Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by robbyyoung » Tue Dec 23, 2014 6:32 pm

BrotherAlan wrote:clearly, there is at least a start to some kind of succession going on here. Furthermore, we are exhorted by the Scriptures to obey the authorities in the Church-- if there was not something like Apostolic Succession in the Church, then such exhortations in Scripture would have meaning, it would seem, only for the Apostolic Christians, and not for, say, us (as Christians after that age would have no real authority to look to, other than, perhaps, persons with charismatic or moral authority, but not any objective ecclesiastical or hierarchical authority). But this seems to run contrary to the fact that Christ Himself in the Gospels, and in other parts of Scripture, make it clear that the Church He founded will last for all time (eg., Mt. 16:18-19), and this Church will be able to teach (as the pillar of truth, 1 Tim. 3:15) and administer punishments to those who do not listen to her, i.e., the Church (eg., Mt. 18), implying necessarily that there must be SOME in the Church who have the same kind of authority that the Apostles had. And other examples could be brought forward manifesting similar points or arguments.
Let me ask a question. When the New Heavens and Earth arrive on the scene, what happens to this 1st Century set-up of The Church hierarchy?

Would this hierarchy be void, unnecessary, fulfilled once "The Perfect" has come?

God Bless.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:15 pm

Hello, RobbyYoung--
That's a good question...I'd have to think about (and research that) some more...but, my initial "stab" at an answer is that, "Yes", in the new age to come, i.e., the age of heaven, the current hierarchical structure of the Church will be fulfilled and no longer necessary (though, there may be some remnants of it in heaven as "memorabilia" of what took place on earth, eg., those men who were ordained ministerial priests on earth will be recognized as being such in heaven....or, God-forbid, in hell, too!). Thus, the only hierarchy that will truly remain and have real purpose in heaven will be the hierarchy of virtue and charity (those who enter heaven with more charity will be higher in heaven than those with less). But, on this earth, the hierarchical structure of the Church is necessary in order that the Church be governed well as a society on this earth, and thus enable more souls to grow in virtue, charity, holiness, i.e., in the life of grace given to us through Christ. Ideally, the hierarchy on earth should also reflect the hierarchy of charity (that is, those who have authority in the Church should also have more charity); but, this does not always happen, of course (sometimes it does, but not always, as history has shown).

Anyways, that's my real quick "initial" stab at the question (if it makes sense, great...else, take it with a grain of salt for now!)

God bless, and Merry Christmas!

In Christ,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by Homer » Thu Dec 25, 2014 11:44 pm

Bro Alan,

You wrote:
But, on this earth, the hierarchical structure of the Church is necessary in order that the Church be governed well as a society on this earth, and thus enable more souls to grow in virtue, charity, holiness, i.e., in the life of grace given to us through Christ.
If your church was the true and exclusive institution that you say it is, then why would it produce the fruit that we see? Jesus informed us we would "know them by their fruit". Yet we see such sinful things by individuals of the Roman church that appear to be happen because of, rather than in spite of your church's policies. The practice of forbidding marriage to certain persons comes to mind. For those persons, marriage, an institution established and honored by God, is a greater offense than fornication. Thus priests retain their position though guilty of molesting children but would be kicked out if they marry. I recall years ago my late cousin, who was Catholic, talking glowingly about her monsignor. Turned out she was his mistress.

I hope you don't believe the forbidding of marriage is inspired. Peter, whom you claim as your first pope, was married and wouldn't even qualify as a priest in your church. And where do we find a need for the office of priest, anyway? Seems to me we have One and need no other. He is the one we are to confess our sins to.

Years ago I worked for large corporation. Occasionally I was sent on trips to facilities in various other states. I will never forget visiting a facility in a heavily Catholic city. We were meeting with a group of union employees when we inquired as to how they would handle a situation with a difficult employee. An example was quickly provided - "well, if someone has been to the church picnic and comes to work drunk", then he went on to say what they would do. Needless to say, I was astonished that he would so casually come up with that, as though it was the norm.

I know Catholics are quick to excuse a wicked pope by saying we must honor the office, the institution, not the man, but these are problems endemic to the institution, not any particular man.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Mon Dec 29, 2014 2:29 am

Dear Homer (and anyone else listening in),
First, as anyone even a little familiar with the Catholic Church today knows well, the Catholic Church is almost certainly the greatest defender of marriage, and its sanctity, in our world today (as she has been throughout her history). In fact, many of the attacks against the Catholic Church are precisely because of her teachings on marriage and its sanctity (for, the Church's condemnation of such things as pornography, masturbation, divorce, contraception, homosexual "unions", etc. all stem from her recognition on the beauty, goodness, and holiness of marriage). It should be known, too, that the Catholic Church not only holds marriage in such high esteem because she believes marriage to have been created by God, but, even moreso, she holds that Christ the Lord elevated marriage to the dignity of a Sacrament (in the Sacrament of Matrimony)-- a sacred truth about marriage which, I might add, many non-Catholic Christian communities fail to acknowledge. I highly encourage all readers to take a look at the Catholic Church's beautiful teachings on the beauty and holiness of marriage that can be found in such sources as The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Pope St. John Paul II's Familiaris Consortio and his famous (at least in Catholic circles) Theology of the Body, as well as Pope Benedict XVI's God is Love. In fact, that last work, Pope Benedict's "God is Love" has a very beautiful defense not only of marriage but also of the romantic, human love which the Greeks called "eros"-- Benedict states that even though men and women have, throughout history, not controlled their "eros", and this has (and still does) led to many disorders, nevertheless, "eros", by its very nature, is something that is good (and, with God's grace, can become something holy; for, as sound Catholic theology says, "Grace does not destroy our human nature, but builds on human nature"). So, no offense, Homer, but any thought or implication that the Catholic Church is somehow opposed to marriage, or believes that it is not good, is so off-base as to be almost not even worthy of a response (but, just in case there was any doubt in anyone's mind as to the vigorous defense of the goodness of marriage that the Catholic Church is giving in our day, I felt that a response in this case was justified).

Which brings us to the Church's teaching and practice of consecrated celibacy/virginity. Again, any notion that such a practice is contrary to Christian or Scriptural teaching is very far off: Our Lord was celibate, as was St. Paul, and both Christ and St. Paul taught the value and goodness of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom (see, for example, Matthew 19:11-12; 1 Cor. 7). In fact, it was the Apostle, St. Paul himself, who stated that, as good as marriage is, consecrated celibacy/virginity for the sake of the kingdom of God is even better; this is why St. Paul encouraged -- not commanded, but encouraged--his readers to be celibate/virgins like himself. Likewise, the Catholic Church today encourages-- not commands, but encourages-- her members to live out consecrated celibacy/virginity for the sake of the kingdom. And should one say that, because the Church obliges her priests in the Latin Rite to be celibate (and, let it be noted that, though celibacy is certainly encouraged for all priests, celibacy is only obligatory for priests in the Catholic Church in the Latin Rite of the Church, but not in the 20+ other Rites), then the Church is "forbidding" marriage to such men, then such a one can simply be told that nobody is forced to become a priest in the Latin Rite of the Church (nor does anyone have a right to be such a priest)! When one becomes a priest (or a celibate religious Brother or Sister) in the Catholic Church, and takes on the accompanying vow of celibacy that comes with it, one does so freely-- the Church does not round up men and women and force them to become priests, Brothers, or Sisters and take a vow of celibacy/virginity! If one does not want to be a celibate/virgin, but, instead, one wants to get married, the Catholic Church is more than happy to allow such a one to do so (provided, of course, that this one is capable of fulfilling the many demanding responsibilities of Christian marriage)! So, again, no offense, but this talk, too, about the Church "forbidding" certain persons from marrying is simply nonsense, as anyone with even a little bit of knowledge and intellectual honesty about the Catholic Church would readily acknowledge.

And, likewise, this talk about consecrated celibacy/virginity being the cause of the sex scandals in the Catholic Church today, and to use these (and other) scandals in the Church as a reason to believe that the Catholic Church is not the true Church is a very superficial and cheap argument (and one that mis-applies Our Lord's words to judge a tree by its fruit). And I can say this because the cause of the sex scandals-- or of any scandal in the Catholic Church (eg., drunkenness at a Church picnic), or, for that matter, of any scandal in non-Catholic Christian communities (for, I hate to say it, but-- given this accusation against the Catholic Church, I think I should-- such scandals do, sadly, exist also there, for, remember, all of us-- not just Catholics!-- are sinners)-- is simply human weakness and sinfulness. Period. It is not consecrated celibacy or virginity that is the cause of these scandals-- if that were so, how would one explain the fact that the Apostle Paul, and Our Lord Himself, both recommended the living of celibacy/virginity for the sake of God's Kingdom, and themselves LIVED such consecrated celibacy. And this is not even to mention the countless other holy men and women-- including many SAINTS-- in the Catholic Church in our day and throughout the ages, eg., Pope St. John Paul II, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Padre Pio, St. Vincent de Paul, St. Catherine Drexel, Mother Cabrini of Chicago, Pope St. John XXIII, Pope Paul VI, St. John Vianney, St. Therese of Lisieux, St. Francis of Assisi, to name but a very few of the thousands of Saints in the Catholic Church who have, throughout the ages, likewise recommended and themselves lived consecrated celibacy/virginity (and, because they lived such a life, became holier because of it). One simply cannot explain this heap of "data" in favor of consecrated celibacy away; and, therefore, one cannot blame celibacy for the sins of certain members of the Catholic Church. That would be like, oh, calling the practice of medicine "evil" because a few doctors botch operations, even though there are thousands of other doctors use medicine to produce good. For, the fact is that, for every one priest or religious who fails to live celibacy well, and falls into a sexual sin and causes scandal, there are almost certainly a hundred others who live celibacy/virginity well and become holy for it. Or, again, would one argue that marriage was bad simply because some marriages "go south", despite the fact that others go well? Of course not; yet, why would the same argument be used against celibacy/virginity (when, in fact, sadly, more marriages go bad than do vocations to consecrated celibacy/virginity-- and, so, if one were to use this faulty argumentation against celibacy/virginity, much moreso would one be forced to use it against marriage; but, the fact is, this sort of argumentation is not used validly either against celibacy or against marriage, for both marriage and celibacy are GOOD, as the Catholic Church-- merely echoing Christ and the Apostle Paul-- has always clearly taught, and does so very loudly in our day). When Our Lord told us to judge a tree by its fruit, He was telling us to judge the goodness or usefulness of anything based on its fruits when it is used as it ought to be used, not on its fruit when it is abused (just as we do not judge a car based on its performance when driven by an immature child, but based on how it performs when driven by a trained adult); likewise, we do not judge celibacy based on how it is lived by those who fail to live it as it ought to be lived, but on those who live it the way it is supposed to be lived...and, when judged in this light, it-- like marriage-- comes out with flying colors (for it has helped produced countless Saints and other holy men and women throughout the ages).

On a personal note, there is a member in my family-- one whom I am very, very close to-- who is a celibate Catholic priest in a religious order. Now, this man is very happy and, while very firmly recognizing the beauty of marriage (in fact, prior to his seriously thinking about the priesthood, and realizing the value of celibacy for the Kingdom, he always thought he would get married and have a very large Christian family, and, prior to taking a vow of poverty, he certainly had the material means and job to raise such a family), he realizes that celibacy for the Kingdom is a very beautiful way to grow closer to God in prayer (and in study of the Scriptures), and to serve Christ and His Church (as the Apostle Paul teaches). And, by God's grace, he lives this life faithfully, as do his fellow brother priests in his religious community-- a community of men who have, like the Apostle Peter and the other Apostles (see Mt. 19), freely given up everything-- including home, wife and children-- out of love for Christ and to follow Him more closely. And, for every one of the scandalous priests that you mentioned in your reply, there are, again, probably 100 other priests and religious (if not more) who, like this member of my family and his brother priests in religious community, live out celibacy faithfully, and help build up Christ's Kingdom because of it....and, so, you cannot use such superficial, anecdotal data as an argument against the Catholic Church's claim to being the one Church. For, I assure you, there is just as much, if not more, anecdotal data to outweigh such arguments-- in addition, more importantly, to the clear Scriptural and historical data that the Catholic Church is, indeed, the Church that was founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Son of the Glorious and Blessed Virgin Mary (may all generations call her "blessed"!), He Who is true God and true Man, to Whom belongs all power and glory, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

In Christ, the Son of God, the Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan

P.S.
As to the claim that Christians need only confess their sins to Christ, see James 5:16 ("Confess your sins to one another"), as well as John 20:23 (wherein Christ's tells His disciples, "If you forgive the sins of another, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained," implying that these sins are known and, therefore, must be confessed), not to mention Mt. 16:18-19 (wherein Jesus tells Peter that Peter-- the first Pope-- will be the rock on which Christ builds His Church, and that he will receive the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and that whatever he binds or looses on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven, and this includes the power of binding and loosing sins, which means such sins need to be confessed). On this note, too, the fact that Peter was married says absolutely nothing about whether or not he was a Pope or a priest (as stated above, the Catholic Church, even today, has married priests-- celibacy is only obligatory for priests in the Latin Rite...this said, St. Peter, presumably with his wife's permission, departed from his wife to follow Christ, as stated in Mt. 19).

P.P.S.
As to this office of the priesthood, it's necessity is clearly implied by the fact that, at the Last Supper, Christ, commanded His Apostles to "Do this in memory of me." Now, the "THIS" that Christ is talking about is the offering of the unbloody Sacrifice of His Body and Blood which He offered at the Last Supper (the "Eucharistic Sacrifice"), and which the Apostles likewise imitated-- as is clearly taught by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 11:23-29 (and this is also seen in Acts 2, i.e., the "breaking of the bread"). Likewise, as Paul also affirms in 1 Cor. 11, this offering (this "Eucharistic Sacrifice") which the Apostles made was a re-presentation, in an unbloody manner, under the appearances of bread and wine, of the sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood (which occurred in a bloody manner, earlier in time, on Calvary). Thus, the Apostles were given a share in Christ's priesthood to offer this sacrifice, and so they were priests--and, through the laying on of hands, they passed on this priesthood to others in the Catholic Church, wherein this priesthood-- with its Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice, the re-presentation, in time, of the very sacrifice of Christ on Calvary-- continues to this very day (and, since this Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered by the same High Priest-- Christ, Who is the One High Priest Who offers this Sacrifice through those priests who have a mere participation in Christ's One Priesthood-- and consists of the offering of the same Divine Victim-- Christ, Who, in an unbloody manner, and under the appearances of bread and wine, is offered by Himself to the Father-- this is essentially the same sacrifice as that of Calvary; for, Christ offered only one Sacrifice, as the Apostle Paul teaches in Hebrews, and the Eucharistic Sacrifice does not "add to" or diminish this one and only Sacrifice of Christ, but, as Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 11, simply re-presents this one Sacrifice of Christ...and so this Eucharistic Sacrifice applies the power and fruits of Calvary to those who participate in the Eucharist...thanks be to God!)
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

dizerner

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by dizerner » Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:16 am

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Tue Dec 30, 2014 2:37 am

Dear Dizerner,
First, thank you for your honest questions.

Secondly, before just answering the questions you asked, it is important to, first, lay down some “groundwork” understanding for how Catholic theology and teaching actually “work”.

In Catholic theology, we believe that all authority comes from God, and so, for us to know about God, He needs to reveal Himself to us—which He, thankfully, has. He revealed Himself in many and various ways in the Old Testament through the prophets, and, in these latter days, He has revealed Himself to us through His Only-Begotten Son, Jesus Christ. Now, the teachings of these Old Testament prophets and of Christ Himself (and His Apostles) were delivered through two mediums: their written works, and their oral teachings. Those written works have been composed into that glorious and divine Book known as the Bible, or Sacred Scripture, which the Catholic Church holds very highly.


And, in fact, I will argue the Church holds the Bible more highly than any other Christian community, and this for several reasons: a.) It was the Catholic Church which decided on the canon of the Books of the Scripture—the Catholic Church told the world what the Bible actually is (at least what the New Testament is)!;b.) It was the Catholic Church who, through the works of her monks in monasteries, ensured the survival of the Bible by the painstaking activity of manually copying the Bible (prior to the printing press), and, also, of doing the same for the many commentaries on the Bible by the early Church Fathers; c.) The Catholic monasteries have always encouraged the great traditional practice of including Scripture in the liturgy and in the private practice of “lectio Divina”, which continues in monasteries to this day (that family member I talked about earlier spends anywhere from 4-5 hours a day in prayer in the Church, most of which is chanting or silently praying over various parts of Scripture); d.) The Catholic Church has arguably the strictest interpretation of inerrancy in the world, holding that, since God is the author of each and every word of the Bible, the Bible can not contain ANY ERROR WHATSOEVER (no historical error, no “moral” errors, no scientific errors, nothing!) Of course, the Church also says one must understand the proper intent of the Sacred Author (eg., the Sacred Author may not be intending to teach science and so may use figurative, not scientific, language to convey a real truth); but, whatever the sacred author intended to affirm as true, is true, period! That’s the Catholic teaching e.) Catholic theology and the Church’s Magisterial teachings rely primarily on the Bible as on a fount of data of Divine Revelation.


That said, the Church also holds that some of the teachings of Christ, the Apostles (and even, I suppose, of Old Testament truths) were handed down by word of mouth (and we see indication of this in the New Testament itself, when Paul exhorts his readers to follow his traditions, whether given by letter or by word of mouth). This is called Apostolic Oral Tradition, and it is form of Divine Revelation; but, while we cannot, of course, hear the Apostles’ preach today, we have various other sources that indicate for us what they taught. Such sources include the following (generally given in the order of importance): early Christian Creeds; early Christian Church Councils; early Christian liturgies and feastdays; writings of the Church Fathers (especially when they are unanimous, as they sometimes are, eg., they are unanimous when it comes to affirming that the Bread and Wine at the Last Supper really do become, substantially, the Body and Blood of Christ); writings of other respected teachers in the Church (eg., Doctors, Saints); even the evidence of early Christian art or Church architecture can be seen as a witness to the Faith of the early Church and, thus, evidence of how the early Church prayed in accord with Apostolic teaching. Sometimes it is difficult to ascertain just what was a part of Apostolic Oral Teaching; but, sometimes it is rather clear…and, when that is the case, then the Church affirms that, since that was part of the Apostles’ teachings, that, too, is a part of Divine Revelation. One of the most important pieces of divine revelation that came through Apostolic Tradition is, again, the very canon of Scripture itself. For, as we know, Scripture itself does not give its own canon; and, so, we need to look outside of Scripture, namely to the authentic, Apsotolic Traditions of the Church in order to determine what Books are actually Divinely inspired and so belong in the Bible. By the testimony of such things as Church Councils, early Liturgies, writings of Church Fathers, etc., the Church was able to ascertain, as part of Apostolic Tradition, which Books belonged in the New (and Old) Testament, and which did not. And, so, we have this Apostolic Tradition, as well as the Church’s discernment and judgment on this matter, to even tell us what the Bible is! Without this Apostolic Tradition and Church decisions on this, we could not really have any certitude as to what the Bible is, and so we would be at risk at reading books that were not really divinely inspired, or at not reading Books which actually ARE divinely inspired. (And, actually, there are a handful of Books which Catholics hold as divinely inspired which Protestants do NOT hold as inspired, and so do not include in their Bible. Now, we Catholics would hold that Protestants are not reading the full Scripture, and we would point to the sources of Apostolic Tradition and Church decision on this matter to support that claim; but I am not sure to what a Protestant can appeal as the reason for why he thinks those Books are NOT inspired--- for, this information is not in the Bible itself, and so how does a Protestant know, for example, that the Book of Sirach, or 1 & 2 Maccabees, or Wisdom is NOT inspired? TO what authority does he appeal to tell him that, and why is THAT authority trustworthy?? Seems to me that, at some point, one HAS to go to an AUTHENTIC tradition and appeal to an AUTHENTIC Church authority to decide these matters and so tell us what even the Bible is!? Else, we risk reading something that is not really the full Bible—we might include non-inspired Books, or, as I believe is the case in Protestant Bibles, you may be NOT including Books which actually ARE inspired! So, it’s a real dilemma here, no?)


But, anyways, to get back to basics, Catholic theology has, as its sources of revelation, the Divine Scriptures and the Apostolic Tradition (sometimes just called “Tradition”, with a big “T”); and then we have the Magisterium (Teaching Authority) of the Church, which is not really “above” the Bible or Apostolic Tradition as it is more “in service” to the Scriptures and Tradition. That is, the role of the Magsiterium is to tell us a.) WHAT is the Bible and Tradition; and b.) WHAT the Bible and Tradition actually MEAN (interpret it). The main job today of the Magisterium is interpreting the Bible (and, if necessary, Tradition, as well). You can think of the Magisterium as the “magnifying glass” which tells us more clearly what Scripture means when we cannot see it that clearly; or, if the Scriptures are the stars, the Magisterium is the telescope, aiding our unaided eyes to understand more clearly the nature of the Scriptures.


Now, I don’t have time to go into all the Scriptural texts themselves which point us to look at the Scriptures, the Apostolic Traditions, and to the Church for guidance on these, although perhaps I will mention a basic one or two. Obviously, for the Scriptures, we have 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (a verse I have my students at the Catholic high school at which I teach memorize almost every day): “All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” For Apostolic Traditions we have, “So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15) And, for the Church, we have, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:18-19) And, “The church of the living God, [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15) And, “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” (Mt. 18:17) So, in other words, from the Scriptures themselves (and many other verses could be brought forward to prove this point), we see that we are being guided by God to look at a.) the Scriptures; b.) Apostolic Traditions; c.) the teachings/judgments of the Church. And, so it is that the Catholic Church holds that Divine Revelation has been given through the Bible and Apostolic Tradition, being properly interpreted by the Magisterium (Church Authority/Teaching).


So, with that background in mind, you asked, basically, “What if there is a situation in which the Church’s teaching contradicts that of the Bible?” My simply response is, well, that just cannot happen! But, why? Why do I say that? I say that simply because truth cannot contradict truth; and if the Scriptures teach truth-- and they do—and if the Church, set up by Christ to interpret the Bible properly, teaches truth—and she does—well, then, there just cannot be a situation in which the Catholic Church, being the Church founded by Christ and given authority by Him to interpret His Revelation, would ever make a mistake in her interpretation of what is the true meaning of the Holy Scriptures (provided, of course, that this Church teaches in an solemn and infallible manner; for, it is not always the case that when the Church teaches, she teaches in her most solemn, i.e., infallible, manner…but, that’s another story, probably for another time).


I think this goes back to just trust in Jesus, and looking to Him for guidance. Think of it this way. If JESUS were to give you an interpretation of a passage in the Bible, we would all believe it, right? And, we would believe it EVEN IF we did not understand it, or if it went against what we were previously taught or were previously thinking about that passage—right? Well, okay, I think we would all be willing to assent to Jesus’ interpretation of the Scriptures…right? Okay, well, then, can not Jesus have the ability to create an office in His Church, and appoint a man to an office in His Church, and give a grace to that man because He has that office in His Church, to be able to interpret the Bible in a way similar to that of Christ, i.e., without making a mistake? Does not Christ have the power to do this? Well, in the Catholic Church, that is all we believe about the Papacy—we believe that Christ, the true authority and head of the Church, has simply established an office in the Church in which the man who holds that office represents Christ as the visible head of the Church (he is the “vicar of Christ” on earth), and this man is, of course, the Pope. And, regardless of whom the Pope is, Christ is able to give the grace to the office that this man holds in order to, at the very least, PREVENT him from teaching error. And, so, if that man—the Pope—is the vicar of Christ (and the Scriptures DO present to us Peter as the vicar of Christ, and the Pope is Peter’s successor), and if he represents Christ to the faithful on earth, and if he issues an interpretation of Scripture or of an article of faith (and he does so in an authoritative and solemn manner), well, then, he is doing it with the authority of Christ, and so it is as if Christ Himself is speaking through that man (regardless of who that man is—he may be a wicked Pope—although, there have, actually, not been THAT many wicked Popes; certainly MANY, many, many more holy and saintly Popes throughout the ages, esp. since 1540 or so), and so we are wise to simply give assent to that teaching, even if it is contrary to what we have been previously taught, or were thinking, or if we just don’t understand or would not otherwise agree with it (if Christ’s representative had not taught it). For, when that Pope, acting AS the VISIBLE head of the Church, as the rep. of Christ, issues such a decree, then we know that that is the Faith OF THE CHURCH, and so must be true…and, desiring to have the Faith, the TRUE Faith of the CHURCH, we give our assent to it (and figure out how to understand it later!)


I hope that helps…in other words, to answer your questions, if someone were to have a different idea than what the Pope/Magisterium teaches on the proper interpretation of Scripture, then one would simply have to recognize that the Pope/Magisterium have the special role/charism in the Church to teach definitively on faith and morals, as guardians of the authentic truth and meaning of Scripture (they are not “above” Scripture; they present the true meaning of Scripture to us), and, as such, it is our duty, as the faithful, to assent to those teachings, even if that also includes trying to work out some difficulties we might have in understanding how such a teaching is true. The important thing is to recognize that, as can be seen in the Scriptures, there is such a thing as a “Teaching Authority” in Christ’s Church, an Authority (the Pope and bishops) who have the office from Christ to declare what is, and what is not, an authentic part of the Christian Faith…and, our task, as faithful, is to assent to that, recognizing that when we assent to such teachings and interpretations of Scripture, we are assenting to that which is given not merely by these men, but by Christ, Who is represented by these men to us on earth.


That was long-winded and off-the-cuff, but I hope that helps…are there, perhaps, any particular teachings of the Catholic Church which you do not think fit with Scripture (or was this more just a hypothetical, “What if the Church taught something contrary to Scripture?” kind of question).

In Christ, Son of God and Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

dizerner

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by dizerner » Tue Dec 30, 2014 7:45 pm

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by Homer » Wed Dec 31, 2014 1:07 am

Brother Alan,

Thank you for your lengthy reply. I mean no personal offense but I am not pleased by the attitude often expressed by Catholics against Evangelical Christians. For example, comments by Jon directed to Steve from earlier in this thread:
I'll pray for your conversion. God bless.

I know we'll always disagree on this topic and I'll continue to pray for you.

Whether or not you convert before your judgement, I pray that God is merciful to you.
To my ear those words tell me that in the Catholic view, Steve, and by implication all evangelicals posting here, are among the damned because we are not members of your Roman Catholic institution. I assume you agree, and your church agrees, with Jon's sentiments. I think Steve's prospects are much better where he is at.

I am pleased your church has a high view of marriage. I hope your new Pope sticks with it. I hear things that make me think he is a bit wobbly on this. What would be your response be if the Pope should determine that gay marriage should be honored? Given the Catholic belief that the Pope is infallible, would you go with the Pope or the scriptures? I hope you will not reply by claiming this could not happen. Unless, of coarse, as you say, the Pope in not speaking in a "solemn and infallible manner" (I'm wondering how you can tell this).

Regarding the monsignor I mentioned that had a mistress, doesn't your church contribute to the likelihood that this could happen, by its official teachings, such as:
"Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must 'make satisfaction' for or 'expiate' his sins. This satisfaction is called 'penance.'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1459).

Penance "is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as a vindicatory punishment for former sins" (Council of Trent).

"There is no sin, however grievous, no crime, however erroneous, or however frequently repeated, which penance does not remit" ( council of Trent).

"Satisfaction or penance is that prayer or other good work which the confessor enjoins on the penitent in expiation of his sins" (Catechism of Pius X, Sacrament of Penance).
Would not the monsignor, familiar with these teachings, believe himself to be saved, even though in an ongoing state of fornication? Would it not at least tend in that direction?

If the monsignor had been found out, would he have lost his position? Do not the scriptures inform us the church officers must be "above reproach"? Surely a fornicating monsignor would not be kicked out if child molesting priests never lost their position. The independent church I attend recently terminated a pastor over a matter of integrity less serious than this.

And, even though a person is genuinely contrite and having confessed his sins, does not the penance doctrine inform him he is still required to atone for sin by performing various works of penance in this world and/or by suffering in purgatory after death? That he is not fit to enter heaven until he has made complete satisfaction?

Other pernicious effects of the Catholic doctrine of penance:

The Christian's absolute confidence in the goodness of God and the sufficiency of Christ's blood to cleanse from sin is substituted with personal efforts and suffering.

The Christian's obedience to the commandments in response to the love of God, such as helping the poor - is mutated into a punishment! (Almsgiving is a principal form of penance).

The Christian's joyful expectation to be in the presence of his Saviour is changed into fear and dread in anticipation of the torments of purgatory.

You wrote:
Thus, the Apostles were given a share in Christ's priesthood to offer this sacrifice, and so they were priests--and, through the laying on of hands, they passed on this priesthood to others in the Catholic Church, wherein this priesthood-- with its Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice, the re-presentation, in time, of the very sacrifice of Christ on Calvary-- continues to this very day (and, since this Eucharistic Sacrifice is offered by the same High Priest-- Christ, Who is the One High Priest Who offers this Sacrifice through those priests who have a mere participation in Christ's One Priesthood-- and consists of the offering of the same Divine Victim-- Christ, Who, in an unbloody manner, and under the appearances of bread and wine, is offered by Himself to the Father-- this is essentially the same sacrifice as that of Calvary; for, Christ offered only one Sacrifice, as the Apostle Paul teaches in Hebrews, and the Eucharistic Sacrifice does not "add to" or diminish this one and only Sacrifice of Christ, but, as Paul teaches in 1 Cor. 11, simply re-presents this one Sacrifice of Christ...and so this Eucharistic Sacrifice applies the power and fruits of Calvary to those who participate in the Eucharist...thanks be to God!)
I challenge you to show me where in Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11 where there is anything remotely hinting of a repeat presentation of Christ's sacrifice. In communion we are participating in a ceremony of remembrance (Jesus: "do this in remembrance"). It was a Passover meal and no doubt his disciples were surprised when he informed them that the cup represented His blood "of the new covenant" and the bread represented His body which would be sacrificed as the true Passover lamb. As you surely must know at Passover various food items represent various facts from that first Passover in Egypt. They did not become those things in any sense.

I know you will cite the early church "fathers" as believers in transubstantiation. But one of the most eminent of patristic scholars, Everett Ferguson, comments that, in the original Greek, what they have to say is ambiguous. And some of their comments are decidedly against your church's view. For example:

Justin Martyr:
This prophecy refers to the bread which our Christ gave us to eat, in remembrance of His being made flesh for the sake of His believers, for whom He also suffered. And it refers to the cup He gave us to drink, in remembrance of His own blood, with giving thanks.
Irenaeus:
These slaves had nothing to say that would meet the wishes of their tormentors, except that they had heard from their masters that the divine communion was the body and blood of Christ. Now, imagining that it was actually flesh and blood, those slaves gave to their inquisitors answers to that effect.
Clement of Alexandria:
Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh and drink my blood," describing by metaphor the drinkable properties on faith.
So your tradition has some doubtful material to make your claim.

And you wrote:
And, for the Church, we have, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against her. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:18-19) And, “The church of the living God, [is] the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
As for Peter being your first Pope, the foundation rock of the church, let's see if other scriptures support your view.

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 (NIV)

10. By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

So Paul affirms that Jesus is the foundation stone.

1 Peter 2:4-8 (NIV)

4. As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8. and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.

So we see that Peter himself recognizes Jesus as that foundation stone.

Ephesians 2:20 (NIV)

20. built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

And here Paul's metaphor describes a corporate foundation with no special role for Peter.

Revelation 21:14 (NIV)

14. The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

And John sees no exceptional role for Peter.

Matthew 18:18 (NIV)

18. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

And here the authority given to Peter is also given to all the apostles as a whole (in the plural in the Greek).

In Acts 15, at the Jerusalem Council, one of the most critical decisions in the history of the church was made. It was critical in determining whether Christianity would be merely a sect of the Jews. Peter gave his testimony and James, obviously in charge, informs the apostles and elders what must be done. And the apostles and elders concur. Notice that there is no Pope Peter making the decision.

And here we see Peter both rebuked and corrected by Paul:

Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV)

11. When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?


Much more could be written about your supposed first Pope. No doubt Peter played an important role in the establishment of the church. But you can not prove he was the first Pope at Rome, and it is questionable that he was ever at Rome. Paul wrote Romans during the time your church claims Peter was Pope there. Yet Paul greets many people in his letter with no mention of Peter. Don't you find that strange, to say the least?

Regarding the necessity of priests to administer the sacraments I would suggest you read carefully the account in Acts of Peter's visit to the house of Cornelius and the conversion of the first gentiles. Peter ordered those who accompanied him to baptize those first converts. Who did the first Pope order to baptize? Luke tells us the "some disciples" accompanied Peter.

And please note that in the scripture cited above from 1 Peter, Peter says they are all a royal priesthood. There is one head priest, and all Christians can boldly approach the throne.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by BrotherAlan » Wed Dec 31, 2014 2:00 pm

Dear dizerner and Homer,
First, quick follow-up question for dizerner....how would you define “sola Scriptura” (for some people have different ideas of that)? Also, where do you see that as being taught in Scripture?

For Homer...thank you for your reply; I'll try to take some time later to consider and, hopefully, respond to some of your comments (although, with Christmas vacation soon coming to an end, not sure if/when that can happen!)

For now, I'll just respond to one of the earlier questions/comments you raised concerning Catholics' views of the destiny of those outside of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church's teaching and belief on this, laid out in the recent Catechism of the Catholic Church and Second Vatican Council, is, of course, that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, and given His authority. As such, anyone who, knowing this, willingly refuses to enter or remain in the Church-- or, I might add, one who, through his own fault, is ignorant of the fact that the Catholic Church being the true Church-- cannot be saved (examples of "culpable ignorance" would include ignorance resulting from negligence in searching for the truth or hardness of heart, stemming from, say, pride or lust, which blinds one to the truth that the Catholic Church is the true Church founded by Christ). But, as nobody, except God, has the ability to perfectly judge another's heart and intentions, only God can judge each individual person's responsibility in regard to why he did not enter (or remain) in the Catholic Church; and, in our theology, it is possible for one to be, to use our Church's vocabulary, "invincibly ignorant" (a non-culpable ignorance) of the truth that the Catholic Church is the true Church (and, thus, such a one who is, truly, invincibly ignorant can, of course, be saved-- although, even this person, we believe, will have a more difficult time being saved than he otherwise would have since he will be deprived of the fullest means of truth and grace which only the Catholic Church, since she was founded by Christ with these means of grace and truth, can provide).

So, on the one hand, a Catholic, following the command of Our Lord to not judge or condemn, should not judge or condemn those who are not Catholic (as only God is their judge). But, on the other hand, as Catholics we believe that the objective truth of the matter is (as opposed to any subjective dispositions/intentions of individuals) that the Catholic Church, being the Church founded by Christ, is the one true Church, possessing the fullest means of truth and grace needed for us to be saved (and, so, again, to knowingly and willingly refuse to enter or remain in the Catholic Church-- or, similarly, to be culpably ignorant of the need to be in the Catholic Church-- is, according to our Faith, a grave sin against Christ, since, according to our Faith, He is the Founder and Head of the Catholic Church). And, so, for this reason, we Catholics, out of love for Christ and for all of our brothers and sisters, desire everyone to possess the fullest means of grace and truth which Christ came to provide us (eg., the FULL doctrine of the Faith, and without any admixture of error; ALL the Sacraments which Christ gave us; the HIGHEST forms of worship and prayer possible in this world; etc.), which (fullest) means are found only in the Catholic Church, and so we desire all to enter into this Church so as to experience the deepest union with Christ that He can possibly attain in this life (and, we hope, in the next life, as well).

Merry Christmas and Blessed New Year to you...

In Christ, the Son of God and the Son of Mary,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Catholics' View on Jesus and the Church

Post by steve » Wed Dec 31, 2014 6:02 pm

...how would you define “sola Scriptura” (for some people have different ideas of that)? Also, where do you see that as being taught in Scripture?
I am sure dizerner can answer for himself, but I thought I would put in my two cents.

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the scriptures, as the inspired word of God, are more trustworthy and authoritative than are the words of any man or men. Traditions of men, reasonings of men, and sentiments of men all stand corrected by the higher authority of the scriptures.

Sola Scriptura does not affirm that the scriptures are the only source of theological information, but that they trump all others, where there may be disagreement between them and any other pretended authority.

It is not hard to see this idea throughout the scripture. Here are just a few examples:

"Therefore you shall keep My commandments, and perform them: I am the Lord." (Lev.22:31)

"But take careful heed to do the commandment and the law which Moses the servant of the Lord commanded you, to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, to keep His commandments, to hold fast to Him, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul.” (Josh.22:5)

"Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
As in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft,
And stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
He also has rejected you..." (1 Sam.15:22-23)

"Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the statutes of Israel which they made." (2 Kings 17:19)

"Trust in the Lord with all your hearts, and do not lean on your own understanding" (Prov.3:5)

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all." (Eccl.12:13)

"I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation." (Psalm 119:99)

"If they speak not according to this Word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isa.8:20)

"[The Bereans] were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so." (Acts 17:11)

"We ought to obey God, rather than men" (Acts 5:29)

"Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matt.15:3)

"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters." (1 Cor.7:19)

"...you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim.3:15-17)

"He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4)

"In vain they worship me, teaching for doctrines the traditions of men" (Matt.15:9)

If it is objected that some of these verses do not mention the scriptures, per se, but only mention obedience to, and trust in, the Lord—this is an irrelevant distinction to those who believe that the commandments of the Lord are recorded in scripture. Obeying what God has said (recorded for us in scripture) is everywhere required, and those words are expected to serve as a standard of truth by which traditions and declarations of men may be weighed (with the possibility of their being found wanting).

Even the apostles had to justify their teachings by appeal to scripture, which is why they never said much without citing a scripture that supported their point. They, and their audiences, must have held the a priori notion that, while the apostles' unsupported assertions might be doubted, the scriptures to which they appealed seal the deal and end all dispute.

The obligation to honor what God has said above all rival witnesses or authorities is so frequently affirmed throughout the scriptures that one would think a reader of scripture could not miss it, if not for the mental vail that human traditions impose.

Post Reply

Return to “Roman Catholicism”