

In essence we are in agreement. Obviously we agree that all prayer be directed to God. What I am saying, is all the statues etc have inadvertantly (or maybe not) created a 'Copper serpent' type of effect. As in, these inanimate objects of stone, wood, tin etc are given a reverance beyond their station. They become to people, things akin to rabbits feet or amulets etc. there is a simple question to be asked here, and Wolfsbane alluded to it also. Why is it that Gods people, biblically never done such things? As I've said in another post, this question alone would tell me that there is wisdom in not adapting a practice that was not carried out by the fathers of our faith, from Abraham up to Paul.

neuro-praxis

Dr. Baltar wrote:

Because the majority of people in this country frequently ignore such papal guidelines of no sex before marriage, no use of condoms no masturbation and other rules that are not found in protestantism I think that in practice most catholics in this country are actually protestants.

Sexual activity outside of marriage is discouraged in all of Christianity. Practicing Protestants who are faithful Christians would aspire to wait til marriage for sex. Just a point.

PDN wrote: »

They are differences, but quite minor ones. The two biggies are salvation by faith alone (sola fide) and the authority of Scripture alone (sola sciptura).

I can't locate the exact quote, but Martin Luther once said something along the lines of: "Let the Pope concede sola scriptura and sola fide and I will gladly concede everything else and kneel before him."

"If the Pope would concede that God alone by His grace through Christ justifies sinners, we would carry him in our arms, we would kiss his feet." Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, p. 52

Plowman wrote:

Although I am aware that Catholicism permits pilgrimages to shrines, the Holy Land, etc., what is the stance of other Christian denominations? Are they acknowledged as spiritually beneficial? Are they merely another nasty ol' Roman error (I jest). Is the notion of protestant pilgrimage as oxymoronic as it is alliterative?

Pilgrimages aren't typically a huge part of the reformed Christian's life, although retreats are a part of my life and the life of my community. My church is taking a weekend away in Wicklow next weekend for example. We'll be taught by a guest speaker, have some worship and prayer together, and otherwise talk, drink beer and generally enjoy each other. Personal pilgrimages are not as common, but many reformed Christians enjoy walking the Santiago de Compostela, or visiting the Holy Land etc. We're not really big on ritual though so individuals are free to enjoy things like pilgrimages on their own terms. Shrines...not so much.

prinz

JimiTime wrote: »

Take a breath, then lose the drama. then use your gift of literacy to read what I wrote. What I said was that it 'becomes' a type of witchcraft. As in, when people start using trinkets for 'protection' etc etc. the 'Holy' medal, becomes a 'Christian' equivalent of a rabbits foot etc. People 'kissing' the crucifix around their necks etc. Its all just trinketry. Notice how I didn't say that this is what it started as, but this is what it has become. 'Holy' water anyone?

Whether it 'becomes' a type of witchcraft or whether it is a type of witchcraft is just fudging the lines now. Personally I don't mind people showing an active interest in God or their faith. To some that means banning sport on the sabbath, to others it might mean wearing a crucifix on a chain.

JimiTime wrote: »

Such as people putting creedence into having pics or crosses or other trinkets etc. I.E. they 'bless' the house, or keep you safe etc etc. That is what most catholics I know feel about such things and its not discouraged. Holy water again anyone?

I'd say there is a very large cultural and societal basis for all of that. It seems to be far more prevalent in some places than in others. I think in areas with a large interaction between Catholicism and Protestant churches the practice is hugely diminshed on a personal level, with regard to medals or beads etc. On the other hand I know someone who enjoys creating religious artwork as a hobby.. painting scenes from the Bible etc. I would have no problem sitting in front of one of her pictures and praying.

JimiTime wrote: »

I agree, why do you think I feel differently?

Because you just said praying at a statue was not equivalent to a song of worship. Why not then? Both are prayers aimed at God.

JimiTime wrote: »

Which means you are praying, and there happens to be something in the room. You do understand that I am not for one moment suggesting that you cannot pray where there are statues etc present don't you?

Yet you seem to be suggesting that somehow the prayers are impeded or that the person praying is distracted from God by their presence..

JimiTime wrote: »

Of course, they hear you when you ask them to pray for you. Dead people don't.

I wouldn't necessarily share that opinion. Personally I don't know what it's like to be dead so I couldn't possibly say. I believe that the dead still enjoy a relationship with God, we pray for them at times. IMO all things are possible through God, so I see no reason why I can't ask God to pass on a message. Likewise I see no reason why God and the dead person can't engage on that. I wouldn't pray to a dead person directly myself, has to go to the top first

JimiTime wrote: »

What the hell are you reading???

This..

JimiTime wrote: »

When we sing uplifting songs, the song is the commnication with God. Praying at statues or images is not an equivalent though.

JimiTime wrote: »

You certainly are confused, as am I Not once have I said praying at a crucifix makes a prayer unworthy, or the prayer idolotrous. Its all about whats in ones heart. I see the lack of wisdom in encouraging statues, trinkets and religious images though...

What happens if religious images increase the love of God in someone's heart? I love art museums myself. One of the main thoughts in my head is the wonder of God, creation and inspiration. I have stood in wonder in Notre Dame, looking at what human hands have made.

JimiTime wrote: »

You raise a great point though. All these places we converse with God. We see his creation all around us, and its a steady reminder of his Glory. Yet we have people, who feel the need to put Padre Pio pics in their car, or wear 'holy' medals as a type of protection etc. Such practices come about when all this statue, image and trinket reverance is encouraged IMO...

Perhaps they represent to others what a beautiful sunset (or whatever) represents to you, His glory. I agree that using religious items as some sort of lucky charm/protection is missing the point.

Clemens

Slav wrote: »

Can I ask Protestants and Roman Catholics over here what's exactly the meaning of sola scriptura as you understand it?

Is it:

1) There is no other authority but the Bible, or
2) There is no authority higher then the Bible, or
3) Something else?

I used to know a Lutheran who always insisted on 2) which (if true) does not make Roman Catholicism much different from Lutheranism at least in terms of the methodology used. Interpretation of certain passages (and therefore teachings) can differ of course but don't they differ among denominations in Protestantism?

At the moment I don't actually know what Martin Luther personally teached, he might have had different views during his life-time. But it's quite clear that the early lutheran theologians wanted to point out that their belief was catholic, i.e. in accordance with the faith of the church fathers etc.

Nowadays there are many different views on these issues among lutherans, as there are among catholics.

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote: »

In essence we are in agreement. Obviously we agree that all prayer be directed to God. What I am saying, is all the statues etc have inadvertantly (or maybe not) created a 'Copper serpent' type of effect. As in, these inanimate objects of stone, wood, tin etc are given a reverance beyond their station. They become to people, things akin to rabbits feet or amulets etc. there is a simple question to be asked here, and Wolfsbane alluded to it also. Why is it that Gods people, biblically never done such things? As I've said in another post, this question alone would tell me that there is wisdom in not adapting a practice that was not carried out by the fathers of our faith, from Abraham up to Paul.

Yes JT, in essence we are in agreement.

There are two roads that cause my heart some troubles though:

1) that statues become the object of worship, that songs become the object of worship, that literature becomes the object of worship. That anything man made becomes the object and not the vehicle that leads to worship.

2) that we judge the hearts of others by making assumptions based on their practice. Who are we to slam the RC who truly seeks Christ and is spurred to worship by the peace and tranquility of an RC church and the depiction of the love and grace of God, through the hands of artists?

Slav

Clemens wrote: »

At the moment I don't actually know what Martin Luther personally teached, he might have had different views during his life-time. But it's quite clear that the early lutheran theologians wanted to point out that their belief was catholic, i.e. in accordance with the faith of the church fathers etc.

Nowadays there are many different views on these issues among lutherans, as there are among catholics.

Yes, that's was kind of my point. Is not adherence to sola scriptira (as defined by wolfsbane in post 52) something that divides Evangelicals with other Christians rather then something that divides Protestants with Roman Catholics?

PDN

Slav wrote: »

Yes, that's was kind of my point. Is not adherence to sola scriptira (as defined by wolfsbane in post 52) something that divides Evangelicals with other Christians rather then something that divides Protestants with Roman Catholics?

Or even divides evangelicals from evangelicals.

I am an evangelical, but I would not see Scripture as being the only authority. I would see it as being the ultimate authority, the one by which other authorities must be judged and tested. But, in areas where Scripture is silent, I think it is legitimate to recognise other authorities (while acknowledging that their authority is limited and not on a par with Scripture).

Slav

PDN wrote: »

Or even divides evangelicals from evangelicals.

I stand corrected!

I am an evangelical, but I would not see Scripture as being the only authority. I would see it as being the ultimate authority, the one by which other authorities must be judged and tested. But, in areas where Scripture is silent, I think it is legitimate to recognise other authorities (while acknowledging that their authority is limited and not on a par with Scripture).

Isn't it very close to the approach to the scripture in Catholicism?

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

Or even divides evangelicals from evangelicals.

I am an evangelical, but I would not see Scripture as being the only authority. I would see it as being the ultimate authority, the one by which other authorities must be judged and tested. But, in areas where Scripture is silent, I think it is legitimate to recognise other authorities (while acknowledging that their authority is limited and not on a par with Scripture).

Well, I wouldn't have a problem with that definition of authority.

Ultimate authority is what is normally meant by sola scriptura - not a denying of the place of eldership, etc. Rome means its Tradition is a part of ultimate authority, on a par with Scripture. An authority that cannot be wrong and from whom there is no appeal.

wolfsbane

Slav wrote: »

Yes, that's was kind of my point. Is not adherence to sola scriptira (as defined by wolfsbane in post 52) something that divides Evangelicals with other Christians rather then something that divides Protestants with Roman Catholics?

No doubt there are some true Christians who assume RC Tradition is as authorative as the Bible - but the religion that says so is not truly Christian. It has put its doctrine on a level with Scripture, and ends up denying parts of Scripture to keep its false doctrines. That's not just misunderstanding bits of the bible, but setting up a system that overrides the Bible.

postcynical

santing wrote: »

Although the Bible uses the word "asleep" to describe a conscious presence with the Lord for those who have died, they are "dead."

The Saints under discussion have died, they are waiting for their resurrection and not conscience of what happens on earth.

Thank you for the reply and the reasoning from 1Th 4:16.

The afterlife is not my interest - my focus is on Christ in this life and I expect whatever's next to look after itself. However, the phrase "eternal life" is bandied about a lot by Christians. Presumably this refers to our spiritual life. Is it certain that the "asleep/dead" saints are beyond our prayers? Surely if they are in communion with God and we can pray to God then we can pray to them?

(I'm not advocating bypassing God to pray to a saint, just wondering why it's impossible)

postcynical

santing wrote: »

I think this is quite an important difference. In Christianity we are called to focus on the risen Saviour and remember His life. The crucifix but also presentations (or remembrance) of the "holy family," "Madonna with child," and even the "host" are directly linked with the Saviours life before His resurrection. Of which Paul says "Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer.
(2Co 5:16)"

I think homer's point (to which you are responding there) is a good one - some Christians (RC) dwell on Jesus' life and others on His resurrection. Of course we all do both to some extent. I don't think it's wise to downplay Jesus' role as a human before His resurrection. His teachings have had a massive benign impact on the world and have drawn many people to the man, who have then recognised the divinity of the man.

Jesus came to show us how to live, not just to overcome death.

The "host" is linked to Christ's Last Supper, when we His followers can drink from His cup. This is linked to His death rather than His life IMO.

postcynical

santing wrote: »

That might be true for some, but the common perception is different. What do you make of the prayer to saint Anne? If I search further on catholic.org I guess I will find multiple examples of prayers not to God but to the statue.

Out of curiosity I had to look; the prayer was not so problematic for me, except for the atrocious spelling. I can see numerous boxes of annoyance it might tick for others though - elevation of the role of Mary in salvation, prayer to a statue, prayer of intercession with a lady who lived before the arrival of Christ...

Again though, I think the prayer is towards Christ, through the saint whose memory is made tangible by the statue:

Dearest Saint Anne,
pray for me and for all my fellowmen.
have speical prayers and blessings
for the sick and affliced,
for the hungry and needy.

Obtain for all men the priceless gift
of mutual love in God and for peace.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

No doubt there are some true Christians who assume RC Tradition is as authorative as the Bible - but the religion that says so is not truly Christian. It has put its doctrine on a level with Scripture, and ends up denying parts of Scripture to keep its false doctrines. That's not just misunderstanding bits of the bible, but setting up a system that overrides the Bible.

Of course it is truly Christian. The Catholic would advocate the same essentials as all Christians. Namely what is in the Apostles creed.

I differ with my RC brother on the status of Mary, although reverred, not prayed to. I also differ on the praying to saints.

I also differ on my reformed brothers who are Calvinist and the weird unbiblical doctrine of God choosing who is saved and who isn't.

I also differ from my Lutheran brothers on the time of Christ's presence in teh communion.

There are differences in all, that can either be minor points of become major depending on teh heart of the person. I have seen nasties from all camps that become bigoted in their thinking. That is far more dangerous than kneeling before a statue to pray to God through Christ.

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

Ultimate authority is what is normally meant by sola scriptura - not a denying of the place of eldership, etc. Rome means its Tradition is a part of ultimate authority, on a par with Scripture. An authority that cannot be wrong and from whom there is no appeal.

I was looking for the relevant passage from the RC Catechism to support the RC position. My understanding is that we have a three-fold authority: scriptures, tradition and the magesterium (the church). I'll dig it out another time if I can find it. In the meantime this might be helpful to the thread and the RC position on sola scriptura:

RCC 108 wrote:

Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."

The following is interesting and supports the evidence that scripture is so true and beautiful to believers but can be absolute nonsense to nonbelievers, even intelligent ones:

RCC 111 wrote:

"Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

prinz

wolfsbane wrote: »

No doubt there are some true Christians who assume RC Tradition is as authorative as the Bible -...

What "true Christians" would they be? Roman Catholics maybe?

postcynical wrote: »

I was looking for the relevant passage from the RC Catechism to support the RC position. My understanding is that we have a three-fold authority: scriptures, tradition and the magesterium (the church).

Myself I would look first to the Bible, then to what has been taught and by whom, and finallly to what has been taught vs others. However personally I think many things have been "taught" but many taught lessons have gone unheeded..

homer911

Dont mean to be splitting hairs, but I dont think true Christians would assume anything - They would study/question/debate for themselves and arrive at their own conclusion, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit

santing

postcynical wrote: »

However, the phrase "eternal life" is bandied about a lot by Christians. Presumably this refers to our spiritual life.

Eternal Life is indeed spiritual life, or the life we receive from the Son, who is the Eternal Life.

postcynical wrote: »

Is it certain that the "asleep/dead" saints are beyond our prayers?

I would say yes, as nowhere in the Bible the "asleep/dead" saints are called upon or prayed too. We should have expected that Stephen would be a powerful intercessor after his martyrship (Acts 7) But if you compare the glimpses that are given about the afterlife, for instance Philipians 1(20-25) where Paul argues that if Paul remains on earth it is more profitable for the Philipians ... but how great an intercessor would Paul be in Heaven!

postcynical wrote: »

Surely if they are in communion with God and we can pray to God then we can pray to them?

(I'm not advocating bypassing God to pray to a saint, just wondering why it's impossible)

There is of course a difference between God and a Saint in heaven. Only God is omniscience, omnipresent and capable to listen to billions of simultaneous conversations. If I pray I know that God can and will hear my prayer since He is present and promised to listen. However, if I pray to a saint in heaven, I must explain how my prayer will be carried into heaven, to the presence and hearing of the person I am praying to, and hope that this saint is not actuially listening to another person. ... Basically we need to elevate this saint to having similar capabilities as God. This is one of the reasons why the label "Idolatry" is so often applied to praying to saints!

santing

postcynical wrote: »

Out of curiosity I had to look; the prayer was not so problematic for me, except for the atrocious spelling. I can see numerous boxes of annoyance it might tick for others though - elevation of the role of Mary in salvation, prayer to a statue, prayer of intercession with a lady who lived before the arrival of Christ...

Again though, I think the prayer is towards Christ, through the saint whose memory is made tangible by the statue:

Maybe I am stupid, but doesn't the prayer start with "Dearest Saint Anne, pray for me ..." doesn't that imply that we are talking to Anne, not to Jesus?

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary wrote: »

Of course it is truly Christian. The Catholic would advocate the same essentials as all Christians. Namely what is in the Apostles creed.

I differ with my RC brother on the status of Mary, although reverred, not prayed to. I also differ on the praying to saints.

I also differ on my reformed brothers who are Calvinist and the weird unbiblical doctrine of God choosing who is saved and who isn't.

I also differ from my Lutheran brothers on the time of Christ's presence in teh communion.

There are differences in all, that can either be minor points of become major depending on teh heart of the person. I have seen nasties from all camps that become bigoted in their thinking. That is far more dangerous than kneeling before a statue to pray to God through Christ.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone marks out a fundamental of the faith. To that add the grievous errors of a sacrificing priesthood, Christ's supposed re-offerings on the altars, the elevation of Mary (Immaculate Conception and Assumption; pending Co-Redemptrix & Mediatrix, etc.). No wonder many Muslims and others think the Trinity is Father, Son and Mary.
Pope John Paul II
In recent years, to emphasize the role of Mary, the Mother of the Church, in his 2002 Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, Pope John Paul II quoted Saint Louis de Montfort, and said:
"Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ.
Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)

These are not little things on which Christians differ. They are soul-destroying errors.

wolfsbane

prinz wrote: »

What "true Christians" would they be? Roman Catholics maybe?

Yes, some Roman Catholics.

wolfsbane

postcynical said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Ultimate authority is what is normally meant by sola scriptura - not a denying of the place of eldership, etc. Rome means its Tradition is a part of ultimate authority, on a par with Scripture. An authority that cannot be wrong and from whom there is no appeal.
I was looking for the relevant passage from the RC Catechism to support the RC position. My understanding is that we have a three-fold authority: scriptures, tradition and the magesterium (the church). I'll dig it out another time if I can find it.

Yes, you are right about this three-fold ultimate authority claimed by Rome. It claims to infallibly define the meaning both of Scripture and to reveal to us truth taught by the apostles but not written down.

In the meantime this might be helpful to the thread and the RC position on sola scriptura:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCC 108
Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book". Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God, "not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open (our) minds to understand the Scriptures."

That is what Protestants mean by a "religion of the book". The work of the Spirit is essential for embracing Truth.

The following is interesting and supports the evidence that scripture is so true and beautiful to believers but can be absolute nonsense to nonbelievers, even intelligent ones:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCC 111
"Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."

Protestant theology agrees.

If that was all the RCC taught, how happy we would be.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

The doctrine of justification by faith alone marks out a fundamental of the faith..

Christians would also trumpet the needs of works. James tells us that a faith without works is a 'dead faith'.

wolfsbane wrote: »

To that add the grievous errors of a sacrificing priesthood, Christ's supposed re-offerings on the altars,..

Read the mass and you will see that what is offered is the bread and wine as that which is provided by God, made by the hands of man and offered back to God as a sacrifice for the good of the church. Sounds very similar to any protestant church that calls for their people to give of what God has provided ($$$) for the good of the Church. NO where in the mass does it talk about a re-sacrifice of Jesus for 'forgiveness of sins'.

wolfsbane wrote: »

the elevation of Mary (Immaculate Conception and Assumption; pending Co-Redemptrix & Mediatrix, etc.). No wonder many Muslims and others think the Trinity is Father, Son and Mary.,..

The Bibl also tells us that Mary would beblessed among woman and would be homoured.Luke 2:41. i agree that some people go too far in the veberation of Mary.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Pope John Paul II
In recent years, to emphasize the role of Mary, the Mother of the Church, in his 2002 Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, Pope John Paul II quoted Saint Louis de Montfort, and said:
"Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ.
Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ.".,..

The Pope doesn't seem to carry much authority . I have severe issues with what Calvin wrote as well. Menmake errors. Do we accept homosexual affairs as OK because the past president of the Evangelical Association of America was involved in one? Do we accept all that teh church of England produces? No.

wolfsbane wrote: »

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed_Virgin_Mary_(Roman_Catholic)

These are not little things on which Christians differ. They are soul-destroying errors.

They are not soul destroying at all. Who are we to judge the RC who knows nothing else yet everday goes to mass seeking Christ? Not I.

What is disturbing is the attitude I hear from anti-catholics that certainly does not show the fruits of love and kindness. Plus the judgement that occur. That is just as dangerous.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
The doctrine of justification by faith alone marks out a fundamental of the faith..
Christians would also trumpet the needs of works. James tells us that a faith without works is a 'dead faith'.

Indeed. But works that always accompany saving faith are a lot different from works that are a basis of salvation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
To that add the grievous errors of a sacrificing priesthood, Christ's supposed re-offerings on the altars,..
Read the mass and you will see that what is offered is the bread and wine as that which is provided by God, made by the hands of man and offered back to God as a sacrifice for the good of the church. Sounds very similar to any protestant church that calls for their people to give of what God has provided ($$$) for the good of the Church. NO where in the mass does it talk about a re-sacrifice of Jesus for 'forgiveness of sins'.

The term the RCC uses is re-presentation. It is not denying that it is a real sacrifice of Christ, in His flesh and blood, being presented - just that it is somehow it is the self-same sacrifice that was offered on Golgotha. The following is the official position of the RCC [emphasis mine]:
The Mass as a Re-presentation of the Crucifixion:

This re-presentation, as Fr. John Hardon notes in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, "means that because Christ is really present in his humanity, in heaven and on the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to the Father." This understanding of the Mass hinges on the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Christ is truly present on the altar. If the bread and wine remained merely symbols, the Mass could still be a memorial of the Last Supper, but not a re-presentation of the Crucifixion.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htm

The Council of Trent
The Twenty-Second Session
CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
the elevation of Mary (Immaculate Conception and Assumption; pending Co-Redemptrix & Mediatrix, etc.). No wonder many Muslims and others think the Trinity is Father, Son and Mary.,..
The Bibl also tells us that Mary would beblessed among woman and would be homoured.Luke 2:41. i agree that some people go too far in the veberation of Mary.

That too far is too far for salvation for many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Pope John Paul II
In recent years, to emphasize the role of Mary, the Mother of the Church, in his 2002 Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, Pope John Paul II quoted Saint Louis de Montfort, and said:
"Our entire perfection consists in being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus Christ. Hence the most perfect of all devotions is undoubtedly that which conforms, unites and consecrates us most perfectly to Jesus Christ.
Now, since Mary is of all creatures the one most conformed to Jesus Christ, it follows that among all devotions that which most consecrates and conforms a soul to our Lord is devotion to Mary, his Holy Mother, and that the more a soul is consecrated to her the more will it be consecrated to Jesus Christ.".,..
The Pope doesn't seem to carry much authority .

Brian, you are obviously in touch with Catholics who are that in name only.

I have severe issues with what Calvin wrote as well. Menmake errors. Do we accept homosexual affairs as OK because the past president of the Evangelical Association of America was involved in one? Do we accept all that teh church of England produces? No.

Quite so. But Roman Catholic dogma is not (they think) like that - it is beyond doubt. Denying a dogma automatically excommunicates the Catholic from the Church.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blessed...oman_Catholic)

These are not little things on which Christians differ. They are soul-destroying errors.
They are not soul destroying at all. Who are we to judge the RC who knows nothing else yet everday goes to mass seeking Christ? Not I.

I have no problem accepting as a true Christian those who have a fuzzy view of the mass and are focussed on Christ and Golgotha. But those who think He is being offered again for their sins as the mass goes on? I fear indeed. Especially for those who think their good deeds form part of the basis of their forgiveness.

What is disturbing is the attitude I hear from anti-catholics that certainly does not show the fruits of love and kindness. Plus the judgement that occur. That is just as dangerous.

Since when is speaking the truth, in order to turn the ignorant to it, not an act of love? Since when is keeping quiet about a false gospel not eternally dangerous?

Did not Christ and the apostles warn us about false gospels and false prophets? Surely judgement is called for in assessing who they are?

Overheal

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

In a thread yesterday, I made the following statement:



In my opinion, I believe that the majority of people in this country although claiming to be "Catholic" are in fact more closely associated towards Lutheranism or another form of Protestantism.

I say this because: (and correct me if my definitions are incorrect)

+ Catholicism takes it's beliefs from Jesus, the bible and "God's Representative on Earth" - the Pope aka The Church.

Where as:

+ Protestants take their beliefs from Jesus and the Bible Only.

Because the majority of people in this country frequently ignore such papal guidelines of no sex before marriage, no use of condoms no masturbation and other rules that are not found in protestantism I think that in practice most catholics in this country are actually protestants.

Discuss.

Thats an interesting thought. Irish culture is predominantly owned by discussion between Catholicism and Protestantism, yet there are at least a dozen Western-Mainstream sects of Christianity and I think its worth review that your particular beliefs may fall one way or the other into something else. Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.

Actually I can trace my lineage back to John Wesley so its embarrassing I dont know much of anything about Methodism.

I dont think its fair though, to label Catholics who don't follow the Pope promptly as Protestants. There is also Independent Catholicism which deals with Catholic Diocese/churches that are Not in Communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Just looking at Christianity on wikipedia (sue me), You have 4 major branches: Catholic, Protestant, Eastern, and Non-Trinitarian. Each of these has Sub-Sections (Catholic-Anglican; Lutheran; Methodist; Assyrian; Latter Day Saint; etc).

Still I think if you have doubts about whether you wish to Identify yourself as a True Roman Catholic, it might be worth reading up on other sects, such as Anglican Catholics or Independent Catholics.

BrianCalgary

wolfsbane wrote: »

BrianCalgary said:

Indeed. But works that always accompany saving faith are a lot different from works that are a basis of salvation.


The term the RCC uses is re-presentation. It is not denying that it is a real sacrifice of Christ, in His flesh and blood, being presented - just that it is somehow it is the self-same sacrifice that was offered on Golgotha. The following is the official position of the RCC [emphasis mine]:
The Mass as a Re-presentation of the Crucifixion:

This re-presentation, as Fr. John Hardon notes in his Pocket Catholic Dictionary, "means that because Christ is really present in his humanity, in heaven and on the altar, he is capable now as he was on Good Friday of freely offering himself to the Father." This understanding of the Mass hinges on the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. When the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, Christ is truly present on the altar. If the bread and wine remained merely symbols, the Mass could still be a memorial of the Last Supper, but not a re-presentation of the Crucifixion.
http://catholicism.about.com/od/worship/p/The_Mass.htm

The Council of Trent
The Twenty-Second Session
CHAPTER II.
That the Sacrifice of the Mass is propitiatory both for the living and the dead.
And forasmuch as, in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner, who once offered Himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross; the holy Synod teaches, that this sacrifice is truly propritiatory and that by means thereof this is effected, that we obtain mercy, and find grace in seasonable aid, if we draw nigh unto God, contrite and penitent, with a sincere heart and upright faith, with fear and reverence. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation thereof, and granting the [Page 155] grace and gift of penitence, forgives even heinous crimes and sins. For the victim is one and the same, the same now offering by the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, the manner alone of offering being different. The fruits indeed of which oblation, of that bloody one to wit, are received most plentifully through this unbloody one; so far is this (latter) from derogating in any way from that (former oblation). Wherefore, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities of the faithful who are living, but also for those who are departed in Christ, and who are not as yet fully purified, is it rightly offered, agreebly to a tradition of the apostles.

ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.
CANON I.--If any one saith, that in the mass a true and proper sacriflce is not offered to God; or, that to be offered is nothing else but that Christ is given us to eat; let him be anathema.

CANON III.--If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a [Page 159] bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that, by the sacrifice of the mass, a blasphemy is cast upon the most holy sacrifice of Christ consummated on the cross; or, that it is thereby derogated from; let him be anathema.

You are going too far back and extending the myths and lies about the mass that have continued for far too long.

Catechism Section 1104
Christian liturgy not only recalls the events that saved us but actualizes them, makes them present. The Paschal mystery of Christ is celebrated, not repeated. It is the celebrations that are repeated, and in each celebration there is an outpouring of the Holy Spirit that makes the unique mystery present.


Also read it. The sacrifice is what comes from God, wheat and grape, harvested and worked by man and given back: for our good and the good of His church. No where in the mass is the sacrfice even mentioned or alluded to as given for the forgiveness of sin.
That too far is too far for salvation for many.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Brian, you are obviously in touch with Catholics who are that in name only.

They run the range, from devout weekly mass goers and daily pray-ers to the C&E'ers.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Quite so. But Roman Catholic dogma is not (they think) like that - it is beyond doubt. Denying a dogma automatically excommunicates the Catholic from the Church.

I know of no-one who has been excommunicated. Go and you are welcomed.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I have no problem accepting as a true Christian those who have a fuzzy view of the mass and are focussed on Christ and Golgotha. But those who think He is being offered again for their sins as the mass goes on? I fear indeed. Especially for those who think their good deeds form part of the basis of their forgiveness.

Two points here. Again the mass has nothing to do with a resacrifice of christ for sin. No where in teh mass does it say such a thing. I have also quoted an up-to-date chatechism.

There are those in every denomination who are legalistic and think that we have to do something in order to gain and maintain our salvation. It is not a problem confined to teh RC church. Some of teh disciplines that are taught in teh RC church are very edifying.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Since when is speaking the truth, in order to turn the ignorant to it, not an act of love? Since when is keeping quiet about a false gospel not eternally dangerous?

It is not an act of love when it is an attack. Preach the Good News, dont slam others. There is a way to approach the one who preaches a false gospel. The Bible is clear about speaking slander and evil of a brother.

James 4:11
11Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Did not Christ and the apostles warn us about false gospels and false prophets? Surely judgement is called for in assessing who they are?

They did. However there is nothing false with the celebration of communion in the Catholic church. You have not shown the words within teh mass that indicates that it is a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.

PDN

Overheal wrote: »

Thats an interesting thought. Irish culture is predominantly owned by discussion between Catholicism and Protestantism, yet there are at least a dozen Western-Mainstream sects of Christianity and I think its worth review that your particular beliefs may fall one way or the other into something else. Lutheranism, Methodism, etc.

Irish religious culture is rapidly changing. Journalists still tend to refer to the main four churches (Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, & Methodist). But, in the Irish Republic, the third largest church is now the Redeemed Christian Church of God - a Nigerian Pentecostal denomination.

BrianCalgary

PDN wrote: »

Irish religious culture is rapidly changing. Journalists still tend to refer to the main four churches (Catholic, Church of Ireland, Presbyterian, & Methodist). But, in the Irish Republic, the third largest church is now the Redeemed Christian Church of God - a Nigerian Pentecostal denomination.

Wow.

postcynical

It's very interesting to read BrianCalgary's defence of the RCC. Thanks. Sometimes I wish though that the leaders in the RCC spent more time debating with Christians like wolfsbane. From today's newspaper:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1027/1224257492363.html

Irish Times wrote:

ARCHBISHOP OF Tuam Dr Michael Neary has strongly discouraged people from gathering at Knock Shrine, Co Mayo, in the hope of seeing an apparition of Our Lady.
He said yesterday that the apparition of 1879 was “neither sought nor expected’’ by the humble, honest people who were its astonished witnesses.
“Their faith reveals the patience and humility that characterise true belief. The shrine of Knock is living witness to that faith.’’
In a statement, Dr Neary said that, unfortunately, recent events at Knock had obscured this essential message.
“They risk misleading God’s people and undermining faith. For this reason, such events are to be regretted rather than encouraged”.

I wish the good archbishop would drop the softly softly language and call for this type of charlatan to be challenged by the faithful. A bit of fire and brimstone and accusations of blasphemy/heresy wouldn't go amiss:D It's a sad relic of the education many of us Catholics received in this country, and the consequent uncritical nature of some of the faithful. Much of wolfsbane's criticism is justified by these examples but I must point out that these practices are in opposition to official church teaching.

“Many of these people have photos, videos . . . images are even on YouTube . . . and yet the people who disbelieve the most are the clergy.”

Nope Mr Coleman, some of the Catholic laity are disbelievers... and this one isn't too happy about having his faith parodied by the likes of you.

wolfsbane

postcynical wrote: »

It's very interesting to read BrianCalgary's defence of the RCC. Thanks. Sometimes I wish though that the leaders in the RCC spent more time debating with Christians like wolfsbane. From today's newspaper:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1027/1224257492363.html

I wish the good archbishop would drop the softly softly language and call for this type of charlatan to be challenged by the faithful. A bit of fire and brimstone and accusations of blasphemy/heresy wouldn't go amiss:D It's a sad relic of the education many of us Catholics received in this country, and the consequent uncritical nature of some of the faithful. Much of wolfsbane's criticism is justified by these examples but I must point out that these practices are in opposition to official church teaching.
Nope Mr Coleman, some of the Catholic laity are disbelievers... and this one isn't too happy about having his faith parodied by the likes of you.

I really appreciate your input.

Yes, the popular face of Catholicism is familiar to me, as I was raised in a mainly Catholic area and most of my friends were RC. I noted their devotion to Mary, to their rote prayers, to their images, to apparitions, their fear of the priest, etc. But I learned to distinguish between what was popular religion and what was official religion - access to Catholic literature was helpful, especially the Catechisms. Also, ex-priests who pointed to the relevant passages in those books.

I do not attribute any popular teaching or practise to the RCC if it is not authenticated by official dogma. If the RCC has tolerated questionable practices by the masses, that is a problem but not of the essence as to whether it is truly a Christian church or not. Every church has its failings.

From your good self I would appreciate any guidance where you think I misunderstand official Catholic teaching.

wolfsbane

BrianCalgary said:

You are going too far back and extending the myths and lies about the mass that have continued for far too long.

You are saying Trent was mistaken? As I understand it, no teaching of the Councils can be revoked.

Would some of our Catholic friends here care to comment?

Also read it. The sacrifice is what comes from God, wheat and grape, harvested and worked by man and given back: for our good and the good of His church.

Note: Brian is saying the sacrifice of the mass is only that of the bread and wine, our harvested food. I read the Catechism as saying it is the actual body and blood of Christ that is being sacrificed.

Would some of our Catholic friends here care to comment?

No where in the mass is the sacrfice even mentioned or alluded to as given for the forgiveness of sin.

Since you dismiss Trent, here's what the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION says [emphasis mine]:
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."187 In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."188

1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:

[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.189

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."190
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a3.htm

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
But of course you will see from this that the 1997 Catechism regards Trent's definitions as authoritative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quite so. But Roman Catholic dogma is not (they think) like that - it is beyond doubt. Denying a dogma automatically excommunicates the Catholic from the Church.
I know of no-one who has been excommunicated. Go and you are welcomed.

What Is Heresy?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah’s Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope’s infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

Latae sententiae
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

Re: What sins bring about automatic excommunication?
Offenses punished by automatic excommunication:

1) An apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic (Can. 1364)

2) Profanation of the Eucharist (Can. 1367)

3) Physical attack against the Roman Pontiff (Can. 1370)

4) Absolution against an accomplice in a sin against the sixth Commandment (Can. 1378, 977)

5) Consecration of a bishop without a pontifical mandate (Can. 1382)

6) A priest who violates the sacramental seal of confession (Can. 1388)

7) A person who procures a completed abortion (Can. 1389)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=23212
[Emphasis mine in above].

There are those in every denomination who are legalistic and think that we have to do something in order to gain and maintain our salvation. It is not a problem confined to teh RC church.

But it is a dogma of that church, rather than a heresy as it is in many of the others.

Some of teh disciplines that are taught in teh RC church are very edifying.

Certainly. I'm sure all religions have some good teachings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Since when is speaking the truth, in order to turn the ignorant to it, not an act of love? Since when is keeping quiet about a false gospel not eternally dangerous?
It is not an act of love when it is an attack. Preach the Good News, dont slam others. There is a way to approach the one who preaches a false gospel.

Is that how the New Testament deals with it?
Galatians 1:6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:12 But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.


2 Peter 2:1 But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. 2 And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed. 3 By covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words; for a long time their judgment has not been idle, and their destruction does not slumber.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world. 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

Revelation 2: 6 But this you have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate...
14 But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 15 Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth...
20 Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

The Bible is clear about speaking slander and evil of a brother.

Slander is an untruth - but what I say I have documented. And those who teach such errors are not brethren.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Did not Christ and the apostles warn us about false gospels and false prophets? Surely judgement is called for in assessing who they are?
They did. However there is nothing false with the celebration of communion in the Catholic church. You have not shown the words within teh mass that indicates that it is a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin.

I have now. Has that given you a new perspective?

postcynical

wolfsbane wrote: »

I do not attribute any popular teaching or practise to the RCC if it is not authenticated by official dogma. If the RCC has tolerated questionable practices by the masses, that is a problem but not of the essence as to whether it is truly a Christian church or not. Every church has its failings.

From your good self I would appreciate any guidance where you think I misunderstand official Catholic teaching.

Don't worry, if I spot them and can articulate a reply I'll be sure to point them out to you!