Keith Devens .com

Why I'm not a Roman Catholic

I want to start a series of "Why I'm Not a" lists. Back in the day, I had an "opinions" section of my website where I had stuff about Roman Catholicism, Christian Science, etc. explaining why I disagreed with them. Unfortunately, they were pretty poor, and I never worked on them, so I removed them after a little while.

Then recently I had a short discussion with a Roman Catholic who e-mailed me about a comment I had on my Christianity page about Roman Catholicism. I challenged him to explain some of the strange doctrines of Roman Catholicism, but I had to remember the many many issues I had off the top of my head (there are so many I never remember them all at the same time). Furthermore, since I came of with the list on the spot, I couldn't document everything.

So, I'd like to start keeping a list of my gripes with various religions, issues, etc. The lists will focus on "negative" comments, negative meaning that my points will be criticisms of the belief system, rather than "positive" statements about Christianity. You'll get an idea from the list I'm about to start in this post, but basically I'm unashamedly coming from within the Christian worldview in my comments. A "positive" statement, "Why I am a Christian", is a separate document to create another day

So, without further adieu, here's my preliminary list of reasons Why I'm Not a Roman Catholic:

I don't believe the Pope can speak infallibly
The apocrypha isn't Scripture
Purgatory is not a Scriptural concept - it's taught nowhere in Scripture, and in fact it's precluded by Scripture
The transubstantiation is a very weird doctrine, for a whole bunch of reasons. It turns Christians into cannibals, it seems to obviously misunderstand Christ's symbolism, and it's just plain against the laws of nature.
Mary wasn't a virgin her whole life, neither was she born through an immaculate conception.
We're saved by faith, not by works. Roman Catholicism is a works based religion. To be fair, it's only "partially" a works based religion - they do believe faith matters of course, but Scripture says we're saved by faith, and not by works. Once you make any works the basis of your salvation, you're screwed.
No one is to be called "father" but our father in Heaven.
It's against the teaching of Scripture for priests to have to be celibate. In fact, you can make a strong case that priests should be married, according to Scripture.
I believe the Roman Catholic Church commits idolatry through prayer to Mary and the saints. Mary is a human, she's dead, she doesn't intercede at all for us, etc.
The Church's view of what a "saint" is is warped. The Bible considers any believer a saint. The Roman Catholic Church turns it into some kind of title to be earned.
We are not obligated to confess our sins to a priest, only to God.
A priest, furthermore, has no power to forgive, only God can.
A Christian cannot lose his salvation. The Church teaches that you can and you have to "earn" it back if you do.
The Church confuses sanctification and justification. It teaches that we are finally saved by our own inherent righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ. "Infused" vs. "Inputed", etc.

See, I've run out of things already, but I'm sure I have lots more. Ideally, I'll later document every one of these statements with a reference in the Catholic encyclopedia or other Catholic reference source, and provide a corresponding counter point from the Bible or one of the reformed catechisms.

Permalink | 50 Comments | Tags: Roman Catholicism | id 2624

02:37 (utc-4)
edited: 02:52 (utc-4)

Comments

As a roman catholic (and one who teaches catholicism through the sacrament of confirmation), I can't help but smile at your comments. These are many of the problems people have with roman catholicism (catholicism for simplicity).

I think it might be beneficial for you to make posative and normative comments, instead of what you are calling posative and negative. That is, whereas "posative" comments/statements are factual statements, and "normative" statements are "out to be"-type statements. Perhaps a grouping of posative and normative statements would be beneficial for your lists.

i.e., "I do not agree with the inclusion of the apocrypha with other scripture." and "The apocrypha should not be considered Scripture by Catholics."

Anyhow, back to a productive comment. A theme throughout your comments is the lack of understanding of the nature of the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that the works of the bible are only part of the religion--they are only part of the mystery of christ and G-d. The dogma of the church--the subject of most of your comments--is weighted equally with the texts. As the catholic church is the same christian church that has existed since the first "christians" (or the first messianic jews, however you look at it) were around, its dogma is the collective dogma of christianity, up until the reformation. Now, there are some strange things in the catholic tradition. Some of those are due to corruption that occured in the church when it was also a political and land-owning outlet.

Also, in catholicism, there are doctrines, and then there are teachings. Doctrines like transubstantiation and others, are the foundations of catholicism; while teachings like no contraception, are given less emphasis.

I think that catholicism is simply a different style of religion. I have trouble believing any concreate statement about religion. The fact that all of the information that we do not directly experience is tempered by the experience of others makes any real knowledge of the past or external events suspect. We must act on a combination of what we can rationally comprehend and what we feel is correct.

Often times, I fall into a rational analysis of things like the transubstantiation, and I have my doubts. But then, I let myself become part of the experience, and I find my faith reason again.

I often make this shuffle. I move from rational thought to faith, and back again. In the middle, there is the true meaning of the experience. What I enjoy about catholicism today is the tolerance of other religions in personal faith. For instance, I feel that aspects of Buddhism and Celtic spirituality make my catholic beliefs stronger. It also helps me appreciate my faith tradition for what it is--"my faith tradition."

Now, there a specific responses to each of your comments. I will be happy to respond to them if you like. Just let me know.

Hey Tom (Buddha?)

and one who teaches catholicism through the sacrament of confirmation

That's not a sacrament!

I think it might be beneficial for you to make posative and normative comments, instead of what you are calling posative and negative. That is, whereas "posative" comments/statements are factual statements, and "normative" statements are "out to be"-type statements. Perhaps a grouping of posative and normative statements would be beneficial for your lists.

i.e., "I do not agree with the inclusion of the apocrypha with other scripture." and "The apocrypha should not be considered Scripture by Catholics."

Your spelling and wording are confusing me. I think you meant "positive" and "ought to be". I've also never heard "positive" used with normative the way you're using the words. Usually it's normative (or prescriptive) and descriptive...

Anyway, I think what you're getting at is that I should preface all my statements with "I believe", or "I don't think", which would seem to indicate that my statements are only personal opinions and not necessarily factual. Those types of wordings make for weak writing and add nothing meaningful to the statements. I realize it would make you feel better if I didn't appear to be making truth claims, but... no.

Catholics believe that the works of the bible are only part of the religion--they are only part of the mystery of christ and G-d. The dogma of the church--the subject of most of your comments--is weighted equally with the texts.

Exactly. Which is the the Church's main problem. They depart from sola scriptura and set their own standards above those that Scripture sets.

As the catholic church is the same christian church that has existed since the first "christians" ... were around...

If you're using the lowercase "catholic", then you're not saying anything -- or you're just saying a tautology. If you mean the uppercase Catholic, then that's clearly false. Certainly Christianity was not practiced in the first century in any form close to that of the current Roman Catholic church.

its dogma is the collective dogma of christianity, up until the reformation.

And again that's not true. Catholics present this monolithic view of "church history" as if everyone was in complete agreement with the Roman Catholic church until the heretical reformers broke with tradition. That's simply not the case.

Also, in catholicism, there are doctrines, and then there are teachings. Doctrines like transubstantiation and others, are the foundations of catholicism; while teachings like no contraception, are given less emphasis.

Ok, I'll keep that in mind. I didn't mention any of the "teachings", however, since I understand that certain things are less fundamental to the Church than others. Otherwise, I might have included the Church's stance that macro-evolution is compatible with Christianity as one of my gripes

I think that catholicism is simply a different style of religion. I have trouble believing any concreate statement about religion. The fact that all of the information that we do not directly experience is tempered by the experience of others makes any real knowledge of the past or external events suspect. We must act on a combination of what we can rationally comprehend and what we feel is correct.

The very fact that God gave us Scripture and expects us to understand and follow it presupposes a view contradictory to the one you've just propounded.

Often times, I fall into a rational analysis of things like the transubstantiation, and I have my doubts. But then, I let myself become part of the experience, and I find my faith reason again.

So what you're saying is that your belief system is not rational?

I often make this shuffle. I move from rational thought to faith, and back again.

And in contrast to this are the Bible's statements that faith is the foundation for knowledge, wisdom, reason, etc. Faith is not a non-rational thing, where we have to suspend reason to have it. Faith certainly goes beyond reason, but the distinction you're making seems to be the same type of false dilemma that people make between "science and religion".

Now, there a specific responses to each of your comments. I will be happy to respond to them if you like.

Ok, wait a bit As I said before I want to produce documentation for everything I've said. Let me research everything, provide references, expand on everything, etc. At that point, I think comments and responses will be more productive.

Keith,

Justin tells me that you have a test to study for, so feel no obligation to respond to this tonight, or any time before your test.

I wasn't quite sure how you would respond, so I suppose I shouldn't be suprised by the way in which you have responded to my different points. That is, in an abrasive and defensive manner. But that's fine, it's your blog--I guess you are entitled.

My comments about your post were not meant as an attack on what you had written, but more, a view of your comments from a different perspective. One thing that I fold very dear is that people are entitled to their own opinions, but that as more information is shared, more tolerence will result, which in turn, serves to change people's opinions.

My usage of posative and normative is based in economics (as in social analysis). I apoligize for the confusion. Your "prescriptive" and "descriptive" seem to work just as well. You're correct, there were more or less to make me feel better and for you to be less brash. Although, since you stated that these were your opinions, it is clear that what you are stating (although it sounds as though you are stating fact) is simply opinion. So, you are correct, I suppose my comments in this regard were unnecessary.

The comments about the faith tradition / dogma: I think you are imagining the church tradition incorrectly. We do not hold the tradition component above the scriptural component. We hold them side by side. We do this for at least one central reason, which I was hoping to formulate more cogently that I am going to relay it now, but oh well. We believe in the "chuch militant," the "community of believers," the "communion of saints," or otherwise known as the "body of Christ" or everyone in the world. We believe that these folks, you and I, and everyone else, are part of humanity's experience. All of us together make up not only G-d's children, but also the potential Kingdom of God. We are all in it together. Therefore, how the church has grown up over the years--how we have come to realize our faith--is very important to how the church will continue.

Comments about the church tradition and church history: I don't believe I mentioned the first century. As far as my use of "catholic" versus "Catholic" goes, assume both to be Catholic, as in the aggregate faith tradition of what is now called the Roman Catholic Church. If I wish to use "catholic" to mean "universal," for clarity, I will state it that way. In my comments that you replied to, I was not suggested that the catholic church was the same organization when christianity began as it is today. That would be foolish. All faith traditions change over time. What I was suggesting is that what is currently the catholic church is the the aged version of what existed in the dawn of christianity. Its traditions go back to that time (granted, not all of them). Other christian faiths are derivative of the original church. That is what I was trying to say.

Teachings and doctrine: Yes, that's correct, you didn't mention any gripes about the minor teachings. I wasn't noting that you did. It was simply additional information. This macro-evolution bit... well, I'm not quite sure what to say. The concept of the creation story being literally true is just not something that I can take stock in. But more importantly, it is not central to Christianity or even Judaism for it to be literally true. The point of christianity as I can see is not that we were direct manipulations of the hands of G-d.

Inerrant View of the Bible: I will just lay this out on the table: I do not accept or believe that the bible or scripture is inerrant. I believe it is text inspired by G-d, but I do not hold that it is an accurate representation of events, or necessarily intended to be so. There is more evidence (as far as I know) that they are inspired or simply fictional than that evidence (if there could be any) that supports an inerrest viewpoint. It seems reasonable and logical that the words in "scripture" were inspired, and intended for the audience they were written for--to give them hope during the times they needed it, and earlier, in the pentatuch (sp), as a guide for living. If we take these texts for historical documents and inspirational works, we can derive a lot of benefit. If we take them as literal works or commands, then we are applying a standard to ourselves that might be impossible to meet. Not that such a thing is a bad idea (impossible standards have their merit). But I am trying to note that this might be a standard that doesn't suit us. Now, this is one view, and you seem to take things literally. If that fulfills you and helps you find faith, then more power to you. I am simply presenting a widely held view.

Rationality and Faith: I am saying (evidently, I did this poorly the first time) that on most levels, I am satisfied by the totally rational eliments of the catholic faith tradition. However, the tradition has a level that is, as you say, beyond reason. That is, acheiving a comprehension and understanding of this requires a leap, a committment. I am trying to communicate that the catholic faith tradition is not fullfilled by a rational understanding of the collected doctrine, teachings and experiences, ,but rather, through the living of the faith, ,which includes elements that are beyond reason.

Back to the beginning with the sacrament labeling: confirmation is indeed a sacrament in the catholic tradition. I understand that you do not accept it as so. My point of relaying the information was to indicate that I had a vested interest in explaining my faith tradition to others (and that I did so actively). I assumed that by doing so, you would more understand where I am coming from.

My point in making these comments was to give you a different perspective, and to in time provide you with a catholic's response to your points. I realize that the section was entitled "Why I'm Not a Roman Catholic." What I expected to read were points noting your disagreement with or your lack of understanding of chruch stances. I suppose that in a form, that is what you wrote. However, it was from a perspective of a person who seems to have chosen a stance that in almost every way is opposed to the Chruch. Instead, a subject of "Why the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong" or some variation of that would have suited better. You seem to have taken your stance, and are unwilling to understand the stance of others. That, sir, is a might unfortunate. I for one would like to better understand your perspective. I will have to go back and read earlier posts on this topic.

I have started my comments on your points already. I will not post them, but I would like to send them to you, only so you can have more information. If you choose not to read them, it would certainly be a nice exercise for me anyhow.

Hey Tom, sorry this took a few days [er, a couple weeks - I wrote this in pieces]. I'm beginning to recover after Harvard kicked my ass [and my subsequent bout with poison ivy]. I've been busy too... I just saw a They Might Be Giants concert! They were good, and I didn't realize they did the theme to Malcolm in the Middle

Anyway, I'm sorry you found my reply "abrasive and defensive". I certainly didn't intend to be "abrasive" and I'm sorry you took it that way. Also, I don't think I was defensive at all. You said things, I responded to them. That's just dialogue.

You're correct, there were more or less to make me feel better and for you to be less brash. Although, since you stated that these were your opinions, it is clear that what you are stating (although it sounds as though you are stating fact) is simply opinion.

It has nothing to do with being brash, or proud, or arrogant.

It's just how language works, you're not supposed to preface everything you say with a qualifier like that.
You're making a false distinction here. My comments aren't "simply opinion", as if they were just "preferences" like liking mint chip ice cream. For some reason, people seem to get the idea that if something's an "opinion", it has nothing to do with fact. How many times have you heard statements dismissed with "Oh, well that's just your opinion"?. Of course what I said relayed my opinions, how could it not? But just because they're my opinions doesn't mean they don't have factual content.

We do not hold the tradition component above the scriptural component. We hold them side by side.

I've learned that your statement is what everyone who has a similar belief structure says. One of the things I've discovered over the past few years after talking to people who believe in various religions, is that the structure of most religions is very similar. The "tradition component" is actually very widely found in different religions - it's one of the stronger correlating factors.

Almost every religion (besides Christianity) that I've ever encountered has a similar view. Islam, Christian Science, Mormonism, Buddhism (maybe just the sect of the person I talked to - potentially not in general, I have to learn more), and especially Judaism all have similar views of "tradition". The case of Orthodox Judaism is particularly enlightening, so I'll elaborate a bit in case you're unfamiliar.

Orthodox Judaism has basically two sets of scripture. They have their Bible (the Old Testament), and they have The Talmud, which is basically a collection of writings of their Rabbis since soon after the destruction of the second temple, and it makes up an astounding volume of material. They believe the "Oral Torah" written down in the Talmud was given to Moses at the same time as the ten commandments, transmitted orally for thousands of years without error, and then finally written down after the second temple was destroyed so that it wouldn't be lost. They claim this even though there's no evidence in the Bible that there was this "second torah", the Talmud itself doesn't make these claims (and if it does, I have yet to have anyone be able to point me to where), and the Talmud shows no signs of inspiration; it's clearly a bunch of Rabbis talking about stuff, having disagreements, etc.

While they too claim that the "Oral Torah" and the "Written Torah" stand side by side and have equal authority, in practice the Talmud stands above the Bible in authority, even dictating in places how the Bible itself must be translated. The way the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it is that "the Bible and tradition [are] to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and ... tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, [is] the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible."^[1]. Whenever any religion allows "tradition" to be authoritative, it winds up setting a higher standard than Scripture. Furthermore, I don't trust any man or group of men to speak infallibly (unless they're prophets, of course, but that age has ended).

To give one last illustration, Orthodox Jews simply cannot believe in Jesus without forsaking the Talmud. While I assume you believe that it's clear that Jesus is the Messiah in light of the Old Testament, the Talmud tells them no. Similarly, while I think it's clear given the testimony of the entire Bible that, say, purgatory is an unbiblical concept, Church tradition tells you to believe in it. So, regardless of the evidence, or lack thereof, for a particular belief, you must follow what tradition says over Scripture.

Other christian faiths are derivative of the original church.

Maybe I can illustrate something with an example from evolution. While people commonly believe we evolved from "apes", evolutionists believe that we came from "ape-like" ancestors, not really apes as they exist today. So apes and men are siblings, in a sense; one doesn't come from the other. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that they're the "main line", so to speak, and that Protestantism is an offshoot or derivative of that line, whereas in actuality it's more like Protestantism and Roman Catholicism are siblings. I mean doctrinally and ecclesiastically, of course - I'm not saying that historically, the protestant movement didn't emerge from the Roman Catholic Church, because it certainly did.

About inspiration: If the text of the Bible is from God originally and was originally infallible, but has gotten corrupted so it is no longer so, then we really can't justify believing in any of it. If Scripture can be corrupted, then we are all without hope. This is a presuppositional critique we can level against Islam. Islam similarly believes that Scripture has gotten corrupted along the way, and that the Koran gives the only true revelation. Of course, if God would let Scripture be corrupted, and it has been in the past, then there is no reason to believe the Koran is correct either, and their entire system crumbles. It's very important epistemologically to believe that the Bible is infallible.

About the Catholic faith containing elements that are "beyond reason": It's one thing to believe in things not seen, so to speak, that the Bible attests to. It's another to believe in something the Bible doesn't attest to, which furthermore goes against the nature of reality, undermines science, etc. It's a big epistemological and scientific problem, not to mention that it's just gross, if the bread and wine actually turn into Jesus' physical body and blood somehow while still remaining chemically the same.

You may be right that "Why the Roman Catholic Church is Wrong" might be a more accurate title. I chose the "Why I'm not a..." form because it has a long and famous history, beginning with Bertrand Russell's "Why I am not a Christian". The "Why I'm not a..." form is not inaccurate either, so I'll keep it.

You seem to have taken your stance, and are unwilling to understand the stance of others.

Actually, I think I understand your stance pretty well. You haven't said anything that has surprised me, so I don't think I misunderstood things previously. I also don't think it's fair to say I'm unwilling to understand your stance. Part of the reason behind this whole exercise is to deepen my knowledge of Roman Catholic doctrine, in addition to cataloguing my disagreements with it.

Ok, I suppose there's more that can be said, but this is already way long (I just pasted it into Word to spell-check, and this post is two and a half pages!).

Before I go, I just wanted to reiterate something. My comments aren't an "attack" against you and aren't meant to be offensive or abusive. I've never said anything regarding your character, or committed any ad-hominems. So this isn't about you. When I argue, I try to be precise because I'm after the truth. Sometimes I suppose that may appear to some as being "defensive" or argumentative, but I'm just arguing in the purest sense.

Footnotes:
[1]: Catholic Encyclopedia: Protestantism

A few things...
I found this, oddly enough, on an 'askjeeves.com' search for 'What is the Catholic Church's stance on Harry Potter?'. But, as a recent convert to Catholicism, I thought I'd chip in my two cents.

On the subject of faith and works, James 3:14-26 is a very illuminating passage in scripture. Basically, the Catholic belief is that 'faith without works is dead'... if one's faith is anything more than lip service, works will naturally follow it. True faith and works cannot exist separately.

As to sola scriptura... keep in mind who compiled the Bible. The Catholic church, with it's beliefs on tradition and infallibility. We can rest assured that the council that instituted the biblical canon sometime in the early 300's AD made the right decisions because Jesus promised to guide His church, the one he founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18-19). Think about it- how can you know, not believing in the infallibility of the pope and the church built on Peter, that the books they decided were canonical were the right ones? There were many other Gospels, many other epistles, even an 'Apocalypse [Revelation]' by Peter. Ironically, sola scriptura relies on papal infallibility.

'All we need to interpret the Bible is the Holy Spirit's guidance.' Two things- one, when Jesus makes that promise in the Gospel of John, he makes it not to a large crowd of followers, like with the Beatitudes, but to His disciples- the future leadership of His church. Secondly, if the Holy Spirit is guiding all of us, why is He guiding us in all different directions? There are thousands of protestant denominations, all peddling different interpretations of Scripture, many fighting with one another. If God were guiding all denominations, why then can't the Protestants just get their act together and unify- or, even better, why did they become so endlessly schismatic in the first place? And yet, although there are factions within the Catholic Church and it's not always one big happy family, it is still one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

The 'apocrypha'? It has been part of the Bible since the biblical canon was set. I've read the rationale behind removing them, and it's not terribly convincing or decisive. Yes, there was a prophetic silence prior to Jesus' birth, but none of those books are works of prophecy. Omitting them gives readers the illusion that the Israelites fell off the face of the earth for four hundred years, and that God stopped working in the lives of His chosen people. In fact, many interesting things (like invasion by the Greeks) happened during that time. Secondly, by whose authority were the books removed? If you don't believe the Pope is infallible, how can you believe some reformer (I'm pretty sure Luther and Calvin didn't remove the so-called apocrypha) is?

Tradition... many many subjects are not addressed in the Bible. When (if ever) is war just? Going on the Bible alone, it sounds as if Jesus bans war altogether. Neither Jesus nor His disciples were very literate or educated men, so what's to say they wrote down every letter of Jesus' teaching? In fact, the very last verse of John's Gospel admits he didn't record all the deeds of Jesus- in fact, that it's impossible to do so. Also check out II Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."
Tradition is not given more authority than scripture- it fills the gaps in scripture. I think that's what it does in Orthodox Judaism, too. The torah says nothing about Jesus' messiahship, either for or against. The Talmud, however, speaks negatively about Him, so they go with the Talmud.

An example of tradition in action is infant baptism. Although the Bible includes no example of an infant being baptized, it doesn't prohibit it or specify that only adults may be baptized. One could argue that all those baptized in the Bible were of course baptized as adults, because they were converts, but their children were baptized as infants. Archaeologists have found evidence of infant baptism in the catacombs, such as an inscription reading something along the lines of 'Here we bury [name of child], the newly baptized infant.' Tradition- beliefs taught by Jesus and the apostles that weren't committed to writing- thus provides us a solution to a question not addressed in Scripture. (Purgatory, incidentally, is not in tradition, but in II Maccabees.)
At one point while giving a speech in Acts, Paul mentions a saying of Jesus, 'that it is better to give than to receive'. My 'study Bible' marked that with a footnote, saying that phrase was of interest because it is the only saying of Jesus quoted in the New Testament that is not found in the Gospels. How many more of these (not in Acts, of course) are there?

A sacrament is a ritual in which the God is directly present... like in baptism, where the Holy Spirit descends on us like it did on Jesus when He was baptized. The seven sacraments can in fact all be found in Scripture. Marriage is installed in Genesis 2, and reaffirmed by Jesus. 'What God has brought together, let no man tear asunder.' Note the direct reference to God. Confession is in many places, most notably the beginning of I John. We confess to a priest because of the portion of Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus tells Peter that 'whatever you bind will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven.' Thus, the church as an organization has the authority to forgive sins. Confirmation and Ordination are two variations on the same thing- the laying on of hands so that the candidate receives the Holy Spirit, which happens in Acts. Extreme Unction finds it's biblical support in the last chapter of James 5:13-15.
If sacraments weren't necessary for salvation, why does the Bible make such a big deal out of, say, baptism as being necessary? (I Peter 3:21- one of many examples)

Thanks for posing good questions... I hope my response was at least somewhat helpful. God bless you!

On the subject of faith and works, James 3:14-26 is a very illuminating passage in scripture. Basically, the Catholic belief is that 'faith without works is dead'... if one's faith is anything more than lip service, works will naturally follow it. True faith and works cannot exist separately.

Absolutely. I argued above that works cannot be the basis for your salvation. Instead, like you say, they naturally follow your faith. James portrays works as being evidence of your salvation, not the basis of your salvation.

As to sola scriptura... keep in mind who compiled the Bible. The Catholic church, with it's beliefs on tradition and infallibility. We can rest assured that the council that instituted the biblical canon sometime in the early 300's AD made the right decisions because Jesus promised to guide His church, the one he founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18-19). Think about it- how can you know, not believing in the infallibility of the pope and the church built on Peter, that the books they decided were canonical were the right ones? There were many other Gospels, many other epistles, even an 'Apocalypse [Revelation]' by Peter. Ironically, sola scriptura relies on papal infallibility.

You're way off on your history. The Roman Catholic Church didn't create its doctrine of Papal infallibility until the "counter-reformation" of the 16th century. Also, the Roman Catholic Church didn't "compile" the Bible. We know from historical evidence, apart from the RCC, that the canon was set well before AD 300. The books in the Bible aren't there because the RCC "chose" them. The books that are in the canon are there because God's people recognized them as Scripture, and didn't recognize any other documents as Scripture.

Also, you bring up this myth that Peter was the first "Pope", which is an anachronism because there was no "Pope". There were no Bishops, no Cardinals, etc. And just "because Jesus promised to guide His church", it doesn't guarantee that the RCC is always right - to the contrary, it's admitted it's been wrong before. So that's not a good argument. Keep in mind that "The Church" of all believers is different from The Roman Catholic Church.

'All we need to interpret the Bible is the Holy Spirit's guidance.'

I never claimed this.

The 'apocrypha'? It has been part of the Bible since the biblical canon was set. I've read the rationale behind removing them, and it's not terribly convincing or decisive. Yes, there was a prophetic silence prior to Jesus' birth, but none of those books are works of prophecy. Omitting them gives readers the illusion that the Israelites fell off the face of the earth for four hundred years, and that God stopped working in the lives of His chosen people. In fact, many interesting things (like invasion by the Greeks) happened during that time. Secondly, by whose authority were the books removed?

The apocryphal books were not "removed" from the canon of Scripture. They were never part of the canon of Scripture in the first place (and as you point out, the "prophetic silence" attests to the fact that the apocryphal books aren't inspired). While they were often included with Bibles for reference, they were never considered Scripture. The Jews didn't consider them Scripture, and the early church didn't consider them Scripture. In fact, it's the Roman Catholic Church who breaks with tradition -- the RCC didn't even consider the apocrypha to be Scripture until the counter-reformation and the Council of Trent, if memory serves. And in fact, it's the apocrypha the RCC gets its strange doctrine of Purgatory from, even though it's taught nowhere in Scripture.

Going on the Bible alone, it sounds as if Jesus bans war altogether.

Show me where.

Neither Jesus nor His disciples were very literate or educated men

In fact, Jesus was very well educated, he had a traditional Jewish upbringing, was most likely Bar Mitzvah at 13, and as the Bible says he taught in the synagogues and everyone was amazed. His disciples probably ran the gamut of education, but they certainly all can't be characterized as uneducated or illiterate.

so what's to say they wrote down every letter of Jesus' teaching? In fact, the very last verse of John's Gospel admits he didn't record all the deeds of Jesus-

They probably remembered it and wrote it down later. Yes, there were things done that weren't recorded, of course, but I'm not sure what your point is.

Also check out II Thessalonians 2:15, "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours."

Argh... you're making many errors. First, you're taking the verse out of context. Next, you're using the simple fact that the verse happens to use the word tradition to support your argument, but you're assigning the word whatever meaning you choose, you're not getting your meaning from the text. Here's some context:

3Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God. ... 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings[3] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

So, the author is telling us to obey the teachings of God, and not to follow the "lawless one". You can't use this verse to support your view of Church Tradition. The word in this version is even translated "teachings", not traditions, so the meaning you're trying to give it is even more dubious. Finally, you're making a logical error. The "traditions" or "teachings" spoken of in this verse written in the first century are certainly different from the body of Church Tradition that's evolved in the two millenia since then.

The Talmud, however, speaks negatively about Him, so they go with the Talmud.

Which was exactly my argument, that their tradition colors their understanding of the Bible. Just like their tradition leads them astray, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church leads astray.

Regarding infant baptism: I support it because baptism is the New Testament analogue of Old Testament circumcision, which was done on children or on (male) converts.

My 'study Bible' marked that with a footnote, saying that phrase was of interest because it is the only saying of Jesus quoted in the New Testament that is not found in the Gospels. How many more of these (not in Acts, of course) are there?

So what? It's in Scripture, so there's no problem. There's a problem when you start taking things that aren't in Scripture and attributing them to God.

We confess to a priest because of the portion of Matthew 16:18-19 where Jesus tells Peter that 'whatever you bind will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven.' Thus, the church as an organization has the authority to forgive sins.

That's a big stretch.

The "seven sacriments" you cite, I wouldn't consider five of them sacriments. But this is a relatively small point in comparison to the rest of the discussion, so I won't dwell on it. However, baptism, which I would consider a sacriment of course, is as important in the New Testament as circumcision is in the Old. It's a sign of God's mark on you, so to speak. It's very symbolic in a whole bunch of ways. But nowhere does it say you must be baptised to be saved, though it does often link them together strongly "believe and be baptised", etc. However, that baptism is necessary for salvation is directly contradicted in Scripture, at least in the case of the thief on the cross next to Jesus. I know that Roman Catholic Church teaches that he could be saved because he desired to be baptised but didn't get to be, so it's as good as if he was baptised. That's a kludge.

Finally, I'd like to respond to something written earlier that I noticed I didn't respond to last time:

The concept of the creation story being literally true is just not something that I can take stock in. But more importantly, it is not central to Christianity or even Judaism for it to be literally true. The point of christianity as I can see is not that we were direct manipulations of the hands of G-d.

In fact, I think it's central to the entire Bible. If we didn't sin in a literal Adam, then what does it mean to saved in Christ? Only Adam's children can be saved in Christ, so if we're not Adam's children then we can't be saved.

I like what I have read and I would like to receive some material from you if available. At the present time I am writting a book along these same lines. Perhaps you can be of some help.

Your comments about the Catholic faith are very uninformed. You should understand the subject with which you are speaking about before critizing or demeaning it. Whereas my faith is based on my works and my faith, I will still be kind to you in Heaven before my God and Father.

Rather than just asserting how uninformed I am, would you like to rebut anything I wrote?

"The books that are in the canon are there because God's people recognized them as Scripture, and didn't recognize any other documents as Scripture."
I am curious as to how you differentiate between what "God's people recognize as scripture" back then and what I, as a Godly person, would recognize as scripture now?

Hi Andre, I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could you elaborate?

Hello,
Let me try to make the question more transparent. When you mentioned that Godly people decided what documents would go into the bible, define Godly people. For now I'll go with the definition "a person who believe in Jesus Christ and follows." Now, if I am a Godly person then what is stopping me from doing the same thing that the Godly people did before? Am I right in saying that God is not a respecter of persons?

I said "God's people", not "Godly people". There's a difference. "God's people" refers to the entire group of the elect while "Godly people" can mean any small number of believers.

So, because God's church as a whole recognized the Scripture we have as such, that's how we can be confident that that is the canon. If an individual or just a few "Godly people" thought some books should be in the canon but which the rest of the church denied, then they were mistaken, same as if a few "Godly people" today were to think there should be other books in the canon.

The point remains that when the councils recorded what books were in the canon, they didn't choose the list of books, but merely acknowledged what had been recognized by the whole body of believers to be Scripture.

Now I'm even more curious. Is God a respecter of persons? God's people are those who believe and follow Jesus. In that case the Catholic people, who are God's people, do "as a whole body" acknowledge the canon.
Quick question, in the early church who made up of the whole body, considering this was before modern communication technology?
Also, aside from those who follow and do the will of the father, who were and are currently the elect?

You'll have to explain what you mean by the question, "Is God a respecter of persons?".

In that case the Catholic people, who are God's people, do "as a whole body" acknowledge the canon.

Well yes, but the Roman Catholic Church adds to the canon and considers other books to be Scripture. Upon adding these books they broke with thousands of years of tradition within the church.

before modern communication technology?

What does modern communication technology have to do with any of this?

...who were and are currently the elect?

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of election. Probably the best explication of the doctrine is in the Canons of Dordt. Canon I, Article 7 gives a clear definition of what election is (though, I'd highly recommend reading the whole document):

Election [or choosing] is God's unchangeable purpose by which he did the following:

Before the foundation of the world, by sheer grace, according to the free good pleasure of his will, he chose in Christ to salvation a definite number of particular people out of the entire human race, which had fallen by its own fault from its original innocence into sin and ruin. Those chosen were neither better nor more deserving than the others, but lay with them in the common misery. He did this in Christ, whom he also appointed from eternity to be the mediator, the head of all those chosen, and the foundation of their salvation. And so he decided to give the chosen ones to Christ to be saved, and to call and draw them effectively into Christ's fellowship through his Word and Spirit. In other words, he decided to grant them true faith in Christ, to justify them, to sanctify them, and finally, after powerfully preserving them in the fellowship of his Son, to glorify them.

God did all this in order to demonstrate his mercy, to the praise of the riches of his glorious grace.

As Scripture says, God chose us in Christ, before the foundation of the world, so that we should be holy and blameless before him with love; he predestined us whom he adopted as his children through Jesus Christ, in himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, by which he freely made us pleasing to himself in his beloved (Eph. 1:4-6). And elsewhere, Those whom he predestined, he also called; and those whom he called, he also justified; and those whom he justified, he also glorified (Rom. 8:30).

So, God's elect are the "definite number" of His past, present, and future believers. Obviously, when I referred to "God's people" in my comment above I was referring to those who were living at the time in question

I’ll do better than explain the question; I’ll answer it for you It is written, then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter (prosopoleptes) of person; But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him (Act. 10:34-35 KJ). For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek; for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Rom. 10:12-13 KJ). Since one scripture can often be misleading and/or misconstrued here are other verses of reference to my answer; Dt. 10:17, Rom. 2:11, Rom. 3:29-30.

Aren’t you the person who had a problem with people holding tradition equal to the canon? You state “traditions color the understanding of the bible and lead people like the Jews and Catholics astray?” However now you use the same words by stating “Catholics broke with thousands of years of tradition,” so I guess now tradition is okay to use as a guideline? Have you ever heard of double jeopardy?

Well you mention the whole body of believers; what do you think “the whole body” of God’s people consists of, one or two churches perhaps? I think not, we are talking about thousands of people and I’m sure they didn’t all gather together around dinner and talk or debate about what documents should be acknowledged by the church; that’s why the modern communication question. So if you say the “elect” chose the documents and the “whole body of God’s people” acknowledged it, then you have no argument from me, because the Catholic people do acknowledge it.

Protestant seems to use the same logic as Catholics just applied differently. For example, relying on documents that are outside of the bible’s canon to define who and what they will give credence to. For instance the Canons of Dordt who defined who were the elect and acknowledged as true by the Protestants—the only one’s worth listening to, if you will. Also Protestants, as you have just noted, use tradition as a tool to define and/or weigh where one’s their credence should lie. Sounds like Catholic logic, except with a Protestant twist.

Aren’t you the person who had a problem with people holding tradition equal to the canon? You state “traditions color the understanding of the bible and lead people like the Jews and Catholics astray?”

You appear to be quoting me directly, though I don't think I said that and can't find anywhere I did. Where are you getting that from? But certainly, tradition does not have equal authority with Scripture.

so I guess now tradition is okay to use as a guideline?

Of course tradition is ok to use as a guideline. I never said otherwise. However, Scripture trumps tradition -- traditions must always be tested as to whether they are Biblical. Though, the question of the canon is one which is to a large extent extra-Scriptural, because it concerns what exactly is considered Scripture in the first place. However, many places in Scripture do quote many other pieces of Scripture (in fact, most of the books of the Old Testament) as Scripture, so that is a very good guide. In addition, there are places where New Testament writers even quote from other books now in the New Testament, calling them Scripture. They were recognized as such even in the first century.

For instance the Canons of Dordt who defined who were the elect and acknowledged as true by the Protestants—the only one’s worth listening to, if you will.

That's a mischaracterization. The Canons of Dordt set in writing what the authors believed to be true doctrine -- they didn't specify who the elect were.

Protestant seems to use the same logic as Catholics just applied differently.

To some degree, maybe, but overall, and especially about this issue, I disagree. Roman Catholic doctrine, judging by the comments here and what I've heard elsewhere, is that the Roman Catholic Church (which didn't exist yet), around AD 300 decreed what the books of the canon were supposed to be. That is not the case. Rather, the councils only recognized and recorded what had been judged to be Scripture by the catholic (lowercase c) church, led by the Spirit.

Protestants do not approach the issue of tradition the same way as Roman Catholics do "except with a Protestant twist". As I probably mentioned above, Roman Catholics, along with religious Jews, put "tradition" in the form of Church teachings or Papal decrees on the one hand, and the Talmud on the other, as being on par with, and even above Scripture (for those "traditions" are viewed as necessary for interpreting Scripture). Protestants reject that, for the Bible says to not go beyond what is written.

By the way, I have no clue what you were trying to prove with the "respecter of persons" reference.

If you go under explorer you can go to edit and find, then it should come up with whatever I’m quoting in the document. You say quite a lot about tradition, and how Christianity is excluded from that which bonds all the other religions—tradition Religion is religion is religion, no matter what name you place on them, and they all have inherent traditions to some degree, including Christianity. It seems like you’re saying that the tradition of the Christians is to make sure only the greatest, most researched understanding of the bible is what matters. This assumes that only the intelligent and self-assured can be a true Christian. Since intelligence isn’t the basis of salvation, tell me this, according to scripture can a Catholic go to heaven?

Going back to one of my original questions, “who were the elect.” As far as the definition of elect or lack thereof, it is clear the elect is an inconsequential term since no where in the scripture is that a requisite to knowing Jesus, choosing documents, being saved, or being a part of God’s people-- thank God.

I would like to point out something, at first you didn’t understand my question about God as a respecter of persons, now you don’t know what I was trying to prove. If you believe in the Holy Spirit, ask him to reveal to you what that scripture means, you may find out more about Catholics than I can explain.

If you go under explorer you can go to edit and find, then it should come up with whatever I’m quoting in the document.

I did, and you're not quoting me. I had hoped maybe you were quoting me from some other page on my site, but you literally made it up. If you didn't, quote for me the whole paragraph that quote appears in.

It seems like you’re saying that the tradition of the Christians is to make sure only the greatest, most researched understanding of the bible is what matters. This assumes that only the intelligent and self-assured can be a true Christian.

I did not say this.

Going back to one of my original questions, “who were the elect.” As far as the definition of elect or lack thereof, it is clear the elect is an inconsequential term since no where in the scripture is that a requisite to knowing Jesus, choosing documents, being saved, or being a part of God’s people-- thank God.

Did you even read the quote I pasted above from the Canons of Dordt? The elect are simply those to whom God chooses to give salvation. The term "elect", which is used in Scripture, highlights God's sovereignty in our salvation and our dependence on his choosing us.

I would like to point out something, at first you didn’t understand my question about God as a respecter of persons, now you don’t know what I was trying to prove.

Yes. First you asked the question, and I didn't know what you were getting at. Then you answered your own question and I still don't know what your point was. You quoted Acts 10, but you haven't told me why.

If you believe in the Holy Spirit, ask him to reveal to you what that scripture means, you may find out more about Catholics than I can explain.

I understand what that Scripture means. Cornelius was a Roman centurion. He had a vision to send for Peter. Peter came to him and when he saw that Cornelius had had a vision and had been saved, Peter says, "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right." The point being struck home is that it is not only Jews who can be saved but Gentiles as well.

And, I'll say it again. I have no idea what this has to do with anything else you've said or any point you're trying to make. Rather than patronizing me, how about you show a modicum of respect and explain your own point you're trying to make rather than telling me to ask the Holy Spirit to explain what you're trying to say?

Okay "The Talmud, however, speaks negatively about Him, so they go with the Talmud.

Which was exactly my argument, that their tradition colors their understanding of the Bible. Just like their tradition leads them astray, the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church leads astray." Paragraph/Insert 2491
There you go, now that you know that I literally did not make it up we can move along.

I did read it Canon of Dordts, which lead me to the original question I had, if the elect are those to whom God chooses to give salvation. Then what stops me from having the authority to chose what documents should be acknowledged, is the Catholic Church not part of the whole body?

Now as far as God not being a respecter of people, if he allowed all these other people to decide what is eligible to be read or not read, why can't I chose for myself what is God glorifying and still be a child of God? That was one of my points. Another thing is you mentioned the Roman soldier, I sited four instances where God is stated as not being a respecter of persons or partial, did you read them?

What's so patronizing and disrespectful about asking you to apply what you believe in so that you may receive understanding? If this is all about God and not about you, don't take my comments as a personal attack, the truth can stand on it's own two feet.

Now, once again, according to scripture can a Catholic go to heaven?

Unfortunately I probably won't be referring back to this website after today to see your answer to my last reply. However I'd like to thank you for entertaining my comments. Just to make sure you know where I stand, my grandmother is Catholic (a big part of my life), however I've worshipped as a Protestant my whole life, and went to a Baptist highschool. I was so impressed by your religious acumen and writing eloquence that I had to challenge you, since Catholics usually don't put up a good offense. Discussing this topic with you has truly blessed me in a way I can't put into words. It helped me see the probing tactics from the other side of the fence, and also helped reaffirm how difficult it is to put God in a mental box. May God bless you and keep you strong for His sake.

PS Yes a born again Catholic goes to heaven. Statistically 20% of Catholics are born again, by a statistic given by Dr. Dobson.

Just to make sure you know where I stand... I've worshipped as a Protestant my whole life... I was so impressed by your religious acumen and writing eloquence that I had to challenge you, since Catholics usually don't put up a good offense. ... It helped me see the probing tactics from the other side of the fence...

Now I'm really confused. You argued as a Roman Catholic, but you aren't Roman Catholic yourself?

I totally agree with you on the majority of the points about Roman Catholicism that you have stated. All you have stated above are false documents that are clearly rejected by scripture but still any catholic would make up some excuse on why it is what is. I'm not anti-catholic and recently i've been researching the catholic religion out of pure interest. my great-grandmother was raised catholic, till she was around 16, when she heard the TRUE Gospel and baptized for her sins. I might not agree on all the points that you have stated, such as the salvation not lost, but still all in all you have helped me in my research of the roman catholic church.

You know, this discussion popped back into my head today, and I thought about something you said:

No one is to be called "father" but our father in Heaven.

And, that hit me as really wrong. It's a big simplification, and a misunderstanding of what the word means.

Not only does the word refer to a male progenator, but it also is used when referring to a male who acts as a mentor to someone. This is the origin of the Catholic usage.

Anyway, what would I call the bloke who donated half the genetic matter to create me?

cf. Matthew 23:9. The Roman Catholic usage seems to be right within what Jesus is criticising.

I know that passage. But then, that doesn't make sense entirely if it's taken absolutely literally. Hence my ha-ha-only-serious comment about my male parent. However you put it, I'm still calling him my father and it doesn't square with a literal interpretation of that passage. Same goes for the people who taught me at secondary and primary school: what do I call them? I could call them "Lecturers", but then that's only exchanging one set of sounds for another that will eventually shift in meaning to mean "teacher".

Unlike you, I don't accept a literal interpretation of that passage, which is why I have no problem calling anybody "Father" or "Teacher".

I don't take a literal interpretation of the passage either. Because, neither does the Bible. In other words, it's ok to call a male ancestor father.

That passage is specifically dealing with the equality of all believers. It says, don't be like the Pharisees and call people "rabbi", "teacher", or "father", because "you have only one Master and you are all brothers", because "you have one Father, and he is in heaven", and because "you have one Teacher, the Christ", respectively.

In protestant churches, all believers are equal. There is no hierarchy like there is in the RC church. We have elders and deacons, but those are temporary positions, and they are largely for administrative and ministerial purposes (the pastor is considered an elder, btw, AFAIK). No one serves as a mediator between the "normal" believers in Christ, and we don't depend on priests to doll out forgiveness for our sins.

The point is that we're all equal brothers and sisters in Christ, that God -> man is the only hierarchy to be had in the church, and no man is to be our teacher (ie. no one may proclaim to teach things on his own authority or on the authority of other men (as the Jews did/do)), but we must only follow Christ's teachings.

That's more reasonable, but it's not the same thing as you said in your original post!

Also, you make a common error about the hierarchy, and that is that the clergy are over the lay people. A lot of RCs make the same mistake too. Your point stand when it comes to the clergy in relation to each other, but not with the lay in relation to the clergy.

The purpose of the clergy is to teach. We all need teaching, at least in the beginning, and that's what they're there for. Unlike you and I who haven't dedicated ourselves to that task, they have. It's not that they're above anybody, just that their purpose is to pass on knowledge, and to give an interpretation of that knowledge. In this regard they're no different from a vicar or pastor.

Priests don't actually give forgiveness in confession. What they do is listen, give suggestions, and then a penance. It's like a kind of spiritual psychiatrist.

Now, dogma's another matter entirely. Where that can't be backed up you'll find most thinking Catholics will question it.

That's more reasonable, but it's not the same thing as you said in your original post!

I was paraphrasing Matthew 23:9!

Also, you make a common error about the hierarchy, and that is that the clergy are over the lay people. A lot of RCs make the same mistake too. Your point stand when it comes to the clergy in relation to each other, but not with the lay in relation to the clergy.

Ok, let's take something as simple as the Roman Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the Pope, that he is the ruler over the entire universal church (not just the RC Church -- although they claim that the RC church is the only true church, which is another heresy). In fact, the pope is a good example. For he's called the "Holy Father" (against Matthew 23:9), he's called the ruler of the church (against what Matthew 23:8 says), and he can speak "infallibly", and hence violates what Matthew 23:10 says about the "teacher". Of course they claim that the infallibility comes from God, I suppose, but the pope is not a prophet, chosen by God. He's elected through a bureaucratic process!

Priests don't actually give forgiveness in confession.

Ok, let's turn again to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

by his priestly ordination he receives the power to offer sacrifice (i.e. to celebrate the Eucharist), to forgive sins...

In addition, from the entry on Penance:

Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the penitent's heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with requisite jurisdiction and with the "power of the keys", i.e., the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church.

Also, what else could it possibly mean when parishoners go to their priest and say "Forgive me father for I have sinned"? They're not talking to God the Father, but the priest the "father".

Finally, back in the entry on priests, the encyclopedia covers at length how priests "[exercise] more or less exalted sacerdotal functions as intermediaries between man and the Divinity". You see, priests have always served as intermediaries between man and God -- especially the Levitical priesthood -- yet the whole point of the Bible's discussion of the high priest in Hebrews, which the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to, is that Jesus is our high priest, and He is our intermediary who intercedes for us with the Father, not Roman Catholic priests!

What I don't get is that I'm explicating very basic Roman Catholic doctrine that's easily verifiable by taking a few minutes to look things up in the (excellent) Catholic Encyclopedia, yet you're denying these very basic pieces of doctrine. Did you grow up Roman Catholic? Because I didn't, and even I know this stuff.

What I don't get is that I'm explicating very basic Roman Catholic doctrine that's easily verifiable by taking a few minutes to look things up in the (excellent) Catholic Encyclopedia, yet you're denying these very basic pieces of doctrine.

Don't believe everything the Catholic Encyclopaedia tells you. In places, it simplifies the actual theological position in the church, and the role of the priest is one such one.

Catholicism is far more diverse and decentralised than you probably realise, and Roman Catholicism is just one of its churches. And even within Roman Catholicism, there's quite a bit of diversity.

What I told you does not conflict in the slightest with the Roman Catechism. In fact, to be consistent as a Roman Catholic, there's only two things your beliefs have to be consistent with, and those are the Catechism and the Bible.

There are two schools on the role of the priest, neither of which have greater primacy, except where it might come to dominate the hierarchy. The split is between the more liberal catholics and the conservative catholics. I gave you the liberal viewpoint, and was the dominant view of the church around the time of Vatican II. The one you described is the more conservative one that has dominated during the latter days of John-Paul II.

Also, what else could it possibly mean when parishoners go to their priest and say "Forgive me father for I have sinned"? They're not talking to God the Father, but the priest the "father".

If you must know, the priest is symbolic, just like a chalice, a crucifix, or a word. In that capacity, quite seperate from his capacity as a being-in-himself, he acts as a concrete placeholder for God, i.e. a totem for people to use to speak to God. A priest, as a human, as the added advantage that he can respond, and so council the person as part of confession. The councilling aspect of confession is the primary and original reason for its existence. Talk to a priest, and they'll tell you that only God can forgive and all they are is a proxy.

Ok, let's take something as simple as the Roman Catholic doctrine of the primacy of the Pope, that he is the ruler over the entire universal church (not just the RC Church -- although they claim that the RC church is the only true church, which is another heresy).

Nope, the doctrine's true. The universal church is Catholicism, whereas RC is only a part of that. If fact, the pope doesn't necessarily have to be Roman Catholic, it's just that they've tended to be.

And the claim is that Catholicism, not RC is the true church, and the continuation of that promulgated by Jesus, and continued by the Disciples.

Now, Catholics see the Protestants as being heretical breakaways from the universal church. The position isn't totally unreasonable. Now, if you go back to the first schism, things are a bit different, and the Orthodox and Catholic churches both have about the same real claim to be the True Church. That was primarily an argument about whether the Bishop of Rome has primacy over all other bishops.

In fact, the pope is a good example. For he's called the "Holy Father" (against Matthew 23:9),

That's a fair point.

he's called the ruler of the church (against what Matthew 23:8 says),

Nope: he's the first amongst equals amongst the bishops.

and he can speak "infallibly",

Ah, that good old Medieval doctrine. Amongst the lay population, that was finally killed by the Galileo nonsense. It may still be in there, but few, even strict types, believe in that. It's like an appendix: it might be there, but it serves no purpose.

Of course they claim that the infallibility comes from God, I suppose, but the pope is not a prophet, chosen by God. He's elected through a bureaucratic process!

The reasoning behind infallibility was, uh, reasonable at the time, if faulty: the idea was that God would never let the Pope do anything that wasn't what God wanted, ergo the Pope was infallible.

The doctrine is, however, a little difficult to get rid of, just like most: things move very slowly in Catholicism.

Whoa! That was longer than I though!

What do you mean by

neither was she born through an immaculate conception

All the church says is that Jesus was born through immaculate conception, not Mary.

Don't believe everything the Catholic Encyclopaedia tells you. In places, it simplifies the actual theological position in the church, and the role of the priest is one such one.

As far as I'm concerned the Catholic Encyclopedia is an authority. Unless you can prove it wrong by citing another source, I'll believe it over you with regard to Catholic doctrine.

Catholicism is far more diverse and decentralised than you probably realise, and Roman Catholicism is just one of its churches. And even within Roman Catholicism, there's quite a bit of diversity.

I only care about what official Roman Catholic doctrine is, I don't care what individual churches teach or believers believe.

What I told you does not conflict in the slightest with the Roman Catechism. In fact, to be consistent as a Roman Catholic, there's only two things your beliefs have to be consistent with, and those are the Catechism and the Bible.

First of all, Church councils are also authoritative. They are the source of the doctrine. The Catechism only collects and summarizes what the councils and the Church teach. I'd go more into this and talk about the doctrine of Church tradition as well, but that's too much here. Anyway, to make you happy, let's look to the Catechism, straight from the Vatican's website. The part on Penance starts with this:

Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation, bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Emphasis mine. From another page:

It is called the sacrament of forgiveness, since by the priest's sacramental absolution God grants the penitent "pardon and peace."

Which is what I've said all along. The priest is the mediator between God and man, and the priest has the power to give forgineness.

Talk to a priest, and they'll tell you that only God can forgive and all they are is a proxy.

They serve as an authority to give God's forgiveness. That's consistent with the typical concept of a priest who serves as mediator as explained in my other comment. Ah, here it is explicitly in the Catechism:

Only God forgives sins. Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name.

In short, my original argument has been proved true (over and over again), which is that the RCC violates the equality of all believers, that the RCC places some men above others and calls them "father" which is expressly forbidden by the Bible, and that the RCC sets up priests and bishops as mediators between God and man when the Bible says that Christ is our only mediator.

Let me recap our discussion on this for a second. First you argued that the "no father but that in heaven" line was too general because then you couldn't call your "male progenitor" father. I pointed out that referenced Matthew 23:9 which refers to the equality of all believers and doesn't have the general sense you took it to have. Then you said that was fine, but that I was mistaken because the RCC doesn't put the clergy over the lay people in terms of authority. I've shown since, repeatedly, that clearly they do. You also said that priests don't give forgiveness, but I've also shown that, according to the RCC, priests do give forgiveness on the authority of God.

And the claim is that Catholicism, not RC is the true church, and the continuation of that promulgated by Jesus, and continued by the Disciples.

Dude, they claim that only the Roman Catholic church is the true church because only it has the Pope, who is the direct successor from Peter.

I've never heard anyone refer to the Catholic church as an institution as you did here and above, only the catholic (lowercase c) church, the universal, invisible church of all believers. There is no physical "Catholic" church. The RCC's mistake is that it conflates the visible with the invisible church.

Ah, that good old Medieval doctrine. Amongst the lay population, that was finally killed by the Galileo nonsense. It may still be in there, but few, even strict types, believe in that. It's like an appendix: it might be there, but it serves no purpose.

There you go again distinguishing between the doctrine of the church and what ordinary believers believe. It makes no sense to argue in terms of what people believe, only in terms of the official doctrine of the church. If they don't believe in the ability of the Pope to speak "Ex Cathedra" they're not Roman Catholics, by definition. Furthermore, you show your ignorance because this isn't merely a "medieval doctrine" that no one really holds to anymore, but was defined very recently, just over a century ago in the Vatican Council. Here's a section on Papal Infallibility (in, sorry, the Catholic Encyclopedia).

The doctrine is, however, a little difficult to get rid of, just like most: things move very slowly in Catholicism.

What do you mean "get rid of"? It was practically just established.

All the church says is that Jesus was born through immaculate conception, not Mary.

Keith, you're showing your ignorance again. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception refers specifically to Mary, not to Jesus. From the Catechism:

Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin

Also see the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on the Immaculate Conception.

Interestingly, I hadn't known that the RCC considers Mary the "new Eve", like Jesus is the new Adam. Unfortunately, that leaves them with a pretty mixed metaphor because in this case Eve is the mother of Adam. That's just weird.

Wow! Read through all the dialogue here and it seems that only those with advanced knowledge and intellect have a prayer of salvation. According to all this covoluted analysis a simple person of low intellect or an elderly person who has forgotten everything they once believed must be destined for a doomed afterlife since there is no way they could understand much less believe what you are all arguing about. I prefer to simply believe G-d is Love and all I need to do is live in Love, When I get too old to remember all the doctrine, dogma and history of my religion (and that is coming soon) at least I'll have a chance of remembering to live with Love and honestly after all is said and done isn't that what really matters, even my neighbor with downs syndrome knows how to Love. Perhaps that's what the bible suggests when it advises us all to become like little children.

Let me tackle each of the points in the initial post one by one.

"I don't believe the Pope can speak infallibly"

No-one does. His supposed infallibility is solely on religious matters and things specifically relevant either to the Church or the Vatican as institutions. It means that he has "power of shut-up" over any other Catholic cleric who might try to argue against him.

"The apocrypha isn't Scripture"

You mean, it isn't in the King James Version. The Apocrypha originally meant "hidden" but came to mean "of dubious authority", so Protestant reformers relocated these fourteen books, which were a part of the Septuagint and were translated by St Jerome along with the rest of his Vulgate Latin Bible, intending them still to be used in moral instruction.

"Purgatory is not a Scriptural concept - it's taught nowhere in Scripture, and in fact it's precluded by Scripture."

Purgatory is no longer considered an orthodox Catholic belief.

"The transubstantiation is a very weird doctrine, for a whole bunch of reasons. It turns Christians into cannibals, it seems to obviously misunderstand Christ's symbolism, and it's just plain against the laws of nature."

Transubstantiation is not weird, it's just unproveable. If the Substance of a thing (the thing itself) changes into something entirely different, but its Accidents (things you can observe about it, like colour, taste, smell, etc.) stay exactly the same, how can you prove the Substance has changed at all? You can't, it's supposed to be taken on faith. However, Occam's Razor teaches us the surer faith, that bizarre and complicated explanations for things tend to be wrong. Why, in the absence of any visible effects, would anyone even imagine that Transubstantiation had occurred?

In actual fact, it's all a misunderstanding coming, as usual, from bad Bible scholarship. In the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, there exists no figure of speech analogous to our simile. Instead, the metaphor is employed. So, you literally cannot say "This bread is like my body", but have instead to say "This is my body". Metaphor was thus understood as simile in vernacular usage, which is why no Apostle is recorded as expressing disgust at the prospect of eating blood, which was a serious Jewish taboo.

"Mary wasn't a virgin her whole life, neither was she born through an immaculate conception."

Well, we can't actually know that, of course; but there's no reason to in the first place. The confusion about virgin births comes in the interpretation of the Greek New Testament, where no distinction is made in language between maiden (unmarried girl) and virgin (one who is literally virgo intacta). The original is quite clear that she is an unmarried girl. Otherwise, why would Joseph initially desire to divorce her?

"We're saved by faith, not by works. Roman Catholicism is a works based religion. To be fair, it's only 'partially' a works based religion - they do believe faith matters of course, but Scripture says we're saved by faith, and not by works."

So you say. I've read the same Scripture - and remember, it's not just one book from one period - and it seems to me it places great emphasis on "mitzvot", good works. In fact, this (mitzvah) is the same word that is used in the Bible for "covenant". I never saw Jesus say anywhere that faith without good works would do the trick, although obviously deathbed conversions would make a life of piety rather tricky.

"Once you make any works the basis of your salvation, you're screwed."

That's Jesus screwed then. Wasn't he a man as much as anyone? And you can't be wholly man without being capable of sin, and thus wholly in need of Redemption, so his big Crucifixion thing was as much in his own behalf as anyone else's. Don't try and weasel out of that. Next thing you'll be looking for a virgin birth certificate.

"No one is to be called father but our father in Heaven."

And your own Dad, of course. Sorry, Dad, I'd like to call you the F-word, but look what it says here.

Anyway, there is the obvious possibility that at least some of the ones calling him Father maybe really were entitled to call him that. See below.

"It's against the teaching of Scripture for priests to have to be celibate. In fact, you can make a strong case that priests should be married, according to Scripture."

This law was to prevent primogeniture, that is, money and property passing through ecclesistical families by inheritance. If you think the Church is powerful now, can you imagine what it would have become if it was ruled by a lineal dynasty of Papal Roman Emperors?

"I believe the Roman Catholic Church commits idolatry through prayer to Mary and the saints. Mary is a human, she's dead, she doesn't intercede at all for us, etc."

Yeah, like that Jesus fella. Another dead human.

"The Church's view of what a 'saint' is is warped. The Bible considers any believer a saint. The Roman Catholic Church turns it into some kind of title to be earned."

Conferred, actually; there's no suggestion of effort. There are lots of very popular saints who were, unfortunately, never even alive. St Christopher, of course, but also St Vincent the Egyptian, who is a christianisation of the jackal-headed god Anubis; St Bride, the Celtic goddes Brighid; St Jehosaphat, who appears to have been based on the wonderful deeds of the Compassionate Buddha. Not forgetting St Michael, who as an Archangel cannot ever have died never mind had a hagiography. All these saints were made before the Reformation ever happened.

"We are not obligated to confess our sins to a priest, only to God."

And not even then. No-one has to confess anything. The universal suffrage of Free Will permits living and dying unshriven if you so desire. Live a lifetime of good works and self-denial, then die unshriven and go straight to hell. The perfect death for a self-denial freak.

"A priest, furthermore, has no power to forgive, only God can."

You're slipping behind in your Bible studies. Jesus told us we all have the power to forgive one another.

"A Christian cannot lose his salvation. The Church teaches that you can and you have to earn it back if you do."

Great, I'm saved! Now where's that brothel?

"The Church confuses sanctification and justification. It teaches that we are finally saved by our own inherent righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ."

Well, maybe he was saved by our inherent righteousness, and he's just returning the favour.

"'Infused' vs. 'Inputed', etc."

"Confused" vs. "Computed". No, I don't know what you're on about, either. But I won't break the confidence.

"I don't believe the Pope can speak infallibly"

No-one does. His supposed infallibility is solely on religious matters and things specifically relevant either to the Church or the Vatican as institutions. It means that he has "power of shut-up" over any other Catholic cleric who might try to argue against him.

I don't know why you're arguing with me when you're ignorant of extremely basic (and easily researchable) Church doctrine. From the Catechism:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent"

I didn't finish it, but this seems like a good explanation at Catholic Answers. Also read what I wrote on the subject above (towards the end of that comment).

"The apocrypha isn't Scripture"

You mean, it isn't in the King James Version.

No, I mean it isn't Scripture. (And by the way, it was included in the original King James version along with a note in the preface indicating that while they were including it, it isn't to be counted on the level of Scripture.) The apocryphal books were never considered to be Scripture by the Jews, and weren't considered Scripture by the RCC itself until the Council of Trent. There was a long discussion we had a while ago over here. In addition, there are things in the Septuagint that no one considers Scripture, so inclusion in the Septuagint clearly isn't an indication, by itself, of something's canonicity.

Purgatory is no longer considered an orthodox Catholic belief.

Again, this is so easily verifiable I don't know why you'd claim the opposite. It's in their current Catechism.

The original is quite clear that she is an unmarried girl. Otherwise, why would Joseph initially desire to divorce her?

Huh?

The confusion about virgin births comes in the interpretation of the Greek New Testament, where no distinction is made in language between maiden (unmarried girl) and virgin (one who is literally virgo intacta). The original is quite clear that she is an unmarried girl.

No, you're mistaken. The Greek is clear, it's the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7 that can have both meanings. But it's clear from the context that it's supposed to be "virgin" (for, what kind of "sign" is it for an unmarried girl to conceive? Further, God wouldn't send his Messiah through a whore.)

"Once you make any works the basis of your salvation, you're screwed."

That's Jesus screwed then. Wasn't he a man as much as anyone?

The whole point of Jesus's life is that he was sinless, and he was able to keep the entire law of God perfectly. I dont' know why you're arguing these strange things.

"No one is to be called father but our father in Heaven."

And your own Dad, of course. Sorry, Dad, I'd like to call you the F-word, but look what it says here.

I don't know why you're bringing up this point either, since we had a full discussion of it above, and I was directly paraphrasing Matthew 23:9.

"It's against the teaching of Scripture for priests to have to be celibate. In fact, you can make a strong case that priests should be married, according to Scripture."

This law was to prevent primogeniture, that is, money and property passing through ecclesistical families by inheritance. If you think the Church is powerful now, can you imagine what it would have become if it was ruled by a lineal dynasty of Papal Roman Emperors?

Uh, if you say so. My argument stands that it's not Biblical.

"I believe the Roman Catholic Church commits idolatry through prayer to Mary and the saints. Mary is a human, she's dead, she doesn't intercede at all for us, etc."

Yeah, like that Jesus fella. Another dead human.

Comments like these make me think you're not serious, but then you did spend a lot of time writing. Anyway... Mary isn't divine. Jesus is.

"A priest, furthermore, has no power to forgive, only God can."

You're slipping behind in your Bible studies. Jesus told us we all have the power to forgive one another.

Clearly I meant the power to forgive sin and provide salvation, which is what the priest's forgiveness is all about (i.e. he's forgiving you on behalf of God, not himself). While people can forgive other people for their sins against them, only God can forgive all our sins, and only God's forgiveness leads to salvation.

"The Church confuses sanctification and justification. It teaches that we are finally saved by our own inherent righteousness, not the righteousness of Christ."

Well, maybe he was saved by our inherent righteousness, and he's just returning the favour.

Huh??

"'Infused' vs. 'Inputed', etc."

"Confused" vs. "Computed". No, I don't know what you're on about, either.

It's just what I described in the same paragraph as you quoted from. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is that God judges us on the basis of Christ's righteousness. The RCC's doctrine of infused righteousness is that God judges us ultimately on the basis of our own righteousness that we were able to achieve because Christ enabled us to. This, by the way, goes along with the fact that RC is a works-based religion.

Okay let me say something. The Roman Catholic Church is not a works based religion, they teach quite clearly that salvation is a free gift from God based on grace. However, they had some serious questions and concerns about Luther's teachings They way my Cathlic high school teacher taught it to us was this:

We feel bad for Luther and his struggle and we agree the Church was corrupt at this point. We also agree that Luther is right salvation is based on the grace of God alone, there is nothing a human being could do to earn their salvation! Absolutely nothing. Our teachers believed this strongly.

HOwever, they pointed out. Scripture also teaches that human beings can lose their salvation. Paul mentions this, tons of people mention this. James tells us that merely believing correctly will not grant us salvation. So we fear what will happen if Christians hear Luther's message and just hear faith alone? We want to make sure you guys understand, that Jesus himself said that those who know me keep my commandments. We want to make sure you understand this truth. So, what we were basically told don't think that you can earn your salvation. Trust in God's grace. But also always remember what scripture says about faith without works. They basically say make sure you are cultivating the fruit of the spirit in your lives. IN their minds faith. In their minds Jesus never said go "led people into the sinners prayer." He said Go and make disciples.

Now, are there Catholics who think they have to earn their salvation. I will admit this yes, but let me ask you this. And with this I am criticizing Protestantism: Aren't there a lot of Evangelical Christians who are basing their salvation on the fact they said the sinners prayer?

Now, I know you say well the Catholic church defines salvation as through the sacraments. Now, let me say this okay, yes the Catholic Church

I will also say this at Catholic school We were told it is FAITH and works. But primarily faith. So in a way, its faith works! Faith must come first, and out of faith flows ones works.

Now let me explain to you about the whole sacramental system. This is basically the system Catholics use to led people to Christ. They developed this system because for almost a thousand years people couldn't read the Bible. They needed a system which could explain truth. While the sacraments are mentioned directly, they are based on Biblical teachings/ principles. They institutionalized these principles so that they could maintain truth. These sacraments were always there but they were eventually institutionalized. The pope who really institutionalized this did it for two reasons. He noticed that Catholicism was quickly becoming a cultural religion, with people going through the motives. He was very concerned about this so he wanted a system that did two things:

A system that preached against cheap grace. HE wanted to make it clear to the "so called" Christian who is living in sin, that if they continue they will go to Hell.

He wanted to provide offer grace to the worst repentant sinner.

He felt that the Church has to teach both.

It says that if you commit certain sins, you won't be in heaven. However, it also tells us that if we sin, we should repent, and scripture also exhorts Christians to confess your sins to one another and pray for each other so you may be healed. They Catholic church's teaching is that when you commit a sin that leads to death, you are full aware your sinning. And the consquences of your action but you do this anyways. Its not something that happens by accident.

Now, let me say this when a Catholic goes to confession. He a confesses: To the priest. Two the priest prayers for the person, and three the person and the person also prays directly to God! Now, the Catholic teaching is that in reality it is God who forgi

Sunday, August 11, 2002

Why I'm not a Roman Catholic

Comments