The Soda Shop Message Boards

What is the Catholic Church? In short, awesomeness. We consist of over a billion believers, putting one out of every 7.046 people in our Church. We are unified, believing in the same doctrines. We have indeed had schisms and scandals. Comes with the territory of being around 2,000 years. And yet, here we, stronger than ever and growing, in an age people scream Christianity is dying. We give more service to the poor than not only any other faith, but any other organization is all the world. The Catholic Church is the Church of Tolkien, the Church of St. Francis, the church of Kenneth Clark, and the Church of Mother Teresa.
The basics:

1. The Pope
Christ gave Peter authority over all His church, built His church on him in fact, an authority that successors also hold. The Pope solidifies truths as infallible when necessary (this is a great rarity). He speaks and writes on Catholicism in order to keep old truths new and relevant, such as the sanctity of all human life and marriage.
2. Doctrine
Doctrines are things like the trinity, the Eucharist, and Christ’s humanity and divinity. Those are beliefs on spiritual truths. They can never change in any way or be repealed. Most of our doctrines have been around for hundreds of years. It is important to realize doctrine is only a spiritual truth which is considered unchangeable. Customs, like what language the mass is said in, no meat on Fridays during Lent, and what the priest wears, are just that: customs. They can be changed and are changed. For instance, if he wanted, the Pope could declare all priests wear top-hats and tails. Doctrines, though, remain unmovable on the rock Jesus built.
3. The Eucharist
The Eucharist is the center of our religion and mass. The Eucharist is what Jesus said is His body, shocking many of his disciples so much they left him. This is the only interpretation the original languages allow for. Jesus could only be speaking literally. "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, we need look no further than Micah 3:3. Thus, there is no room to interpret what Jesus said figuratively, unless we accept modern reinterpretations rather than the phraseology of the Bible, God’s own word. The Eucharist, Jesus’ actual body and blood, are the center of our mass. We also have three readings, as well as a psalm, but the Eucharist is God Himself.

Popular Myths
“Catholics Worship Mary.”
To worship Mary would be a grave sin. Mary is our Heavenly Mother. Thus, we build statues to her just as you keep have pictures of your earthly mother. We give her flowers, just like good kids should. And, naturally, we pray, that is, talk to her.

“Some Popes do bad things. Some Popes lined their own pockets in terrible ways and, partially because of Popes, we had the crusades, which led to destruction and terrorizing. How can they be Christ’s infallible instrument on earth? No mere man is infallible.”

Nor was Moses infallible, nor was he perfect, but Jesus still spoke through him and Moses’ word could not be questioned. Most of the what Pope says isn't infallible either. In fact, most popes never speak, infallibly, that is, ex cathedra (there's a bit of Catholic lingo for you.) But when they do, God protects them from error. The Pope has no power, but God works through him.
The above statement makes the logical fallacy of assuming that someone who does bad cannot teach the truth. This is something like saying a scientist who makes many mistakes cannot make a real discovery. Only the Pope’s doctrines are infallible, his actions are not.
Despite that, the vast majority of Popes have been good and kind leaders. That’s why bad popes stand out as blights on church history. If “bad” popes were a dime a dozen, these few “bad” ones, who lived hundreds of years ago, would be forgotten today.

Well, I hope you skimmed all that, at least. Now feel free to comment and/or ask anything and everything. On topic, that is. If you want to know social security number, forget it.

So has it always been and always will be the Roman Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church?

1. Yeah right. Why do Catholics pray to her? And if it is simply talking...I guess it is not worshipping...
2. Do you approve of Jewelry? St. Tertullian, St. Cyprian, St. Jerome, Clement of Alexandria spoke rather negatively of jewelry. Also, basically the RCC till the 10th century forbade all kinds of jewelry even the wedding ring.
3. I wonder what the pope will say if he sees you in a tutu.
4. Is purgatory in the Bible? Matthew 3:11 is a probable Scripture. Yet, there were many interpretations (see Adam Clarke's Commentary).
5. Does the Catholic Church believe in indulgences?
6. God forbade images to be made at all. How can you answer that?
7. Are Catholics anti-Semitic? (Note: I know that Bernard of Clarivaux wasn't)
8. How many sacraments are there in the RCC?
9. What do Catholics think of Protestants?
10. Just because a Church is a majority does not make it the best Church. Jesus said that few go on the narrow way.
11. Does the RCC approve of smoking?
12. What is the Faith and Works salvation? (James 2 - how do you interpret it?)
Note: I have no hatred, racism or anything toward Catholics. Indeed, there were honorable men among them.

What does the world Pope mean?

Good Doctor, I am still looking into that one. I promise to get back to you once I have cleared it up to my satisfaction.

John Henry..., thanks for all the questions and for reading the preamble. Here we go.

1. What you are saying is unclear. Are you merely saying you don't believe me, or asking the difference between worshiping someone and praying to them?
2. I believe you've already got a sense that Catholics are not alone in approving of jewelery. Those verses do not indicate that there's meant to be a lasting ban on jewelery for everybody.
3. He'd probably just smile and wave.
4. What does Purgatory have to do with Matthew 3:11? Yes, Purgatory exists. Nothing unclean can enter Heaven.
5. Yes.
6. Actually, He ordered the making of graven images:
For example: "And you shall make two cherubim of gold [i.e., two gold statues of angels]; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Make one cherub on the one end, and one cherub on the other end; of one piece of the mercy seat shall you make the cherubim on its two ends. The cherubim shall spread out their wings above, overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings, their faces one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be" (Ex. 25:18–20). By the way, nice Nativity Scene.
7. I don't know what you mean by anti Semitic. I'll look into that.
8.There are seven sacraments: Baptism, Holy Orders, Matrimony, Confession, Eucharist, Confirmation, and Anointing of the Sick.
9.Protestants are intelligent people who learn the Bible studiously and are often filled with the Holy Spirit. Catholics, myself included, could learn a lot from you people. You can be a bit judgmental of us, though. As you just showed, for example, it's not unusual to for them to believe groundless, utterly false things like Catholics worship Mary. All you would have needed to do to clear that up is ask a Catholic or even just look it up. Instead, some Protestants choose to think the worst of us. So basically, we think that Protestants are wonderful people except that some of them don't like us on false pretenses.
10. No, it doesn't. The fact remains, we are an ocean among puddles. But, still, you raise a good point. Jesus did say few would walk in the right road. Being Catholic means you believe the truth, no more no less. Come to that, if you are any kind of Christian, you at least believe the basic good news, that Jesus is Our Lord and Savior. But belief is only part of it, to really follow Christ you have to do what He asks. And who among us can judge who is best following Christ? Certainly not you or me.

In any case, it wasn't the Prodigal son who turned away from his father's feast. It was the loyal son.

11. The RCC has no official opinion on smoking. But it's nearly always considered not a sin. Just very good way to get a lot of problems.
12. Deeds cannot get you to Heaven, but they can bring you closer to God. The closer you are to God, the more likely you will die wanting to go to Heven, which means you will indeed go to Heaven.
"Were honorable men among them"... high praise indeed.

Blitz, it means father. Is this a lead-in to the "call no man father" debate? If so, invitation happily accepted.

So is purgatory just the celestial waiting room? And how does giving the church money get Mr. Dead Relative a seat closer to the exit door?

Mr. Whit's End wrote:So is purgatory just the celestial waiting room? And how does giving the church money get Mr. Dead Relative a seat closer to the exit door?

That, I believe, is Indulgence Myth number five.

"Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.


The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case."

As to Purgatory, yes, more or less.

Is there any Biblical basis for indulgences?

The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome?

Saint Meletius of Antioch presided over the Second Ecummenical Council even though he was not in communion with Rome, how is that possible if communion with Rome is what unites the Church?

The Fourth Ecummenical Council was called against the express wishes of the Bishop of Rome, how can that be?

The Fifth Ecummenical Council met to condeme the writings known as The Three Chapters, an action opposed by the Pope at the time. The Council went ahead and condemned them anyway and threatened to excommunicate the Pope, only then did he recant and claim that demons had led him astray. This brings up a whole host of questions but mostly, how could the Council excommunicate the Pope if the Pope is the head of the Church?

Do you not eat meat on Fridays?

Either way, what is the history behind this tradition?

Do Catholics accept The History of Susanna?

Is there any Biblical basis for indulgences?

Yeperoo.

First, let's define "Indulgence."

Pope Paul VI said: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church's help when, as a minister of Redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints."[2]

We can rephrase this more simply as, "An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven."

Biblical Principle: Temporary Consequences of Sin

When someone repents, God removes their guilt ("though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" [Is. 1:18]) and any eternal punishment ("Since . . . we are now justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God" [Rom. 5:9]), but temporal penalties can remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery: "Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.'

"Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die'" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David and let him live, but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments.[8] In Numbers we read, "But Moses said to the Lord . . . 'Now if thou dost kill this people as one man, then the nations who have heard thy fame will say, "Because the Lord was not able to bring this people into the land which he swore to give to them, therefore he has slain them in the wilderness"' . . . Then the Lord said, 'I have pardoned, according to your word; but truly, as I live . . . none of the men who . . . have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers" (Num. 14:13-23). God states that, although he pardoned the people, he would impose a temporal penalty by keeping them from the promised land.

Later Moses, who is one of the saved (see Matt 17: 1-5), is told he will suffer a temporal penalty: "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, 'Because you did not believe in me, to sanctify me in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them'" (Num. 20:12; cf. 27:12-14).

Protestants often deny that temporal penalties remain after forgiveness of sin, but they acknowledge it in practice—for instance, when they insist on people returning things they have stolen. Thieves may obtain forgiveness, but they also must engage in restitution.

Biblical Principle: God remits punishments through The Church

Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ's ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.... Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin![11] Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.

Principle 7: God blesses dead Christians as a reward to living Christians.

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven.

If it is reasonable to ask that these penalties be removed in general, then it would be reasonable to ask that they be removed in a particular case as a reward. A widower could pray to God and ask that, if he has pleased God, his wife's transition into glory be hastened. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer."[12]

A close parallel to this application is 2 Maccabees. Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord's battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42). The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (v. 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (vv. 43, 45).

(For more on this, see http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIMINDU.htm

Belle wrote:Do you not eat meat on Fridays?

Either way, what is the history behind this tradition?

We do, Blondie. The short answer about how it started, "we don't know." If you're still curious, though, you can read the below.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome?

I'll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:The Fourth Canon of the First Ecummenical Council says bishops are only to be appointed locally, how does that fit with the claim of universal jurisdiction by the Bishop of Rome?

There's probably no rule against this. If it's allowed, it's with the will of the Pope, probably.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:The Fifth Ecummenical Council met to condeme the writings known as The Three Chapters, an action opposed by the Pope at the time. The Council went ahead and condemned them anyway and threatened to excommunicate the Pope, only then did he recant and claim that demons had led him astray. This brings up a whole host of questions but mostly, how could the Council excommunicate the Pope if the Pope is the head of the Church?

Eleventh Doctor wrote:The Fourth Ecummenical Council was called against the express wishes of the Bishop of Rome, how can that be?

I'm still working that out. It's supposed to be simple, but I just can't find anything that explains it well. I don't even have a clear idea of what happened.

Eleventh Doctor wrote:The Fifth Ecummenical Council met to condeme the writings known as The Three Chapters, an action opposed by the Pope at the time. The Council went ahead and condemned them anyway and threatened to excommunicate the Pope, only then did he recant and claim that demons had led him astray. This brings up a whole host of questions but mostly, how could the Council excommunicate the Pope if the Pope is the head of the Church?

Interesting, I'll look into that as well. Sorry, only one of your questions is answered so far. You come up with the hardest ones. Those are funnest, though

I'll have to look into that one more. Sounds like, though, that was meant to be a general rule with one exception. Exceptions make the rule.

No, exceptions mean the rule doesn't apply in that situation. There is no one exception in the canon, so how does that work?

There's probably no rule against this.

There is a very specific rule saying this is the only way. The canon says in no uncertain terms that bishops are to be appointed locally, there is no exception for the bishop of Rome and he gets no say in whether this rule applies or doesn't, the canons of the Church do not depend on the will of the bishop of Rome.

So does the Roman Catholic church deny the First Eccumenical Council and this canon?

I don't even have a clear idea of what happened.

The Church was like "We should have a Council" the Pope was like "No, don't have a Council." And the Church went ahead and had a legitimate council anyway.

Do Catholics pray to the pope? Why do some of them kneel to Mary?

Good Dr., let's take your challenges one at a time.

I did some asking around, and this should pretty well answer your question about the Four Canon and Bishops:

Canon IV.

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

The Ravenna document:

2. The Regional Level

22. Since the Church reveals itself to be catholic in the synaxis of the local Church, this catholicity must truly manifest itself in communion with the other Churches which confess the same apostolic faith and share the same basic ecclesial structure, beginning with those close at hand in virtue of their common responsibility for mission in that region which is theirs (cfr. Munich Document, III, 3, and Valamo Document, nn.52 and 53). Communion among Churches is expressed in the ordination of bishops. This ordination is conferred according to canonical order by three or more bishops, or at least two (cfr. Nicaea I, Canon 4), who act in the name of the episcopal body and of the people of God, having themselves received their ministry from the Holy Spirit by the imposition of hands in the apostolic succession. When this is accomplished in conformity with the canons, communion among Churches in the true faith, sacraments and ecclesial life is ensured, as well as living communion with previous generations.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/po...avenna_en.html

The Patriarchal Catholic Eastern Church itself elects its bishops to serve within its own territory. The eastern Catholic Patriarchs are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome and all other bishops of the Catholic Church.

CCEO

Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann. 947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law.

2. Other bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to cann. 149 and 168.

Canon 745

Episcopal ordination is reserved according to the norm of law to the Roman Pontiff, patriarch or metropolitan, so that no other bishop is permitted to ordain anyone a bishop unless it is previously established that there is a legitimate mandate.

Canon 746

1. A bishop should be ordained by three bishops, except in case of extreme necessity.

2. The second and third bishop, if they cannot be bishops of the same Church sui iuris as the first ordaining bishop, can be of another Church sui iuris.

Canon 748

1. With regard to sacred ordination, for one who is enrolled in a certain eparchy, the proper eparchial bishop is the bishop of the eparchy in which the candidate has a domicile, or the eparchy in whose service the candidate declared in writing his desire to devote himself; with regard to the sacred ordination of one who is already enrolled in an eparchy, it is the bishop of that eparchy.

2. An eparchial bishop cannot ordain a candidate subject to him who is enrolled in another Church sui iuris without the permission of the Apostolic See; if, however, it is a case of a candidate who is enrolled in a patriarchal Church and has a domicile or quasi-domicile within the territorial boundaries of the same Church, the patriarch can also grant this permission.

John Henry, we kneel to Mary show respect and love.

That only raises more questions, the earlier canons make it clear that only the local church will appoint and ordain bishops and if there are issues it goes to the Metropolitan, i.e. the head of the local synod. But then we see the Roman bishop in later canons give himself the power to ordain bishops as the norm, why the change? If Peter was the Rock and this was acknowledged in the Early Church why did it take until after the Seventh Ecumenical to make the change?

Ancient Epitome of Canon IV.
A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least by three, the rest giving by letter their assent; but this choice must be confirmed by the Metropolitan.

Canon IV then, is making a distinction between rank and the authority level of bishops, and how far a particular bishop's rank has reach. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.v.html

Jesus didn't put such restrictions on Peter.

As an aside, if one backs up one page to Canon III, that speaks of strict celebacy for the clergy, (deacon, priest, bishop, etc).

To clarify, the Metropolitan does not refer to the bishop of Rome.

Jesus didn't put what restrictions on Peter?

PF the argument on purgatory has no mention whatsoever of purgatory itself. As the punishments were received on earth and not after death. Could I also have the verses for the mention on the indulgence.
The Church of Rome is built on a pretty unsteady foundation. Never in the Bible did it give anywhere for passing the authority of the apostles down. According to Iraneaus, the Church of Rome is always right never wrong and on this the Catholic church builds it's power on. Ironically, you said the Pope is fallible and so are the people in the Catholic Church.
Also, the Catholic church has evolved heavily from the beginning. For example the icon debate which split the church in half. (another thing that discredits the Roman church) Eventually, the Council of Toulouse etc. I mean the Catholic church has gone back and said it was wrong on a few areas but that furthers my point. The Catholic church has unsteady foundations.
On to another point. The doctrines of the Catholic Church are largely founded on the Old Testament. Some completely so which could rightly crash them in on itself. The Old Testament should be taken with extreme care now a days, and the New Testament should be taken above the Old Testament especially Jesus's world.
Finally, implying that the Catholic Church is God's representative on Earth and claiming higher spiritual ability is in no way a tested to in the Bible except possibly when Christ was talking to Peter and only there in the whole Bible. This give the Church way too much power which corrupts as seen again and again.
My parents were both Catholic. My dad even nearly became a priest. After an incident, he decided to renounce Catholicism and travel the world. He became a Christian in Argentina.

Blitz, let's be careful to not say some Traditions are not Christian. You gave your dad's story and said he was not a Christian until he became Protestant. But for me it was nearly the opposite, I lived as a Protestant for most of my life and only became a Christian when I became Orthodox. Let's be respectful of others while acknowledging real differences we have.

Now you say the Catholic Church is largely founded on the Old Testament and that the New Testament should be taken above the Old Testament but I would say, and I suspect PF would too, that the two don't contradict each other and our Traditions do not take one over the other but look at both through the lens of Apostolic Tradition, which is divinely inspired because the Apostles received it from Christ.

On the issue of Apostolic Succession St. Irenaeus did not say the Church of Rome is always right, I don't know where that's coming from. But the issue of Apostolic Succession is an important issue in the Church, I would ask you what model Christ had for the Church if not Apostolic Succession? Do you think the plan was to split into tens of thousands of small denominations with no unity? If not, where did it go wrong?