Catholics Are Just Wrong


imagesAman: It is still the pope that had the final word on which books made it. Which is the most distubing thing Ive learned in a while. In history, and the present, how good is the track record for cardinals, bishops and popes? There isnt enough room on this page to count all the scandals.

BFHU: Hmmmmm. You are right. It would be very disturbing to Sola Scriptura Protestants. Since you do not trust mere men…..but wait! All of the authors of all of the books of Sacred Scripture were mere men. Isn’t that disturbing to you as well? So, how could you trust Scripture to be TRUE since it is written by mere men who were also subject to sin?

Aman:I dont know about you but I dont trust a man, and I repeat a man, that surrounds himself with the luxuries and wealth of the world, wears red prada shoes, expensive jewelery,wears a hat that originally was designed for pagan leaders for worship to their fish god Dagon.Billions of dollars has been spent to build the worlds most lavish churches instead of using it feed and shelter the hungry and poor.

BFHU: Let me clear some things up for you. All the wealth at the Vatican and the museums and the beautiful Catholic churches around the world were donations by the faithful to offer things and build churches of great beauty. You know someone in scripture also complained about the expense “wasted” on Jesus. 

The Precious Ointment

Mark 14:While He was in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper, and reclining at the table, there came a woman with an alabaster vial of very costly perfume of pure nard; and she broke the vial and poured it over His head. But some were indignantly remarking to one another, “Why has this perfume been wasted? For this perfume might have been sold for over three hundred denarii, (Nearly a year’s worth of wages) and the money given to the poor.” And they were scolding her. 6 But Jesus said, “Let her alone; why do you bother her? She has done a good deed to Me. For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me.

Bishops hat

The hats worn by bishops is very odd. But they are to look like the flames of fire that fell on the apostles on Pentecost.

Aman: Pretty sure this is not what jesus had in mind. Tell me one story where Jesus put money or scripture in front of caring for others in need. Show me one description of jesus wearing expensive jewelery or expensive clothes. Think as if you were Jesus and then ask yourself if you would accept the corrupt nature of the Vatican and its hierarchy.

BFHU: The Popes personally do not desire to wear expensive anything. These things are given to the pope to honor the vicar of Christ on Earth. To honor Jesus through the man chosen as pope. And as we see above Jesus certainly accepted a gift of precious oil as the woman sought to honor Him. I think you are imposing your own opinion on Jesus rather than reading scripture  and letting it form your faith.

Aman:Why would the pope pray to the Madonna for protection and pray to statues instead of god???!! Might as well build a golden calf in the middle of St peters Square for people to worship as well. This is sounding familiar. God didnt like it the first time people prayed and worshiped to statues, what makes you think hes ok with that now?

BFHU: The pope and Catholics do not worship statues. You are mistaken because you are judging us based on your own bias. We believe in asking for intercessory prayer from our brothers and sisters in Christ. Unlike Protestants we know that those who died in Christ are alive in Heaven and we also ask for their prayers. That is all we are doing when we pray in front of a statue or picture of a Saint. And we know God is OK with that b/c He answers our prayers more quickly through His Saints. If it was not efficacious we would have stopped long ago.

Aman: Popes and priests cannot forgive you for your sins. ONLY GOD CAN DO THAT!

BFHU: Where does it say this in Scripture? Wait there is something about this in scripture.

Mark 2:And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?

How do you explain this verse where Jesus gave His apostles the power to forgive or not forgive sin?

JOHN 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

Advertisements

Why Does the Catholic Church Use Language that Misleads Protestants?



Phillip: I just wish the Fathers at the Council of Trent did not use such misleading language. It all is very misleading to Protestant eyes.

BFHU: My husband has the same complaint but Catholic language was chosen and used for centuries before the Protestants came along. The vocabulary and language used by our theologians is very precise in meaning and very beautifully expressed. And the Church should not change the words used for people who are hell-bent to criticize the Catholic Church for anything and everything they can find.

It is actually a very curious thing that even after 500 years Protestants still accuse us of worshiping Mary even though we have been telling them for 500 years that we do not worship Mary. The same can be said for most other areas of disagreement. Why? Why is that?

For some reason they really don’t care what we say about our beliefs; They believe that they are able to determine that the Catholic Church is at fault no matter what the Church says or how the Church tries to explain the misunderstanding. Really it is a subtle kind of arrogance that they are totally unaware of in themselves. They would be appalled at the thought of being arrogant. I know they do not want to be or mean to be arrogant. But Protestantism, by its very nature breeds arrogance and is constitutionally incapable of breeding true, deep humility. This is b/c each one is encouraged and taught that they alone, all on their own, with no help from anyone else can know exactly what scriptures, written 2000 years ago, in a very different culture, mean b/c the Holy Spirit will lead them. And despite the abundant evidence that this theory has been disproven by all the factions and denominations and diametrically opposed “leadings of the Holy Spirit”, they will still insist in their heart of hearts that THEY ARE LED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Humility doesn’t have a chance. And the weird thing is they truly DO want to be holy and humble. But this foundation of Scripture-Alone-Interpreted By-Me-Alone is sand upon which sturdy humility cannot and will not be built.

How did the canon develop?


Canon of Scripture: What criteria did the early Christians use to determine it?

How did the Old Testament canon develop?

What books did the Church Fathers exclude from the Bible and why?

Sola Scriptura Impossible for 400 Years


Charles: The Holy spirit gave us the Bible and the NT gospels and letters which
had been used for 300 years by christians before the official canon
was adopted. Christians already knew the accepted NT scriptures.

BFHU: What you say is correct. But there is more….The Christians were also familiar and accepted other writings for use in liturgy that were not later canonized. But no one is trying to convince anyone that no one knew or read any of the writings that were canonized 400 years later. The point is that people who believe in sola scriptura and Luther himself, possessed the whole Bible. It seems to make a lot of sense to believe that one should use ONLY the Bible to derive doctrine for Christian belief.

But most people never realize that there are many problems with this idea. For instance:

1. This cannot have been a divine principle because the Bible as we now know it was not known for 400 years after the birth of Christ.

2. Most Churches for years did not possess a complete set of the writings that centuries later became what we know today at the Bible.

3. For the first 400 years of Christianity or so churches read excellent writings in their liturgies that were later NOT canonized.

4. Scripture must be interpreted. To decide which of several differing interpretations is authentic one MUST go outside of the Bible and determine what has always and everywhere been believed. But b/c Protestants do not understand that they do not have infallible interpretation, they split and split and split into various sects based on differing interpretations.

5. Sola Scriptura is not found in scripture and is therefore self-refuting.

6. Jesus never told the disciples to write the New Testament.

7. The Bible is not a book of systematic theology therefore it is VERY difficult to derive doctrine from it alone.

8. Protestants, without realizing it, automatically adopted a lot of Catholic doctrine and Tradition (and rejected others) . They did not really sit down with the Bible Alone and make up their religions. That is why most Protestants believe in the Trinity and yet this doctrine is not clearly explicated in scripture alone and the word never appears in Scripture. This doctrine was clarified at Catholic Church councils. Primarily the Nicean council.

Who Has the Historical Scriptural Interpretations? Catholic Church or Protestants?


 

ARNE: 
Your opinion on how the compilation of the canon came about seems rather simple to me, as if it is the merit of the RCC in itself. But even if this be true, what gives them the, even slightest, right to claim that their understanding of this writings is the only correct one! It is downright false that the Catholic church( at least in the meaning RCC) wrote this books( you say: ” the very people who wrote it and approved it ” ) They were written early/mid 1.st century before the RCC even existed! So to claim that the RCC for that reason has any exclusive right to their understanding, is not acceptable.

BFHU: There is no “merit” of the Catholic Church due for the canon. The point is that the Catholic Church and the teachings of the Catholic Church have existed from the beginning. We know that it was called the CATHOLIC Church in the early 2nd century.

110 A.D. St. Ignatius: …even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

The authors of the New Testament were taught by Jesus Christ Himself or one of His apostles. So very unlikely for error to have crept in already. So, we have:

John 6:53 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55 For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.57 As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.

and…

I Cor 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Then 1500 -2012 years later, we have Protestants insisting that this was all symbolic and did not mean a literal eating and drinking of the Lord’s body and blood but eating and drinking the Scriptures. And Protestant pastors make a good case for this by emphasizing certain verses in John 6 and reinterpreting and translating I Cor 11. Thus they reject the idea the communion is anything but a symbolic ordinance. The problem is that if one scratches the surface of this argument it bleeds to death.

First of all Martin Luther believed in the real presence of Jesus’ body and blood in the Eucharist. And Lutherans do to this day but their doctrine is a bit different than the Catholic transubstantiation. Still they do not believe it is mere symbolism.

Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.

Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.” —Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391

Secondly, we have very early preserved writings that attest to the fact that the earliest Christians believed that the Eucharist was the literal Body and Blood of Jesus.

The writings of the early Church Fathers tell us what these first century Christians believed about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. In 110 A.D. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was taught the Christian faith by the apostle John, wrote about the heretics of his day:

“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ. Flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His goodness raised up again.” Letter to the Smyrneans 6,2

150 AD–St Justin Martyr wrote to the Emperor of Rome around :

“We call this food Eucharist; and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true…For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, is both the Flesh and the Blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66,20 )

180 ADSt. Irenaeus, was the bishop of Lyons, France and a student of St. Polycarp who sat at the feet of the Apostle John. St. Irenaeus wrote around :

“He (Jesus) has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be His own Blood, from which He causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, He has established as His own Body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.” (Against Heresies, 5,2,2 )

350 AD St Cyril of Jerusalem, in a teaching to those coming into the Church wrote in :

Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the Body and Blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the Body and Blood of Christ.” (Catechetical Lectures:(Mystagogic 4) 22,6 )

Thus we see that the Christian Church, at the very beginning of its history taught and believed that the bread and wine of communion was transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ in fulfillment of Jesus’ discourse on the Bread From Heaven in John 6 and the plain sense of His words at the institution of Communion at the Last Supper. “This is My Body” This is My Blood”

This is the same Church that Jesus founded on Peter and the Apostles.

This is the same church that Jesus promised the Gates of Hell would never overcome.

This is the same Church that chose the books of the Bible out of all the other books floating around the ancient world, at the end of the fourth century.

This is the same Church that was called Catholic at least as early as 110 AD.

This is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Ancient, but ever young.

So, Arne, the new testament documents were written in the first century AD. We have documentary historical evidence that what Catholics believe about the Eucharist was believed at the dawn of Christianity and is still believed to this day. It is reasonable to determine that these beliefs have always been and it was the Protestants who later came along and rejected these beliefs and reinterpreted scripture to fit their paradigm,

If you think that the Protestant understanding of the Eucharist (And this could be done for all the Catholic doctrines more or less) is correct 2,012 years after the birth of our Lord but the Catholic understanding just has to be wrong despite what scripture clearly says and what the earliest Christians believed then there is nothing more to be said.

Are the Gospels Really True?


Did The Catholic Church Add Books to the Bible?



Q. When did Catholics add books to the Bible?

A. They never did. The Jews and the Protestants removed books from the OT.
The Catholic Church simply received the Septuagint version of the Hebrew scriptures, from the Jews, at the time of Christ. This became known as the Old Testament. 70 years later, the Jews removed 7 Old Testament books from the Septuagint. The reason given for this was that they could no longer find those books in Hebrew.

Interestingly some of these books were being used to good advantage to make converts among the Jews. For example:

This passage prophesies and describes the attitude of the enemies of Jesus hundreds of years before His birth:

The Book of Wisdom
2.1a, 12-22

The wicked said among themselves, thinking not aright:

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself as a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men’s and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him. These were their thoughts, but they erred, for their wickedness blinded them, and they knew not the hidden counsels of God neither did they count on a recompense of holiness nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.

Prayers for the dead and support for Purgatory (since people in Heaven don’t need prayers and people in Hell can’t be helped by prayers) are scriptural based on the following passage.

II Maccabees 12:44-45

For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

In 1529, Martin Luther removed the same 7 books from the Catholic Old Testament, that the Jews had removed1400 years earlier. Luther also removed 4 New Testament books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) that did not agree with his theology, for his German translation. These books were removed from their original place in the order of the books and placed together at the end of the Bible. In later editions, he was persuaded to return the New Testament books to to their proper position in his translation of the Bible. Today Protestant Bibles don’t contain 7 Old Testament books at all.

Q. What is the Septuagint?

A. In the centuries leading up to the birth of Christ the Jews were living all over the known world. Greek was the language of commerce and scholarship. Over time it became harder and harder to maintain a wide knowledge of Hebrew among the Jews because more and more were speaking only Greek. The Jews in Alexandria set about to make a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures. This translation was completed between 250-125 BC by 70 Jewish scholars. Septuagint means 70 in Latin.

Scholars are certain that Jesus and the early Christians accepted the Septuagint version of the Old Testament because etymological studies of 300 quotes from the Old Testament made by the New Testament writers can be traced back to the Septuagint version. There are also NT quotes that can be traced back to the Hebrew OT but these are far fewer in number. So, if Jesus had rejected the Septuagint the New Testament writers seemed to know nothing about it since they all used it quite freely.

For More click –> Five Myths About the Seven Books

Technorati Tags: , , ,