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
The Profession of Faith almost universally used in the Liturgy is the "Nicean Creed" and is as follows:
We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, make of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father, Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father, He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.
What's unscriptural about that? What exactly is it your pastor is teaching that runs counter to these statements of faith?
cj
The teaching of the Catholic Church is that our departed brothers and sisters in Christ reign in heaven with God, who is a god of the living (cf. Matthew 22:32), and therefore enjoy an especially close relationship with him. This does not deny that Christians still combating their way through the trials of this world are saints (from the Latin for holy, sanctus), because we are children of God even now. But in the new life, we will be like God:
Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. (1 John 3)
In heaven, we will reach the fullness of the image of God.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. (1 Cor 13)
The saints are to God like stained glass is to sunlight. Light from the sun is white, but when passed through a prism or colored glass, it's constitution becomes evident: the many colors that combine to form its radiance dance varied hues and textures to reveal the hidden perfections of the original light beam. So it is with the saints. Their lives and their faith show the perfections of God's holiness shining through our human weakness. By contemplating and honoring their goodness, we come better to know and revere the overawing holiness of God.
Lorraine Boettner. Man, that guy is a riot. You know, during my "revert" stage, I had been reading several tracts from Catholic Answers, and had been "discovering" for the first time, the proof of the faith of my childhood. After awhile though, I decided that I wanted to read more about it in a library, so I did a card catalog search on "Roman Catholicism" and voila, up comes Boettner's work. So I'm reading through it, and my exhuberance for my newfound discovery is quickly whooshing out of me. I returned to my Catholic friend (who had directed me to Catholic Answers), and he gave me "Catholicism and Fundamentalism." The book was basically written in response to Boettner's book and exposed it for the fraud it is. Funny though, on a different thread on here regarding Severetus' death at the hands of John Calvin, someone trotted out Boettner as an authority on the era. LOL -- Anyone who bases their historical opinion on a subject using Lorraine Boettner is either a liar, a fool, or both.
My reference was not to the Tridentine movement but to the 1564 document following the Council of Trent that brought together essential Catholic doctrine. This confession (historically referred to as the Tridentine Profession of Faith) at the time it was written and for sometime thereafter was required of any Protestants desiring to unite /reunite with the RC church. See my later posts.
I also bellieve for a Christian to be absent from the body (via death) is to be present with the Lord (although the body remains in the grave awaiting the return of Christ.). 1 Thes. 4:13f...
In fact, I agree with the contents of your post. My question was why the text cited should be seen as referring to other than the prayers of living saints on earth? Granted there are always saints in God's presence, granted that Jesus ever lives to intercede for us, I just don't see from this text that saints in heaven either pray for us or we pray to them.
I think your last paragraph is sound and especially well stated.
Really? That's what it says? Why don't you provide me with the correct citation and link to a source, otherwise you must retract that statement. Oh, by the way, in case you're wondering (which you must be, seeing as how you don't even know what you're talking about with reference to Trent), the actual source of that deceiving, distorted and misrepresentational exerpt from Trent you supplied, actually says it thusly:
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.
Just for your future reference, it's probably a good idea for you to actually know what you're talking about before posting. In case you want to be honest next time, try this link:
http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent.htm
It's a primary source for the Council of Trent. You might want to tell whomever it was that passed off that horrible deceitful and inaccurate exerpt from Trent that he/she is deceiving others by presenting it as a faithful presentation of Canon XI. If you dont', you are a liar by assocation, for knowingly letting someone else deceive others.
The saints are our fellow Christians who have died in God's favor, and now stand before God face to face, in the closest union with him. God is well pleased with them, and so, like a doting grandparent, he is especially willing to grant their petitions.
When we here on earth have recourse to the saints by praying to them, we are merely asking them to ask God for us. The use of the word `pray' might put off some people here, but when we pray to the saints, we are not praying to them as to God. This use of `pray' is similar to the older use of the word as in `praying to the court' to mean petitioning the court.
But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. In the eyes of the foolish they seemed to have died, and their departure was thought to be an affliction, and their going from us to be their destruction; but they are at peace. For though in the sight of men they were punished, their hope is full of immortality. Having been disciplined a little, they will receive great good, because God tested them and found them worthy of himself; like gold in the furnace he tried them, and like a sacrificial burnt offering he accepted them. In the time of their visitation they will shine forth, and will run like sparks through the stubble. They will govern nations and rule over peoples, and the Lord will reign over them for ever. Those who trust in him will understand truth, and the faithful will abide with him in love, because grace and mercy are upon his elect, and he watches over his holy ones.
Wisdom 3:1-9 (cf. Daniel 12:1-3)
After many years of praying directly to God for a particular favor, I had recourse to ask a particular saint to "intercede" on my behalf. The saint is St. Francis of Assisi and the place where I offered my prayer was in his Porziuncola (a small church given to his order by the Dominicans.) St. Francis told his brothers that the church was truly holy that God and His blessed mother were present and that whoever asked with a sincere heart, their prayer would be answered.
Not all catholics ask for the intercession of saints. We are, however, encouraged to read the stories of the saints in order to learn from their faith.
At what point in Christian history do you think the Catholic Church erroneously began this practice and belief regarding the prayers of saints?
What do you mean by this statement?
Just doing some hasty research, I find that Clement of Alexandria wrote: "In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer]" (Miscellanies 7:12 [A.D. 208]).
And Origen writes: "But not the high priest [Christ] alone prays for those who pray sincerely, but also the angels . . . as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep" (Prayer 11 [A.D. 233]).
So, by the beginning of the 3rd century, we see that the practice is already firmly in place. Of course, the Jews had already been practicing this (as evidenced by Maccabees as well as the yearlong "Mourner's Qaddish"). Maccabees, incidentally, was part of the Septuagint -- the Greek translation of the Old Testament used by the Apostles. I'm unaware of any apostolic warning to stay aware from certain books contained within the Old Testament (although the Council of Javneh/Jamnia, in 70 AD, an anti-Christian council, certainly had a problem with that particular translation; yet I wouldn't appeal to an anti-Christian Jewish council for anything authoritatively binding on a Christian conscience).
Further, Clement of Alexandria had this to say about the idea of purgatory:
"Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more--not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God's righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness." Clement of Alexandria,Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504
So, it would seem that the topic was firmly established around the beginning of the 3rd century. At least, according to the scant research I've been able to cobble together in the last few minutes online.
I have not read William Jurgen nor do I consider myself an early church scholar. Not that I have not read more than the average bear in these areas, but one can not be an expert in all fields. I have read a fair amount of the early fathers writings.
For the past 25 years I have been a pastor of a flock large enough and with enough responsibilities to keep me from the degree of research done during seminary training.
Also, FYI, I grew up a Methodist, was baptized in a SOuthern Baptist church during college, attended an independent seminary, a Orthodox Presbyterian seminary, a Southern Baptist seminary and have pastored churches drawing from almost every religious tradition imaginable.
Ahhh, my mistake. When you said "church history," I assumed you meant inclusive of the patristic age. And that was the context of the sentiment expressed by John Henry Newman. He started out as an Anglican, and in setting out to prove the Anglican Church by virtue of the history of Christianity, ended up converting to Catholicism in the process because of what he found.
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.
