This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Questions for a Catholic
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I've noticed a lot of misconceptions about religion flying around the forums. I would like to clarify all of them, but usually that particular thread isn't the right place to do so. So if anyone wants clarification on what Catholics believe and why, I'll be happy to answer.
Now I can't speak for all religions, nor for a lot of protestant denominations; but seeing as the Catholic Church is the most visible of these nowadays, I think there are probably a lot of things I can answer.
Maybe no one wants to know...that's fine. Just make sure that if you get into an argument later over religion, you know what you are talking about first.
Post by
GenXCub
In before molestation joke.
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
First off, full disclosure I am an atheist. But I'm curious about the whole limbo thing. I heard recently (may be mistaken) that it was decided limbo no longer existed, or never did. What is/was limbo believed to be, and what is the current catholic belief on it?
There have been two different limbos described by the Church though history: Limbo of the Fathers, and Limbo of the Infants.
Limbo (in its most general sense) is a state of perfect
natural
happiness.
The Limbo of the Fathers is something that has always been a part of Church teaching. It's where all the righteous who died before Christ's death went. Once Christ died, the Limbo of the Fathers essentially ceased to exist.
The Limbo of the Unborn is what you're referring to as being recently changed. However, this Limbo has never been dogmatically affirmed by the Church. Theologians though the years have argued for and against it. So, yes, there has been a shift in theological thought in the last couple decades, but no the Church has no doctrine concerning it (ie Catholics are free to believe whichever they want).
Post by
MyTie
Any thoughts about this:
1) While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32).
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9).
3) While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) Infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),
(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),
(c) The provision of the Holy Spirit who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel, and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves, but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path (Galatians 1:8-9).Taken from
here
.
Post by
Queggy
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In before molestation joke.
Between 1950 and 2002, 4392 priests have been accused of sexual molestation or an average of 84 priest molesters accused every year. Of these only 252 have been convicted (However, this number doesn't take into account that a lot of the priests died before they could be tried).
Now compare that to the national numbers.
~80,000 reports every year (which makes priests 0.1%)
Unfortunately, I can't find any numbers on how many are convicted each year, so I can't compare that number.
TL;DR: Priests aren't the problem.
Post by
MyTie
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
Actually, it says to pray to God, under authority of Jesus, but this is semantics.
Post by
Queggy
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
Actually, it says to pray to God, under authority of Jesus, but this is semantics.
My point was that Jesus is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." We no longer need to make sacrifices to God, because Jesus sacrificed himself for us and is now our mediator to God. We don't need mediators for our mediators.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
MyTie, your question was big so I'm going to put it off till after I grab some dinner.
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
I assume you're referring to 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
However, taken in context (1 Tim 2:1-5):
First of all, then,
I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men
, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
In other words, we pray to the saints and Mary to intercede for us to God/Jesus. It's the same reason we ask our friends and family to pray for us, only in the case of the saints we know they are on God's good side.
Part of the difficulty is that "prayer" is being used in two different senses. A couple Latin words are used to clarify. We give
latria
(worship/adoration) to God alone, we give the saints
dulia
(honor/praise).
Post by
MyTie
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
Actually, it says to pray to God, under authority of Jesus, but this is semantics.
It is only semantics if you believe in the Trinity. Otherwise, it is a VERY important distinction.
Hmmm
1 Timothy 2:5 seems to distinguish between Jesus and God, but says that there is only one God.
Romans 9:5 states Jesus as God, and so does Colossians 2:9
I think it is an understanding and language barrier, which is why I chalk it up to semantics, although that doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Why pray to saints when it says in the Bible that we need to pray to Jesus?
Actually, it says to pray to God, under authority of Jesus, but this is semantics.
It is only semantics if you believe in the Trinity. Otherwise, it is a VERY important distinction.
Hmmm
1 Timothy 2:5 seems to distinguish between Jesus and God, but says that there is only one God.
Romans 9:5 states Jesus as God, and so does Colossians 2:9
I think it is an understanding and language barrier, which is why I chalk it up to semantics, although that doesn't mean it is completely irrelevant.
This is where the Catholic (and Christian for the most part) doctrine of the Trinity comes in.
There is one God.
There are three distinct persons in God.
If you keep both principles in mind, both those verses you mentioned make sense.
Post by
Queggy
This is where the Catholic (and Christian for the most part) doctrine of the Trinity comes in.
There is one God.
There are three distinct persons in God.
If you keep both principles in mind, both those verses you mentioned make sense.An analogy that I heard that made a lot of sense was this:
Picture a book. There are three parts of the book. The book has length, width, and depth. Each of those three parts are completely different things, yet they all form one thing, a book. It's the same for the Trinity. The Holy Spirit, God the Father, and God the Son are three separate beings, yet they are also the same.
Post by
Zoltas
Now I can't speak for all religions, nor for a lot of protestant denominations; but seeing as the Catholic Church is the most visible of these nowadays, I think there are probably a lot of things I can answer.
Im not trying to sound smart or anything, im genuinely asking, is protestantism not a denomination of Catholocism?
Please correct me if I'm wrong
Post by
Queggy
Now I can't speak for all religions, nor for a lot of protestant denominations; but seeing as the Catholic Church is the most visible of these nowadays, I think there are probably a lot of things I can answer.
Im not trying to sound smart or anything, im genuinely asking, is protestantism not a denomination of Catholocism?
Please correct me if I'm wrong
Protestants are another denomination of Christianity.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Christianity is broken up into Catholicism, Protestantism, and Anglicanism.
Protestantism is the only one to use denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, etc).
So all Protestants are Christians and all Catholics are Christians, but no Protestant is a Catholic and vice versa.
Post by
MyTie
This is where the Catholic (and Christian for the most part) doctrine of the Trinity comes in.
Still waiting to hear your explaination for the legitimacy of the pope. In my mind, the teachings of Jesus are complete and timeless. Whatever people add onto it is unneccesary and deviant.
Post by
TheMediator
You don't pray to saints,
you venerate them.
Post by
kattib
What are thoughts on the Jewish people (yes I am a Jew, now you know and knowing is half the battle!) Like do you think they will go to hell and stuff. (I dont of course, I still believe in the Jewish ways obviously)
Btw people who say they are completed Jews and whatever who believe in jesus being messiah are NOT Jews.
Post Reply
This topic is locked. You cannot post a reply.