Catholicism = Paganism? (split from "Too much of orthodox")

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE]

Now, wait a minute. Any roman catholic has the freedom to worship any jesus they choose, which is true of mormons, jehovah's witnesses, et al.

Oh, dear. Comparing Trinitarians to Arians and Tritheists? Where to begin...

They obviously don't believe in the Jesus I've read about in the Bible

That may very well be true, since we all (Protestant anti-Catholics especially included) tend to skim or skip entirely the portions of Scripture that are difficult for us to reconcile with our beliefs.

They believe they're jesus must be rescarificed in regular cycles in order to properly atone, contary to the Jesus I read about in scripture who said, "It is finished," which, to me, seems to indicate finality.....not something that's ongoing.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus is re-sacrificed over and over again. Jesus' one holy sacrifice is continually offered in heaven and made present on Earth, in order to benefit the Body of Christ, because Christ's priesthood over us is continual and eternal.

I'm glad that we're at least getting the typical, silly anti-Catholic rumors and misunderstandings of Catholicism out of the way in this thread.

[Maxentius]

Now, wait a minute. Any roman catholic has the freedom to worship any jesus they choose, which is true of mormons, jehovah's witnesses, et al. Why criticize their jesus? They're comfortable with their deity. They like to think that praying to dead people who don't hear them somehow gets them more browny points with their jesus, so if they're happy with those assumptions, then more power to them. They're happy, I'm happy.

They obviously don't believe in the Jesus I've read about in the Bible, so anything they believe about their jesus has no bearing whatsoever upon the Jesus I see portrayed within scripture.

They believe they're jesus must be rescarificed in regular cycles in order to properly atone, contary to the Jesus I read about in scripture who said, "It is finished," which, to me, seems to indicate finality.....not something that's ongoing.

So, why all the fuss?

TM

First, I don't think the RCs pray to a different Jesus--they pray the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed etc. They also pray to Mary, but even if that is wrong (and I believe it is) it does not mean they pray to a different Jesus. IOW, they are well within the bounds of Western Christianity when it comes to who Jesus is and what he did. (FWIW, some EOs would say they pray to a different Jesus--one who generates the Holy Ghost along with the Father, but that is for a different thread at a different time...)

But what I really wan tot say is that this post of yours is the mirror image of the "look down my nose" faux superiority of the typical RC apologist. IOW, it is so filled with unexamined assumptions so as to be useless as an argument. For example, what is to stop a Rc from saying your Jesus is too narrow because your Jesus doe snot take into consideration the departed saints? By that measure, You have a different Jesus.

IOW, even if your over all point is correct, they way you argue for it means no one will be convinced, and the same is true of the typical way EOs and RCs argue against prots. It is much better to use an internal critique and show internal tensions and contradictions within their own system. Shouting the other guy has a fake Jesus with little or no explanation is counter productive.

But hey, it is a free country, and there is no shortage of recycled electrons to use...

[OneSizeFit]

Spiritual milk that doesnt get old, I prefer solids.

[Anoetos]

"Recycled electrons" are known as "free radicals" before they actually get picked up in reduction processes. They're actually very bad for you.

Yet another deleterious byproduct of the first law of thermodynamics

[titheman]

[quote=RCNicholas;2874212]

Oh, dear. Comparing Trinitarians to Arians and Tritheists? Where to begin...

Any measure of normal reading comprehension skills would never have led one to the conclusion that I was comparing belief systems themselves. I simply stated that those involved in the various belief systems all around us here in the West have the right to believe in whatever deity they desire.

That may very well be true, since we all (Protestant anti-Catholics especially included) tend to skim or skip entirely the portions of Scripture that are difficult for us to reconcile with our beliefs.

Really? I thought they all explained them away as a matter of convenience. I've never met anyone who outright avoids any section of scripture.

Catholics do not believe that Jesus is re-sacrificed over and over again. Jesus' one holy sacrifice is continually offered in heaven and made present on Earth, in order to benefit the Body of Christ, because Christ's priesthood over us is continual and eternal.

It's continually offered beause of His eternal priesthood? That seems like quite a leap. How does priesthood equate to a continual sacrifice being offered? Are you talking about the idea that j the rcc esus continually reminds his forgetful father about what he accomplished?

What's your twist to the meaning of the alleged physical presence here on earth?

I know quite a number of local roman caltholics who have an entirely different viewpoint about all this, but I'm willing to entertain other viewpoints in order to see how it all meshes together.....if at all.

I'm glad that we're at least getting the typical, silly anti-Catholic rumors and misunderstandings of Catholicism out of the way in this thread.

Well, at least we're seeing a handfull of the many, many different twists that exist within roman catholicism. There's a group of roman catholics in Central America who still sacrifice chickes to the local gods, and yet they're in good standing with the local diocese and Rome.

Now THAT'S what I call tolerance.....that's in keeping with modern ideals anyway.....

TM

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE]

Any measure of normal reading comprehension skills would never have led one to the conclusion that I was comparing belief systems themselves. I simply stated that those involved in the various belief systems all around us here in the West have the right to believe in whatever deity they desire.

I could be totally wrong, but I think there's a reason you chose Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as comparison groups to Catholicism. It's a very frequent anti-Catholic habit when one tries to paint Catholicism as cultish or Catholics themselves as unsaved.

Really? I thought they all explained them away as a matter of convenience. I've never met anyone who outright avoids any section of scripture.

Obviously if you open the Bible to a page and show something to them they're going to come up with something. But as a matter of course, when you attend or listen to Bible studies, sermons, read commentaries, etc. certain groups emphasize certain portions of Scripture and de-emphasize other portions, often to the point of complete neglect.

It's continually offered beause of His eternal priesthood? That seems like quite a leap. How does priesthood equate to a continual sacrifice being offered?

Well, let's think about it. What do priests do? "For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer." (Hebrews 8:3) If Christ's priesthood is continual and eternal (Hebrews 7:24), and a priest's job is to offer gifts/sacrifices, then it's hardly a "leap" at all to deduce that Christ must be offering something up eternally. Namely, he's offering up the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

Are you talking about the idea that j the rcc esus continually reminds his forgetful father about what he accomplished?

You can straw man it all you want; it's Biblical fact that Christ "always lives to make intercession for [us]." (Hebrews 7:25)

What's your twist to the meaning of the alleged physical presence here on earth?

There's no twist. I assume you're familiar with the concept of the Real Presence?

I know quite a number of local roman caltholics who have an entirely different viewpoint about all this, but I'm willing to entertain other viewpoints in order to see how it all meshes together.....if at all.

Remember that you should not define Catholicism by what individual Catholics DO, but by what the Church TEACHES. Lots of individual Catholics do lots of weird things out of ignorance of actual Church teaching. Don't let that confuse you.

Well, at least we're seeing a handfull of the many, many different twists that exist within roman catholicism. There's a group of roman catholics in Central America who still sacrifice chickes to the local gods, and yet they're in good standing with the local diocese and Rome.

Again, the practices of individual Catholics should not be confused with the teaching of the Church. You hear that all the time: "Well I know a Catholic who does THIS, or believes THAT, so...THERE!" That doesn't prove much about what the Church itself teaches. What I've attempted to present to you is very mainstream, orthodox Catholic teaching - which you can verify by checking out the Catechism, Church Councils, etc.

[titheman]

[quote=RCNicholas;2876072]

I could be totally wrong, but I think there's a reason you chose Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses as comparison groups to Catholicism. It's a very frequent anti-Catholic habit when one tries to paint Catholicism as cultish or Catholics themselves as unsaved.

You're right. It's wrong to paint all catholics as unsaved. Another's salvation isn't for any of us to judge.

However, a doctrinal system that teaches of a jesus who doesn't resemble the one I read about in the Bible is obviously a different jesus. The usual dodges many employ, such as the misunderstanding outsiders have about the clear language of an internal text, well, such tactics work only when the text itself can be shown to be misunderstood on reasonable grounds.

Obviously if you open the Bible to a page and show something to them they're going to come up with something. But as a matter of course, when you attend or listen to Bible studies, sermons, read commentaries, etc. certain groups emphasize certain portions of Scripture and de-emphasize other portions, often to the point of complete neglect.

Absolutely. Thats the spirit behind deonimationalism.....that and human pride and the instiable desire for power.

The desire to avoid calling something a conspiracy also plays into the hands of genuine conspirators. They love the usual attitude that prevails against the idea that religious leaders could possibly be guilty of intrigue by manipulating doctrines to their own personal advantage, power and wealth. Oh, yes. priests, bishops, popes, et al, own nothing, thus they can claim poverty.....even though they have massive quantities of wealth at their command, just like Benny Hinn. I remember him cflaiming that none of the massive giving into his ministry went into his pockets.....even though he lives in mansions owned by the ministry, flies in jets owned by the ministry, eats food purchsed by the ministry, rides in limousines owned by the ministry, driven by chaufers paid by the ministry, surrounded by armed guards paid by the ministry, etc., etc.

You know, I'd love to live in that kind of poverty. Where's the sacrificfe in that?

Well, let's think about it. What do priests do? "For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this One also have something to offer." (Hebrews 8:3) If Christ's priesthood is continual and eternal (Hebrews 7:24), and a priest's job is to offer gifts/sacrifices, then it's hardly a "leap" at all to deduce that Christ must be offering something up eternally. Namely, he's offering up the sacrifice of Himself. (Hebrews 9:26)

What the ancient high priests did isn't necessarily comparable to the sacrifice (singular) of Christ.

Heb. 8:3 is indeed in referencfe to Christ, but I still don't see that we can speculate from it what it means in reference to gifts and sacrififes. What exactly are they, and what is actually done? We don't have a window into Heaven. In the place of actual knowledge, we observe some strange, contrived exercises within the rc'e religious services.

7:24 speaks of His continuance as the high priest because He is not subject to death. Again, we're left with no idea as to how this all is lived out in Heaven.

9:26 speaks in the singular of His appearing and paying the price once and for all. Nother there about an ongoing suffering through ongoing crucifiction (suffering), etc.

You can straw man it all you want; it's Biblical fact that Christ "always lives to make intercession for [us]." (Hebrews 7:25)

I never addressed intercession. I addressed the assumption of people who are dead to this world making intercession for us.

There's no twist. I assume you're familiar with the concept of the Real Presence?

He's really present with me right now, and I didn't need some magical incantations or ritual for His presence to be real.

Remember that you should not define Catholicism by what individual Catholics DO, but by what the Church TEACHES.

I agree.....to an extent that, in this case, the rcc leadership's reaction to chicken sacrifices by its membership does indeed speak loud volumes to that religion's sentiments about doctrine.

TM

[Macgawd]

You're right. It's wrong to paint all catholics as unsaved. Another's salvation isn't for any of us to judge.

However, a doctrinal system that teaches of a jesus who doesn't resemble the one I read about in the Bible is obviously a different jesus.

No, it's a different Jesus to you, based on the historically false and self-refuting premise of Sola Scriptura. The irony, of course, is in accusing the Catholic Church--which assembled and ratified the canon of Scripture called the Bible--of teaching of a Jesus that is different than the one actually found in that Bible.

The usual dodges many employ, such as the misunderstanding outsiders have about the clear language of an internal text, well, such tactics work only when the text itself can be shown to be misunderstood on reasonable grounds.

The problem isn't misunderstanding the texts, it is in understanding the texts in their historical context. Asserting that Christianity is based on the Bible is a bit like asserting that mathematics is based on Einstein's Relativity--you've simply got it all backwards. Every single book of the NT was produced by people who were already Christians, with at least two of the Gospels being second-hand accounts penned by authors who did not know Christ personally. Paul's epistles, which comprise the bulk of the NT, are written to already established churches experiencing moral and/or doctrinal issues. How was is possible for the texts of the NT to be written by Christians, if the Bible is the only means of transmitting the faith?

The point is, it is foolish to argue that the Bible is the sole source of Christian doctrinal beliefs, when the Bible itself refutes this, and when none of the books of the NT are specifically written as a primer on Christian doctrine, but as either as a historical memoir (the Gospels), or as corrective instructions (Epistles).

=M=

[Obsidian]

1. The purpose of a priest is to mediate, not to give repeated sacrifices. That's why all Christians and even all Jews were called a kingdom of priests, because they had an obligation to send God's message to the unbelieving world and thereby mediate between God and man.

2. Just because sola scriptura was an inappropriate doctrine during the lifetime of the apostles does not mean it's an inappropriate doctrine today. Valid traditions either come directly from scripture (in which case they aren't really traditions in the sense we're talking about) or they eventually make their way into scripture. Hence, apostolic teachings eventually became the New Testament and were valid even before they were canonized.

[Macgawd]

1. The purpose of a priest is to mediate, not to give repeated sacrifices. That's why all Christians and even all Jews were called a kingdom of priests, because they had an obligation to send God's message to the unbelieving world and thereby mediate between God and man.

That is one role of the Priesthood, but claim the the role of the priest is not to offer sacrifices is not only contrary to the entire history of Christianity, it is contrary to Scripture:

"Every high priest chosen from among mortals is put in charge of things pertaining to God on their behalf, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins" - Hebrews 5:1

2. Just because sola scriptura was an inappropriate doctrine during the lifetime of the apostles does not mean it's an inappropriate doctrine today.

But it wasn't merely "inappropriate doctrine" during the lifetime of the Apostles, it was a doctrine that didn't even exist for the first 15 centuries of Christianity. But even if this were not an unassailable fact, at what point does it suddenly become appropriate? On who's authority does altering the entire means by which Christianity is transmitted change? Are all the Christian doctrines handed down through Tradition for the prior 15 centuries now magically invalid, simply because Luther declared it so?

Valid traditions either come directly from scripture (in which case they aren't really traditions in the sense we're talking about) or they eventually make their way into scripture. Hence, apostolic teachings eventually became the New Testament and were valid even before they were canonized.

But which ones? Who had the authority to decide which traditions become valid, and which one's didn't? The Canon of the New Testament wasn't assembled and ratified in its permanent form until 382 AD at the Council of Rome--prior to that, there was much disagreement over which texts should or should not be included, such as Hebrews and Revelation. Others argued for the inclusion of the writings of Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and other early Christian works. So for at least the first 3.5 centuries of Christianity--well beyond the lifetime of the Apostles--there was no official Bible for which to even claim ultimate doctrinal authority.

The Bible is a product of Christianity, and not the other way around, and arguing that the Bible is the sole authority on Christian doctrine is a perfect example of the circular reasoning that comprises so much of Protestant apologetics.

=M=

[Obsidian]

Who had the authority to decide which traditions become valid, and which one's didn't?

You weren't paying attention to what I wrote, because I said that the traditions were already valid because they aligned with God's word, whether God's word was officially canonized or not. We didn't have to wait hundreds of years to know that Paul was a messenger from God; we just knew it and accepted it by faith. Furthermore, there are copies of the NT from the 2nd Century, so your mathematical reasoning seems dubious anyway.

Regarding a lack of sola scriptura for 1500 years, that's false as well. I seem to remember Tertullian, for example, arguing that Christians shouldn't even join the Roman army because the Bible didn't give them explicit authority to do so (which is a stupid argument, but also one that resembles sola scriptura). And from what I've read, the Church Fathers in general tended to quote scripture rather than tradition for the purpose of backing up their positions. And to the extent that they backed up their opinions with scripture, their opinions tended to be more accurate.

Ultimately, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the doctrine of sola scriptura took a while to become formalized. It wasn't until the Catholics produced such a multitude of traditions contradicting the Bible that the need for sola scripture became apparent.

That is one role of the Priesthood, but claim the the role of the priest is not to offer sacrifices is not only contrary to the entire history of Christianity, it is contrary to Scripture:

Your Bible verse is talking about the high priest, not simply the priest. Under the mosaic law, the high priest's most important job was to offer that sacrifice, which symbolized Christ's mediation through the atonement. But the entire nation was a nation of priests because they were called to mediate on behalf of the gentiles. In any case, citing Hebrews doesn't do you a whole lot of good because Hebrews explicitly states that Jesus offered his sacrifice once for all.

[Anoetos]

This is a good opportunity for me to express my discomfort with the usual Protestant response on this issue.

This is an matter where the older institutional churches hold the cards. I agree completely with the Catholic and Orthodox construction: the Bible is the church's book and the canon was eventually confirmed and determined under her aegis.

However, I don't think this means that the Church "decided" which books were in and which were out, a great deal of this was accomplished through an amalgam of long use, the opinions of learned men and popular acceptance.

This might mean that God specially superintended the formation of the canon, but it needn't necessarily mean that the church has a special and specific charism for determining canon.

We all stand on the shoulders of giants, and we don't even know all their names.

This mediating position has the advantage, I think, of doing good service to history as well as being respectful of the nature of Sacred Scripture but it's fairly nuanced, so I don't expect it to get much of a reaction here...lol.

[Anoetos]

The problem isn't misunderstanding the texts, it is in understanding the texts in their historical context. Asserting that Christianity is based on the Bible is a bit like asserting that mathematics is based on Einstein's Relativity--you've simply got it all backwards. Every single book of the NT was produced by people who were already Christians, with at least two of the Gospels being second-hand accounts penned by authors who did not know Christ personally. Paul's epistles, which comprise the bulk of the NT, are written to already established churches experiencing moral and/or doctrinal issues. How was is possible for the texts of the NT to be written by Christians, if the Bible is the only means of transmitting the faith?

This is all absolutely true, but it presupposes a view of Scripture beyond what any Protestant actually believes.

It seeks to construct a straw man and then propose a rebuttal to it.

When Protestants say that Christianity depends upon the Bible they don't mean that Christianity came out of the Bible. They mean that, in the absence of Apostles since the apostolic age, Christianity depends upon the Bible as the source of truth and teaching.

What you've said here does nothing (or, at least very little) to support what I assume would be your thesis that the Church, especially in the persons of the Pope and Bishops is, or should be the final authority in the establishment of true doctrine or that, in other words, they (the Pope and Bishops) stand in the place of those Apostles.

I also think your first paragraph implies that you believe Protestants have a different Jesus than Catholics do. Paul was very clear about the implications of getting the Gospel wrong and about having the wrong Jesus, this is a very rickety bridge you're walking. I'd be very sad if this is really what you meant.

[Macgawd]

You weren't paying attention to what I wrote, because I said that the traditions were already valid because they aligned with God's word, whether God's word was officially canonized or not.

You're again employing circular reasoning to prove a point which has no historical basis--specifically, that the written Word is the final arbiter of what constitutes valid tradition. Christ did not establish a book, he established a Church, to be the "pillar and bulwark of Truth". Some of these traditions were committed to writing, some were not, but it is the Church, not the Bible, which must be the final arbiter of Truth.

Furthermore, there are copies of the NT from the 2nd Century, so your mathematical reasoning seems dubious anyway.

Certainly the four Gospels were accepted as authentic from very early on in Christian history, as well as other texts that would later be part of the NT--but so were many other texts, such as Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, The Shepherd of Hermas, just to name a few. The point being, only the Church had the divine authority to determine which of the hundreds of extant Christian texts were authentic, and which were not.

Regarding a lack of sola scriptura for 1500 years, that's false as well. I seem to remember Tertullian, for example, arguing that Christians shouldn't even join the Roman army because the Bible didn't give them explicit authority to do so (which is a stupid argument, but also one that resembles sola scriptura).

A quote would be nice to back up your assertion here.

And from what I've read, the Church Fathers in general tended to quote scripture rather than tradition for the purpose of backing up their positions. And to the extent that they backed up their opinions with scripture, their opinions tended to be more accurate.

So? The Church still quotes from Scripture in order to reinforce its doctrinal beliefs, and always has. This certainly doesn't prove that Sola Scriptura is a valid doctrine.

Ultimately, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the doctrine of sola scriptura took a while to become formalized. It wasn't until the Catholics produced such a multitude of traditions contradicting the Bible that the need for sola scripture became apparent.

And which doctrines would those be?

=M=

[Macgawd]

This is all absolutely true, but it presupposes a view of Scripture beyond what any Protestant actually believes.

It seeks to construct a straw man and then propose a rebuttal to it.

When Protestants say that Christianity depends upon the Bible they don't mean that Christianity came out of the Bible. They mean that, in the absence of Apostles since the apostolic age, Christianity depends upon the Bible as the source of truth and teaching.

Perhaps this is what Protestants truly mean, but it nevertheless is still fallacious reasoning. The argument that Christianity depends upon the Bible as the source of truth and Christian teaching is not only historically unfounded, but it is a self-refuting claim--not only does the Bible nowhere make such a claim for itself, but the very notion of it is repudiated by the texts themselves, which often make the appeal to the authoritative oral tradition of the Apostles (2 Tim. 2:2; 2 Tim. 3:14–15; 2 Thess. 2:15).

What you've said here does nothing (or, at least very little) to support what I assume would be your thesis that the Church, especially in the persons of the Pope and Bishops is, or should be the final authority in the establishment of true doctrine or that, in other words, they (the Pope and Bishops) stand in the place of those Apostles.

But that is the belief and understanding of the Church from its inception--that the authority given by Christ to his Apostles is handed down through Apostolic succession. Pope Clement I, himself ordained a bishop by Peter, wrote of the necessity of the institution of Apostolic succession (emphasis mine):

"Through countryside and city the apostles preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" - Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 (A.D. 80).

Then there's Irenaeus:

"...It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But it is also incumbent to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth".

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" - Against Heresies (A.D. 189)

I could go on and on quoting from various early Christian sources. Apostolic succession has been the tradition through which all authority has passed down to the Church since its foundation through Christ, and this tradition is asserted over and over through the writings of the Church Fathers, up until the Reformation invented the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

I also think your first paragraph implies that you believe Protestants have a different Jesus than Catholics do. Paul was very clear about the implications of getting the Gospel wrong and about having the wrong Jesus, this is a very rickety bridge you're walking. I'd be very sad if this is really what you meant.

No, I don't imply that Protestants have a different Jesus, only a faulty understanding of Jesus' message, mission, and intent for the Church he established. Jesus established through his Apostles a Church imbued with all authority to teach and instruct--not a Bible. I can find no Scripture in which Jesus exhorted his followers to write anything down, let alone so that it may become someday the sole authority on Christian doctrine.

=M=