Posted on 04/13/2002 7:13:03 AM PDT by NYer
Ask yourself: why do I hate the Catholic Church? Who taught me what I think I know about the Catholic Church? Is what I was taught true? Have I looked at what the Catholic Church has to say about itself, using official resources such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and papal encyclicals? Could my opinion of the Catholic Church possibly be based on bias, bigotry, bad history, propaganda from the secular media, or the bad priests who get publicity (i.e., the sick, and sickening, pedophile priests or those certain heretical modernist priests the secular media love to give press to)? Is it fair to judge doctrine by such things? Is any group with human beings in it free from sin and scandal? If I am wrong about the Catholic Church, what does that mean?
Here are some common myths about the Catholic Church:
|
Because Catholics reject the tradition of "sola fide" ("faith alone"), they think they can work their way into Heaven and believe they are saved by works |
|
Catholics think the pope does not sin |
|
Catholics re-crucify Christ at their Masses (or at least think they do) |
|
Catholics think Mary is part of the Godhead and is to be worshipped |
|
Catholics worship statues |
|
Catholics think they can't pray to God directly but have to go through saints |
|
Catholics conjure the dead |
|
Catholics believe people can be saved after they die |
|
The Catholic Church teaches that one who isn't formally a Catholic is damned to Hell |
|
The Crusades are an example of Catholic aggression |
|
The Inquisition(s) killed hundreds of thousands of people and targeted Jews |
|
Pope Pius XII was "Hitler's Pope" and didn't do a thing to help Jews during WWII |
|
The Catholic Church wasn't around until the time of Constantine, a pagan who controlled the Church. The Catholic Church did more than baptize pagan calendar days for the good of Christ, it is pagan in its very roots. |
If you believe any of the above myths, I implore you to research. For doctrinal questions, ask the Church what it teaches; it's the only fair thing to do. For historical questions, look at balanced and objective scholarly research from a variety of sources (including Catholic ones).
And as you research, keep in mind the common logical fallacies that are often used in attacks against Catholicism:
Generalization:
"I knew a Catholic/ex-Catholic (or I was a Catholic) who was (mean, a drunk, not holy, didn't like the Church, was superstitious, didn't know the Bible, didn't have a deep relationship with Jesus, etc.), so therefore, the teachings of the Catholic Church are wrong." (Ignores the fact that bad catechesis, miunderstandings, or other shortcomings of a few Catholics do not reflect on what the Catholic Church teaches)
Bifurcation:
"If the Catholic Church doesn't teach that it's faith alone that saves, then it must teach that men are saved by their own works." (Ignores that we teach that we are saved by Grace alone -- a Grace with which we must cooperate through "faith that works in love")
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc:
"Winter Solstice is on 21 December; Christmas is 25 December. Therefore, Christmas is a pagan holiday. (Ignores that fact that there are only 365 days to choose from in a year and that the early Church Fathers had good reasons to choose the date they did. It also ignores that Protestants' "Reformation Day" is celebrated on 31 October, the pagan festival of Samhain.)
Post hoc ergo propter hoc:
"Constantine must have been the real source of the Catholic Church's teachings because after his reign the Church grew tremendously, and before his reign it wasn't as well-known" (Ignores the simple fact that Constantine merely stopped the persecution of Christians with the Edict of Milan and allowed Christianity to spread. It also ignores the writings of the Church Fathers who lived before Constantine -- and who were Catholic.)
Straw man:
"You guys worship statues, and that's evil. Therefore, your religion is Satanic." (Ignores that fact that we don't worship statues)
... and now I challenge my brothers and sisters in Christ to take two hours of your life to listen to theologian and former Presbyterian minister Scott Hahn and to Rosalind Moss, who was raised Jewish and later became Evangelical. Both are now 100% Catholic; don't you want to know why? Truly, I challenge you to listen and pray and think about what you hear, all with an open heart to God's will.
Real Audio: Listen to Scott Hahn tell his story
Real Audio: Listen to Rosalind Moss tell her story
Becky
And in the '60's they were saying "God is dead!". You're as wrong as they were.
By the way, are you aware of the meaning of your screen name?...seems appropriate given your anti-Catholicism here.
The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).
Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4).
And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5:8). The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth.
The term “co-redemptrix” is properly translated “the woman with the redeemer” or more literally “she who buys back with [the redeemer].” The prefix “co” comes from the Latin term “cum” which means “with” and not “equal to.” Co-redemptrix therefore as applied to Mary refers to her exceptional cooperation with and under her divine son Jesus Christ, in the redemption of the human family, as manifested in Christian Scripture.
With Mary’s free and active “fiat” to the invitation of the angel Gabriel to become the mother of Jesus, “Be it done unto me according to your word” (Lk. 1:38), she uniquely cooperated with the work of redemption by giving the divine Redeemer his body, which was the very instrument of human redemption. “We have been sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (Heb. 10:10), and the body of Jesus Christ is given to him through the free, active, and unique cooperation of the Virgin Mary. By virtue of giving flesh to the “Word made flesh” (Jn. 1:14), who in turn redeems humanity, the Virgin of Nazareth uniquely merits the title Co-redemptrix. In the words of the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta, “Of course Mary is the Co-redemptrix — she gave Jesus his body, and his body is what saved us.” [1]
The New Testament prophecy of Simeon in the temple also reveals the suffering, co-redemptive mission of Mary in direct union with her Redeemer son in their one unified work of redemption:
“Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary, his mother, ‘Behold, this child is set for the fall and rise of many in Israel, and will be a sign of contradiction, and a sword shall pierce through your own soul, too” (Lk. 2:34-35).
But the climax of Mary’s role as Co-redemptrix under her divine son takes place at the foot of the Cross, where the total suffering of the mother’s heart is obediently united to the suffering of the Son’s heart in fulfillment of the Father’s plan of redemption (cf. Gal. 4:4). As the fruit of this redemptive suffering, Mary is given by the crucified Savior as the spiritual mother of all peoples,: “Woman, behold your son!’ Then he said to the dis-ciple, ‘behold, your mother!” (Jn. 19:27). As described by Pope John Paul II, Mary was “spiritually crucified with her crucified son” at Calvary, and “her role as Co-redemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son.” [2] Even after the accomplishment of the acquisition of the graces of redemption at Calvary, Mary’s co-redemptive role continues in the distribution of those saving graces to the hearts of humanity.
The earliest Christian writers and Fathers of the Church explained Marian co-redemption with great profundity in simplicity in the first theological model of Mary as the “New Eve.” Essentially, they articulated that as Eve, the first “mother of the living” (Gen. 3:20), was directly instrumental with Adam, the father of the human race, in the loss of grace for all humanity, so too Mary, the “New Eve,” was directly instrumental with Jesus Christ, whom St. Paul calls the “New Adam” (Cf. 1 Cor. 15:45-48), in the restoration of grace to all humanity. In the words of 2nd century Church Father, St. Irenaeus: “Just as Eve, wife of Adam, yet still a virgin, became by her disobedience the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so Mary, too, espoused yet a virgin, became by her obedience the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race.” [3]
In light of her unique and direct cooperation with the Re-deemer in the restoration of grace for the human family (cf. Gen. 3:15), Mary became universally known in the early Church as the “New Mother of the Living,” and her instrumental co-redemption with Christ was well summed up in the succinct expression of 4th century Church Father, St. Jerome: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.” [4]
Explicit references to Marian co-redemption as Mary’s unique participation with and under Jesus Christ in redeeming or “buying back” humanity from the slavery of Satan and sin is present throughout Christian Tradition. For example, the 7th century Church writer, Modestus of Jerusalem, states that through Mary, we “are redeemed from the tyranny of the devil.” [5] St. John Damascene (8th century) greets her: “Hail thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse.” [6] St. Bernard of Clairvaux (12th century) preaches that “through her, man was redeemed.” [7] The great Franciscan Doctor, St. Bonaventure (13th century), aptly summarizes Christian Tradition in this teaching: “That woman (namely Eve), drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one (Mary) brought us back again and bought us.” [8]
Although there was never any question of the total and radical dependency of the Virgin Mary’s participation in redemption upon the divine work and merits of Jesus Christ in the minds of the Church fathers and doctors, nonetheless early Christian Tradition did not hesitate to teach and preach the unparalleled intimate participation of the woman, Mary, in the “buying back” or redeeming of the human race from the slavery of Satan. As humanity was sold by a man and a woman, so it was God’s will that humanity would be bought back by a Man and a woman.
It is upon this rich Christian foundation that 20th century popes and saints have used the title Co-redemptrix for Mary’s unique role in human redemption, as exemplified in the contemporary use of Co-redemptrix for Mary by Pope John Paul II on five occasions during his present pontificate. [9] “Co-redemptrix” as used by the popes means no more that Mary is a goddess equal with Jesus Christ than St. Paul’s identification of all Christians as “God’s co-workers” (1 Cor. 3:9) means that Christians are gods equal to the one God.
All Christians are rightly called to be co-workers or “co-redeemers” with Jesus Christ (cf. Col. 1:24) in the reception and cooperation with grace necessary for our own redemption and the redemption of others — personal subjective redemption made pos-sible by the historic objective redemption or “buying back” accomplished by Jesus Christ, the “New Adam,” the Redemptor, and Mary, the “New Eve,” the Co-redemptrix.
For a more detailed perspective on this title, try this site:
http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/marian/5thdogma/co-redemptrix1.htm
I don't see prayer FOR us in the cited passage. Much less anything resembling modern RC invoking the patron saint of this-or-that (e.g. Christopher) to pray for us. This seems to take the scantest of biblical reference to construct an elaborate religious practice.
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.
New Testament
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect.
Old Testament
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in II Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, "making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins" (II Mach., xii, 43-46). At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.
New Testament
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect:
PURGATORY: C.S. Lewis (Protestant):
Of course I pray for the dead. At our age the majority of those we love best are dead. What sort of intercourse with God could I have if what I love best were unmentionable to Him? I believe in purgatory. Our souls demand purgatory, don't they? My favourite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn, a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be purgatory. {Letters to Malcolm: Chiefly on Prayer, 107-109}
The notion that our destiny is fixed at the precise point of death is not clear in the Bible. We know we are judged, but this does not preclude purgatory, which is simply a portion of that entire process. Nothing in the Bible indicates that either God's work of grace in us or judgment is speedily completed upon death. We do not even know for sure the ultimate salvation or damnation of anyone. Thus, it follows that we can pray for the souls of all men, and commend them to God's grace and mercy. On the other hand, there is much indication in the Bible in favor of some notion of purgatory, to be seen below.
Most of us end our earthly sojourn far short of sainthood and yet not utterly within the grips of sin. Moreover, some who have been notoriously wicked repent at the last moment (e.g., the thief on the cross), and God will not reject any penitent sinner. Such a death-bed penitent must atone for his life-long transgressions. Nothing defiled can enter heaven. But it would seem that anyone in the "friendship" of God would not deserve the fate of eternal hellfire. Hence, there must exist some process of purgation by which man is fashioned into a creature worthy of entrance into the all-holy presence of God.
Seen in this light, purgatory, contrary to the Protestant horror of it, is actually one of the most merciful aspects of God's love for us, and very consoling to the human heart. Since, in Catholic doctrine, sin is real and must be truly eradicated, not just "covered up," as in Protestantism, a change must occur in all of us sinners after death. Purgatory alone retains both God's loving and holy attributes as pertaining to the Judgment of each human being. A patient who has the assurance of recovery willingly endures the surgeon's knife or other unpleasant remedies. Purgatory is the vestibule of heaven. All of its sufferings are inflicted and endured in love.
The Catholic Church has not declared dogmatically whether or not there is "fire" in purgatory, and the "fire" might be metaphorical, yet the idea of refinement is present either way. There is no comparison between the sufferings in purgatory and those in hell. That in purgatory is temporary, is full of assured hope, it is willingly borne with resolve and patience, and accompanied with intense spiritual joy. The souls in purgatory can also pray and obtain blessings for those on earth, with great charity commensurate with their relative closeness to God.
Rev. 5:8 - the prayers of the saints (on heaven and earth) are presented to God. This proves the saints intercede on our behalf before God.
Rev. 6:9-11 - God answers the prayers of the saints. He avenges their blood. We therefore ask for their intercession.
Rev. 8:3-4 - in heaven the prayers of the saints rise up as incense before God and elicit various kinds of earthly activity.
Really?
C.S. Lewis is a Protestant and a brilliant literary giant, but I do not read him for systematic theology.
As to the NT Quotes:
The sin against the Holy Spirit. I see no mention of purging fires (as does St. Isidore) nor do I agree with the implication of Augustine (et al.) from the biblical statement that this corrollary is implied. Slim speculation I'd say, even though I consider Augustine, Gregory, etc. serious students of Scripture. Virtually all of Protestant scholarship does not embrace their deduction.
Regarding the 1 Corinthian 3 passage the issue in is reward or loss of reward not forgiveness. How does this text prove an intermediate state? I see this as the same event as the judgment seat of Christ (the bema) in Romans 14:10.
Other Points:
[1] Protestants do not teach sins are covered up after the death of Christ. The Day of Atonement in the OT was indeed a covering of sins looking forward to the final sacrifice of Christ. Christ paid the full legal penalty for my sins by dying in my place. By faith I am declared rightewous and there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
[2]RC theology, IMHO, confuses justification and sanctification. Justification comes as we receive the GIFT of eternal (not conditional) life. Sanctification is the basis for REWARD. The difference between gift and reward is crucial.
[3] The Bible says "these things were written that you may know that you have eternal life." RC theology, if I am not mistaken, does teach that the Pope by special revelation is assurred of his eternal destiny. In any case, I think the NT gives more warrant for a believer's assurrance than you might think.
I know you see these issues differently -- and I have not taken the time to write a detailed response. Yet hopefully these thoughts give some indication of why I have such a confidence in the One who said "It is finished," in Whom I have put my full trust for forgiveness and Whom fully bore my guilt and my shame. Such assurrance humbles me and makes me want to serve Him as a way of expressing my gratitude. Fear has given way to overwhelming appreciation.
I wish you God's blessings and respect the sincerity of your beliefs.
Rev 6:9-11 -- Martyrs in heaven ask a question and receive an answer from God regarding the timing of His vengance. To generalize this into saints praying for us (as in the RC church) is more imaginative than I can handle.
Rev. 8:3-4 -- No indication that these prayers are not those of living saints brought to God and answered by God. Once again, I do not see anything like the practice of praying to saints or asking saints to pray for us as taught and practiced by the RC Church in this text.
Thanks for the reply and the opportunity to read Scripture. The heavenly scene in Revelation is a great source of comfort to me. That my prayers are so valued by God is humbling!
I think one of the missing links is to understand how important the early Church Fathers are to Roman Catholic thought. They are the ones who tell us what should be in the Bible. They are the ones who learned from the Apostles. They are the ones who tell us the basic interpretation of the Christian faith that codified and embraced the books of the Bible and they provide the base for both Catholic and Orthodox theological methods.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
