Pages

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Conversation with a Catholic friend

I'm bumping this up to the top because I have added a record of Candy's comments section.

Who knew Candy had a Catholic friend? Perhaps he is more of an acquaintance. At any rate, Candy posts about their conversation today:

Good News Ahead

Yesterday, I had a conversation with a friend who is Roman Catholic.
He said some things that I'd like to address on this blog, in case
anyone else thinks or says the same thing. That conversation was
great, and I think we both walked away having enjoyed a thorough
theological conversation. :-)

My Catholic friend said that he believes that if a person thinks they
are "saved," then they must not sin, because if they sin, they are not
"saved."

I submitted the following comment, which was approved by Candy:

Did this friend actually use the phrase "earn my salvation"? Because I have never heard a Catholic use that phrase.

Many Catholics mistakenly believe that in order to go to heaven you must "be a good person." So do many Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, etc. It is a very common idea floating around among lukewarm Christians at the moment.

Candy responded:
My friend knows I'm a Bible believing Christian, so he used terms I'm familiar with, I'm sure. :-)

I think the problem with this comes down to defining the terms. Catholics and Baptists look at things very differently. Bear with me while I repeat a story for the 100th time.

I grew up in a predominately Baptist area. I went to school with many people who told me that they were "saved" and were sure that they were going to heaven. I, being a Catholic, was surely hellbound. These people were often the who lied, cheated, stole, and slept around. From my point of view, how could these people think they were going to heaven living a life like that?

It wasn't necessarily that I believed they were failing to earn their salvation. Rather, I thought that they were lacking faith because of their actions. Faith without works is dead, and all that. We discussed this in depth when Candy was studying John 5.

My friend also said that he believes that one has to earn salvation
via good works, and that the person must work hard, every single day,
to be a good person, and do good works, or they have not earned their
salvation.

It sounds to me as if her friend was familiar with the importance of perseverance in Scripture.

Heb 3:13-14 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end

1 Tim 19-20 Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

Heb 10:36 For ye have need of endurance, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.

1 Cor 4:4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.

And one of my favorite verses in the Bible, 2 Tim 4:7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished
the race, I have kept the faith.

Candy certainly feels that works are important in the life of a Christian.

I don't know anything about Candy's Catholic friend. Odds are that he doesn't know much about his faith. However, I think that they were probably having a conversation where neither one really understood what the other meant.

I submitted a follow-up comment:

I don't know anything about your Catholic friend, how much he knows
about what you believe, or his own faith. However, it is very
possible that you were both reading in your own understanding to what
the other was saying.

I grew up in a predominately Baptist area. I went to school with many
people who told me that they were "saved" and were sure that they were
going to heaven. I, being a Catholic, was surely hellbound. These
people were often the who lied, cheated, stole, and slept around. From
my point of view, how could these people think they were going to
heaven living a life like that?

It wasn't necessarily that I believed they were failing to earn their
salvation. Rather, I thought that they were lacking faith because of
their actions. Faith without works is dead, and all that.

According to the Catholic Catechism, the Catholic Church affirms the
necessity of faith. (see above quotes)

Also, working hard every single day is very Scriptural. (see above quotes)


Candy replies:
Kelly - I've seen it from the other angle. I've seen some people, professing to be Catholic, go out drinking, breaking the law, and living a riotious life, but then they go to confession and mass, and they think that makes it alright.

A saved Christian, regardless if they're Baptist or something else, is only truly saved, if they put their trust for salvation in Christ, and in Him alone. We don't have to follow traditions of man or "church." We only need to follow Christ, and Him alone.

I've heard that the Catholic church professes faith in Christ,but then that begs the question as to why the unbliblical doctrine of purgatory? If Christ paid it ALL, then there is no need of purgatory.

The closest thing to purgatory you'll find in the Bible, is that there was a holding place where all the dead went, and after Christ died and rose again, those who were saved went to heaven. That holding place no longer holds any Christians.

It would take too much to get into it, but there are three heavens - the third being where God dwells - the heaven. There are also three compartments of hell - the holding cell, which is now empty, the outer darkness, and the lake of fire, which no one is in yet. All who go to hell are currently in outer darkness, and all who are saved, go straight to heaven, as the Bible says - "absent from the body, present with the Lord." Amen.

I reply:
Kelly - I've seen it from the other angle. I've seen some people, professing to be Catholic, go out drinking, breaking the law, and living a riotious life, but then they go to confession and mass, and they think that makes it alright.

Certainly, there are a lot of Catholics who are lukewarm just as there are in any group of Christians. My point was that Catholics tend to focus on the works which show our faith, as well as the importance of perseverance, while you tend to focus on the moment of profession of faith. They are two sides of the same coin.

You often write of the importance of bearing good fruit if you are truly saved. You wouldn't say that this is earning your salvation. We are all saved by God's grace.

Purgatory is too much of a topic to get sidetracked on in your comments section. I will only say that the Catholic Church affirms that Jesus paid all of our debt.

CCC #613 Christ's death is both the Paschal sacrifice that accomplishes the definitive redemption of men, through "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world", and the sacrifice of the New Covenant, which restores man to communion with God by reconciling him to God through the "blood of the covenant, which was poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins".

#614 This sacrifice of Christ is unique; it completes and surpasses all other sacrifices. First, it is a gift from God the Father himself, for the Father handed his Son over to sinners in order to reconcile us with himself. At the same time it is the offering of the Son of God made man, who in freedom and love offered his life to his Father through the Holy Spirit in reparation for our disobedience.

#615 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous." By his obedience unto death, Jesus accomplished the substitution of the suffering Servant, who "makes himself an offering for sin", when "he bore the sin of many", and who "shall make many to be accounted righteous", for "he shall bear their iniquities". Jesus atoned for our faults and made satisfaction for our sins to the Father.

Candy did post this comment, but has so far not replied. How nice that she has posted all of my comments, and with Catechism quotes and all!

An Anonymous commentor said Kathy--Why don't you show support for your argument from the Bible, the one true word of God? That, in my estimation, is the problem with the Catholic religion (in general, mind you)...reliance on man's "interpretations." While I understand the Catholic belief in the infallability of a pope, I don't believe it. There is only ONE way to the Father, and that is through Jesus Christ, his Son. Man does not need an intercessor (which is the purpose of the pope). Therefore, your continued referal to the catechism in an argument about faith is not sound.

My response:
Well, we have two Anons, a Kathy, and a Kelly. One Anon, referring to
Kathy, wrote Therefore, your continued referal to the catechism in
an argument about faith is not sound.

As Kathy had not yet written on this thread, I think you must be
referring to me, Anon. I don't see that there is any argument about
faith taking place. I agreed with Candy that there is only ONE
Mediator, and that is Jesus. I can certainly provide Scripture verses
for that if you like, although Candy has already provided several.

Candy feels that the Catholic Church teaches salvation by works, and
that more than one Mediator is needed for salvation. I quoted from
the Catholic Catechism, which is the statement of faith for the
Catholic Church, to show that we are in agreement on these matters.
Most churches have a statement of faith, and it is helpful to refer to
it to clear up exactly what a particular church teaches.

Sorry, but I'm not what the Pope has to do with the discussion.

Candy has now replied to my previous comment.

Kelly, if you are trusting in Christ alone, then why be a Catholic? Why not just be a Christian, as the first Christians in Antioch called themselves?

According to the Roman Catholic church, Mary is the mediator:

"Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

The above is quoted from the Vatican's Holy See, here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031987_redemptoris-mater_en.html

The Bible says that there is only ONE mediator, and that mediator is not Mary:

"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -1 Timothy 2:5


I reply:
Candy, my husband needs the computer for the evening, so I won't be able to post a response after this one until tomorrow. But I'd like to say that I appreciate that you have let me post comments.

Considering Mary as mediatrix does not negate Jesus as the One Mediator. This is a difference in understanding what is meant by mediatrix. When Catholics refer to Mary as Mediatrix, we saying that God entered the world through her. Jesus was physically born by a woman, and that woman was Mary. Because she cooperated with God, by saying yes to him, Jesus was able to enter the world. Because she cooperated with God, God worked through her (mediated). To deny that she cooperated with God would be to deny Mary free will.

The word Catholic means "universal." I am a Catholic Christian because I am a part of the one church of all believers.

As a last note, a search on the online Catechism shows that it refers in 12 places to Jesus as being "the Mediator," "the unique Mediator" or "the only Mediator."

Defining the terms is so very important in discussion such as these.

In the quote you posted from the Vatican website, it states "that is to say she acts as a mediatrix [mediator] not as an outsider, but in her position as mother."

This is not Mary occupying the place of Jesus, but an affirmation of the miracle of the Incarnation. God took flesh through the body of Mary. She mediated the event of the Incarnation.


Candy's reply:
Kelly, I have been enjoying our conversation. :-)

The original "Catholic," or Universal church was not Roman Catholic. That came years later. The first place where the Catholic church veered from the Scriptures, was when they started placing bishops in charge of large groups of churches, however the Scriptures say that there is supposed to be one Bishop per church, or what non RC Christians refer to as Pastors, which is also a Scriptural term.

Some people stayed with the Universal/Catholic church, even though they veered a bit with the Bishops. But some groups decided to splinter off. Little by little more dogma was picked up by the Catholic church, which was not Scriptural, and more groups splintered off.

Fast forward many years, and you have the New Testament church, who were originally in the Universal/Catholic church, and you have the Roman Catholic church, which hardly resembled the original Universal/Catholic church.

We agree that Jesus is the only way to heaven, yes? You and I agree also, that salvation is through faith in Christ, and in Christ alone, correct?

Then why does the Catholic church teach Catholics to pray to Mary:

"The members of the Rosary Sodality, therefore, do exceedingly well in weaving together, as in a crown, so many salutations and prayers to Mary."

The above is quoted from the Vatican Holy See, at:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_12091897_augustissimae-virginis-mariae_en.html

To pray to Mary brings the assumption that she can actually hear and be an aide in your prayers getting answered. Yet, nowhere in the Bible are we told that Mary had the omnipresence, omniscience, etc of God. She would have to have these properties, or she 1) wouldn't hear a single prayer, but if she somehow did, 2) she wouldn't be able to hear millions of people, all over the world, praying to her at the same time.

The Bible tells us that we are to direct our prayers straight to God. We now go to God through Christ.

Some Catholics teach that Mary is the mediator between Catholics and Christ. This is adding to the Word of God.

I posit the strong possibility (which I believe to be an actuality) that the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Word of God via the traditions of man:

"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do." -Mark 7:8

"Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." -Mark 7:13

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." -Colossians 2:8

If the Roman Catholic church believes that Christ is the only way, and that Christ paid it all, then why have unScriptural doctrines of purgatory? Why have a pope? Why elevate Mary higher than the Bible does?


I think I'm going to let the conversation rest for now. She's at the point where she's throwing the full list of Mary/Pope/purgatory at me, so there is no short response available. Plus, I don't want to press my luck. I'm very happy with the conversation.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

63 comments:

Kelly said...

What do you know, she actually published the comment with the Catechism quote. She's never done that before.

Elena said...

That's cool. Let's see if it stays up! I'd be even more interested to see if she comments on it!

Thelema said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Elena said...

Come back Thelema when you actually have something on topic to post.


Kelly- she let your other one with the CCC quotes on too! that is certainly progress.

Jennie said...

It sounds to me as if her friend was familiar with the importance of perseverance in Scripture.



1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

Paul is not talking about salvation here, but about being judged by others, by himself, or by God as to whether he has been a faithful steward of the gospel. 'Justified' here means 'shown to be blameless' in his stewardship. He says he is not justified by his own judgment of himself, but that God is the judge of his faithfulness.

Not that I don't believe in the necessity of perseverance (though that is by grace through faith as well); I just believe scripture teaches justification is a one-time event, by faith, at the time of regeneration.

Moonshadow said...

The reason for being Catholic is obedience to Christ through the Church He founded.

Catholics don't earn salvation; they merit it.

A contributor to the Boar's Head Tavern posted this quotation from the Dutch Reformed theologian Bavinck:

[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.

Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentence, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians.

The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.

____________________________________________

And someone commented, "There’s a Reformed guy who gets it."

Jennie said...

Teresa,
[W]e must remind ourselves that the Catholic righteousness by good works is vastly preferable to a protestant righteousness by good doctrine. At least righteousness by good works benefits one’s neighbor, whereas righteousness by good doctrine only produces lovelessness and pride.

There is no righteousness gained by doing good works, nor is there any righteousness gained by knowing good doctrine. That is what the whole Bible is about. We can't gain our own righteousness. We trust in Christ by faith after hearing the word; the Spirit works regeneration in us by faith through the word. (Faith comes by hearing...) Therefore neither one is vastly preferable; rather both are useless. If protestants think they are saved by knowing the right things, they are wrong. That's not what true protestant doctrine teaches, though.

Catholics don't earn salvation; they merit it.
I know you're going to say that merit isn't the same as earning, but if you look it up in the dictionary, it's the same thing. Merit is not mentioned as a way of salvation in scripture.

Jennie said...

Furthermore, we must not blind ourselves to the tremendous faith, genuine repentence, complete surrender and the fervent love for God and neighbor evident in the lives and work of many Catholic Christians.

The Christian life is so rich that it develops its full glory not just in a single form or within the walls of one church.


I agree.
No one group is 'The Church' but the church is scattered throughout all Christian groups all over the world.
I can't be united with the Roman Catholic organization because it is in grave error as a whole. I am united with any in it who are in Christ. It's possible that in the future our church won't be united with the Southern Baptist organization anymore because the SBC is going more and more into error. But we will still be united in the Spirit with all those in the SBC who are in Christ.
It is not scriptural nor historical to say that the bishop of one church (Rome) should have authority over many churches all over the world. Each church has its own authority and is directly under the headship of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit in them. The idea of the bishop of Rome having complete authority has led to much error, bondage, and misery and has divided the church for many centuries. We are only united if we are united under Christ in Spirit and truth.

Elena said...

If the Roman Catholic church believes that Christ is the only way, and that Christ paid it all, then why have unScriptural doctrines of purgatory? Why have a pope? Why elevate Mary higher than the Bible does?" Candy Brauer

Well at least she is dialoging with you Kelly and that's a good first step. She seems to be asking sincere questions too although, honestly we have explained a lot of these things before. But maybe this is a new day and perhaps this time she is listening. Good job kelly.

Elena said...

I think on this blog I am going to start insisting on the use of qualifiers.

Not OK: "I can't be united with the Roman Catholic organization because it is in grave error as a whole"

OK: "I can't be united with the Roman Catholic organization because in my opinion it is in grave error as a whole."

See the difference.

Jennie said...

Not OK: "I can't be united with the Roman Catholic organization because it is in grave error as a whole"

In my opinion, its not just my opinion. :)

Kelly said...

Teresa, if you're going to wave a red flag in front of Jennie, then you need to mop up after yourself. I don't have time to recreate the wheel right now.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
my first comment was in response to a statement you made in your post. Nobody wants to answer the points I made, just be offended because I don't agree with you all?
As long as Catholics believe their church is the only and infallible church, they will never see the error that is clearly in contrast to God's word. I am glad to fellowship with believers, but believers are divided when they don't listen to each other's exhortations, thinking instead that their church can't be in error. Believe it or not, I have learned things from the way Catholics do things because I don't think Baptists do everything right and alot has been lost because we are divided. But we've all taken on alot of traditions of men that keep us apart.
Also, as I've said before in different ways, I've been trying to find out whether people are trusting in Christ and coming to Him alone for salvation to bring them into the church, or trusting in the Church and Mary to bring them to Christ. That makes all the difference. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life who brings us to the Father. I don't mean to be offensive, but this is what I have come to believe as I've studied this.

Elena said...

In my opinion, its not just my opinion. :)


and it's not just my opinion that you're wrong. So let's use qualifiers okay.

Elena said...

Teresa, if you're going to wave a red flag in front of Jennie, then you need to mop up after yourself. I don't have time to recreate the wheel right now.

I agree - you both have blogs and e-mail so feel free to take it there.

Barbara C. said...

I could never be a Protestant because they take the Bible out of context, have an incomplete and often erroneous understanding of God's will, disregard the sacraments, and each one seems to invent their own "true Protestant doctrine" in their spare time.

Oh, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome divided the Church exactly once in the first 16 centuries after Christ. However, the never-ending Protestant Reformation has continued to fracture and splinter it into a million pieces for the past 5 centuries.

Isn't it great how error, bondage, misery, and division ended once we stopped listening to that tyrannical bishop in Rome?

That's not just my opinion either. ;-)

Elena said...

Nobody wants to answer the points I made, just be offended because I don't agree with you all?

Who's offended? But in the interest of time (Kelly and I are both homeschooling moms) things need to be succinct, to the point and most importantly - on topic!

As long as Catholics believe their church is the only and infallible church, they will never see the error that is clearly in contrast to God's word.

Excuse my French but that's merde (French word - look it up!) What drew me back into the Catholic church and made me accept its infallibility as it relates to faith and morals was a deeper study of scripture. It also made me see the error of Protestantism that is clearly in contrast to God's word.

So it appears Jennie we are at an impasse. Accept it, deal with it, or move on. Otherwise I'm afraid we just can't continue to dialogue.



I am glad to fellowship with believers, but believers are divided when they don't listen to each other's exhortations, thinking instead that their church can't be in error.

Agreed.


Believe it or not, I have learned things from the way Catholics do things because I don't think Baptists do everything right and alot has been lost because we are divided. But we've all taken on alot of traditions of men that keep us apart.

I'll bet you aren't aware Jennie that in the Catholic Church there are Traditions (capital T) and traditions (lower case t) and that there is a huge difference between the two. Since you used a small t and have been studying Catholicism for quite time I'm going to assume (and you know what that means) that you meant it. Those things shouldn't be so dividing (although I suppose Protestant denominations divide over a lot less so maybe not.)

But I'm sure you knew that right?

Also, as I've said before in different ways, I've been trying to find out whether people are trusting in Christ and coming to Him alone for salvation to bring them into the church, or trusting in the Church and Mary to bring them to Christ.

OK, in a nutshell here's the one thing about Mary I wish ya'll would get. Mary's last words in the bible are "Do whatever he tells you." That is really how Catholics see Mary - as pointing the way to Christ. She's His Mom. He loves her, why shouldn't I trust her to point to Jesus.



That makes all the difference. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life who brings us to the Father. I don't mean to be offensive, but this is what I have come to believe as I've studied this.

And if you studied just a wee bit harder - say with authentic Catholic sources for a change - you'd find that Catholics believe that as well.

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me." "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!" Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you." This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.

Elena said...

I could never be a Protestant because they take the Bible out of context, have an incomplete and often erroneous understanding of God's will, disregard the sacraments, and each one seems to invent their own "true Protestant doctrine" in their spare time.

Well said.

Moonshadow said...

See the difference.

I don't see any difference.

Elena said...

One is a statement as fact. The other is a statement as opinion.

One infers that we must all be complete idiots for following a church that teaches false doctrines.

The other is simply her opinion.

Jennie said...

Elena,
to me tradition is tradition. Some are good and some are harmful. I don't see 'Tradition' as good because it is set up as being on par with God's word.

Jennie said...

Barbara,
I could never be a Protestant because they take the Bible out of context, have an incomplete and often erroneous understanding of God's will, disregard the sacraments, and each one seems to invent their own "true Protestant doctrine" in their spare time.
Every protestant takes the Bible out of context? Do Catholics never do this?
I'm sure many Protestants have an incomplete and erroneous understanding of God's will, but not all groups or individuals do. Do all Catholics understand God's will? What is God's will?
Protestants don't see 'the sacraments' in scripture. We see commands of baptism and the Lord's Supper and trusting and obeying God's word above man's word. We see all parts of life as being under His control, and He blesses us when we are in Christ and in obedience to His Word. We don't believe in the sacraments as a means of salvation, but as a sign of faith.
'Everyone' invents his own protestant doctrine? I don't know about everyone. I just know I and my local church are responsible to God for how we respond to His word.

Barbara C. said...

The point Elena is making is that there is Sacred Oral Tradition and then there are religious customs. The first is infallible and unchangeable. The second are not.

However, both are often considered to be the same to those who don't understand the difference. When the religious customs are changed the Catholic Church is accused of "making stuff up that interferes with the Gospel message" when really such things were just an expression of the message, not part of the message itself (like Sacred Oral Tradition). Then on the flip side people complain, "Well, if the Church can change the Mass from Latin to the vernacular then why can't they change their position on birth control?"

But I'm don't know why I am bothering to explain this, because I don't really think Jennie cares. She doesn't believe in the validity of Sacred Oral Tradition therefore in her mind the truth probably doesn't matter.

Jennie said...

Barbara,
Oh, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome divided the Church exactly once in the first 16 centuries after Christ. However, the never-ending Protestant Reformation has continued to fracture and splinter it into a million pieces for the past 5 centuries.

I see it from a different perspective. The errors of image worship, praying to saints, salvation by merit, transubstantiation and worship of the host, and the claim of the primacy of one bishop have SINCE THE BEGINNING OF EACH ERROR brought division into the church and persecution of those who opposed them.
The reformation was not the first division. Division is the fault of those who begin the error and refuse to listen when other believers seek to correct them. The Roman Catholic church has persistently refused to be corrected and has persecuted those who can't in conscience agree with her.

Elena said...

"to me tradition is tradition."


OK but we're not talking about tradition according to Jennie. We're talking about how the church looks at tradition. A serious student of Catholicism would know the difference and knows what fits into each category and why.

Jennie said...

Isn't it great how error, bondage, misery, and division ended once we stopped listening to that tyrannical bishop in Rome?

Because others cause error, bondage, misery, and division (all have not) does that excuse what was done by Rome?

Elena said...

The reformation was not the first division.


Do you feel like beating your head against the monitor Barb? I wouldn't blame you if you do.

Barbara C. said...

I still don't know that I believe that Candy really has a Catholic friend. Even amongst poorly catechized Catholics I've known, I can't see them explaining or understanding things as she's described.

Most of them I have known are dumb-founded when asked what the Church teaches about something beyond what they've picked up from the media. Most indulge in the same moral therapeutic deism as the rest of society. And most would still be shocked at the inference that they worshiped Mary or statues.

Elena said...

The Roman Catholic church has persistently refused to be corrected and has persecuted those who can't in conscience agree with her.

groan... the persecution goes both ways jennie and the Protestants have a body count as well.

This blog was started because a lil ole gal with a blog refused to be corrected about what she thought Catholicism was and continued to persecute other Catholic women who came to her blog looking for posts about homemaking and homeschooling posts.

Stay. On. Topic.

Elena said...

I still don't know that I believe that Candy really has a Catholic friend.

In the spirit of generosity and compassion I'm going to assume that "friend" in this case means someone she casually knows, who was open to engaging her for a few minutes on this topic. And since Candy prides herself on her boldness, she probably initiated the exchange.

STC blog had some information about Candy's definition of friend and since she sees "friends" as taking away from the family I would assume that means this is not a person she has a close personal friendship with, someone she would lend $20 bucks to or ask for $20 bucks, and probably not someone she would consider as an appropriate babysitter.

Kelly said...

Kelly,
my first comment was in response to a statement you made in your post. Nobody wants to answer the points I made, just be offended because I don't agree with you all?


Fair enough. When I include Bible verses, I always take the time to look them up and double-check the context to make sure I agree that it proves the point I am trying to make. This time I cut and pasted a group of verses from a previous article.

I looked over the chapter again just now. Because you believe that justification is a one-time event, you are interpreting the verse differently. Paul is saying that at the end of his life, God will be the judge of his faithfulness throughout the course of his life spreading the Gospel.

Barbara C. said...

"Division is the fault of those who begin the error and refuse to listen when other believers seek to correct them."

So, dissenters are always correct?? So, all of the heretics had it right and the stubborn arrogant and Church had it wrong?

"The errors of image worship, praying to saints, salvation by merit, transubstantiation and worship of the host, and the claim of the primacy of one bishop"

The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH and NEVER HAS TAUGHT image worship or salvation by merit. (Whose the one refusing to listen when other believers seek to correct them?)

If there is error in praying to saints, transubstantiation, or the primacy of one bishop then that error is with Jesus and the Apostles...do you really want to go there?

Jennie said...

Excuse my French but that's merde (French word - look it up!) What drew me back into the Catholic church and made me accept its infallibility as it relates to faith and morals was a deeper study of scripture. It also made me see the error of Protestantism that is clearly in contrast to God's word.

I don't need to look it up. Maybe you shouldn't be looking at protestantism vs. catholicism but instead look at Catholicism vs. scripture. We all need to compare ourselves to scripture. Protestantism isn't the final answer. God's word is.


OK, in a nutshell here's the one thing about Mary I wish ya'll would get. Mary's last words in the bible are "Do whatever he tells you." That is really how Catholics see Mary - as pointing the way to Christ. She's His Mom. He loves her, why shouldn't I trust her to point to Jesus.

The Mary of scripture and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are two different people. Trust what scripture says of her without the added tradition (or Tradition) of the Roman Catholic church. Certainly the one in scripture points to Christ, but the one I see in the apparitions points to herself and asks for temples to be built in her name.

Jennie said...

Elena,
And if you studied just a wee bit harder - say with authentic Catholic sources for a change - you'd find that Catholics believe that as well.

Where do you think I'm getting my information from? Everything I've mentioned here has been found in Roman Catholic doctrine and practice as seen on Catholic websites and the catechism and other documents. That you believe you come through Mary to get to Christ instead of through Christ to get to the Father is stated openly.

Kelly said...

Protestants don't see 'the sacraments' in scripture.

But there is no Protestant Church. Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans do see sacraments in Scripture.

Now, I think you guys all need to step back and take a deep breath. You don't need to have the same conversation for the 100th time.

Jennie said...

Barbara,
The point Elena is making is that there is Sacred Oral Tradition and then there are religious customs. The first is infallible and unchangeable. The second are not.
I understand perfectly what Elena is saying. I just don't agree that Sacred Oral Tradition is Apostolic, infallible, and it certainly hasn't been unchangeable.

Barbara C. said...

"Do you feel like beating your head against the monitor Barb? I wouldn't blame you if you do."

I'm not there, yet. But when will I learn not to waste my time? I know that Jennie:
1. Does not understand or accept basic Christian history as verified by historical documentation, archaeology, or academic research.
2. Prefers versions of history that do not adhere to any of the above and paint mainstream historical understanding as a Catholic conspiracy.
3. Believes it is ok to deliberately remain ignorant about and/or continue to misrepresent things with which she does not agree.

So, discussions with Jennie are an exercise in futility since she has no interest in understanding differences or looking for commonalities, only judging where she thinks others are wrong even if she doesn't have her "facts" straight. That is what I find very sad and frustrating.

Jennie said...

Do you feel like beating your head against the monitor Barb? I wouldn't blame you if you do.

I feel the same way. What a coincidence; lets all just sit here and beat our heads against our monitors and make a party out of it. ;)

Jennie said...

If there is error in praying to saints, transubstantiation, or the primacy of one bishop then that error is with Jesus and the Apostles...do you really want to go there?

Those things are not taught by Jesus and His apostles and were not taught by the early church. They each developed later. If those things could be gotten from God's word alone, then there would not be such division over them.

Elena said...

Me "Excuse my French but that's merde (French word - look it up!) What drew me back into the Catholic church and made me accept its infallibility as it relates to faith and morals was a deeper study of scripture. It also made me see the error of Protestantism that is clearly in contrast to God's word."

Jennie: I don't need to look it up. Maybe you shouldn't be looking at protestantism vs. catholicism but instead look at Catholicism vs. scripture


...pulling old monitor out of closet just for this purpose.

Didn't
I
Just
Say
I
Did
that!!!!

Elena said...

The Mary of scripture and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are two different people.

Says you. I only know one Mary, and I can easily find her in scripture and from the church.

Elena said...

Where do you think I'm getting my information from?

LOL! Tony Bartolucci et al


Really Jennie. I've followed your blog long enough to know that most of your reading about Catholicism isn't from authentic Catholic sources - give me some credit.

Elena said...

I feel the same way.


and yet you keep returning...

Elena said...

They each developed later.


much like the development of the canon that eventually became Sacred SCripture.

You're right Kelly- same discussion/ different day

Jennie said...

The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH and NEVER HAS TAUGHT image worship or salvation by merit. (Whose the one refusing to listen when other believers seek to correct them?)

Didn't Teresa just say that the Church teaches salvation by Merit?
Merit is taught in the catechism.

People all over the world are praying statues and pictures of Mary and it is allowed and has been for centuries. That is what image worship is. Worshipping God is praying to Him alone. It is very prevelant in many areas of this country and especially Latin countries. There was much dissent over that in early centuries.

Kelly said...

Jennie, proving my point that this discussion is absolutely nothing new, you can read my extensive explanation of the Catholic doctrine regarding merit on your blog.

Jennie said...

Me:
Maybe you shouldn't be looking at protestantism vs. catholicism but instead look at Catholicism vs. scripture

You:
I only know one Mary, and I can easily find her in scripture and from the church.

The 'from the church' part is what I object to. That's where it needs to be compared to scripture. The church isn't infallible.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
I looked over the chapter again just now. Because you believe that justification is a one-time event, you are interpreting the verse differently. Paul is saying that at the end of his life, God will be the judge of his faithfulness throughout the course of his life spreading the Gospel.
Are you agreeing with me that this verse isn't talking about saving justification but judging Paul's faithfulness in his work? Paul's faithfulness in spreading the gospel doesn't save (justify) him.

Jennie said...

Really Jennie. I've followed your blog long enough to know that most of your reading about Catholicism isn't from authentic Catholic sources - give me some credit.

Well, look again. I just said I have gotten much information from Catholic websites and the catechism and other documents, such as the 'Indulgentiarum Doctrina'.

Jennie said...

Kelly,
1 Corinthians 4:1 Let a man so consider us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required in stewards that one be found faithful. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by a human court. In fact, I do not even judge myself.4 For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord.

Even if Paul was talking about salvation here (which I don't think makes sense here) he is not saying that he is not yet justified, he is saying he is not justified by his own judgment of himself, but that God is his judge, the only judge that matters in the end. He is justified by God, not by his works or his own opinion.

Jennie said...

Barbara,
I'm not there, yet. But when will I learn not to waste my time? I know that Jennie:
1. Does not understand or accept basic Christian history as verified by historical documentation, archaeology, or academic research.
2. Prefers versions of history that do not adhere to any of the above and paint mainstream historical understanding as a Catholic conspiracy.
3. Believes it is ok to deliberately remain ignorant about and/or continue to misrepresent things with which she does not agree.


Is it possible that, on the contrary, it is the Roman Catholic versions of history that do not agree with 'basic Christian history as verified by historical documentation, archaeology, or academic research.'
Catholic history does not include all of Christian history nor always give an accurate unbiased account of it. It is not true that Catholic history and secular history agree against protestant histories. From what I have seen it is the other way around. Who is correct?

Kelly said...

Jennie, I put up a separate post on merit, mostly patching together the information I posted on the thread on your blog.

I'm going to be leaving soon, and will be out the rest of the day, so don't look for me to comment on it unless I get a quick minute.

Moonbeam, I'm still waiting for you!! :P

Barbara C. said...

Guess what Jennie. I never took a class on "Catholic history", not even in Catholic school.

Do you know where I learned Christian history? I took two semesters of History of Christianity class (400 level) as part of my Religious Studies (aka Comparative Religion) major at a state university in the Bible belt taught by a Methodist who was raised Pentecostal. Those two courses taught me more about Catholicism than 12 years of Catholic school.

So, I don't discuss "Catholic history". I discuss mainstream understanding of Christian history as taught to me at a time when I was actually questioning all of Christianity. I can discern between objective history and subjective religious interpretations of history.

And I have enough respect for those who do not believe as I do, whether they are non-Catholic Christians or non-Christians, to at least try to understand their beliefs correctly and explain them to others correctly even if I believe that such beliefs are wrong or misguided. To do otherwise is dishonest, spiritually and intellectually.

Clare@ BattlementsOfRubies said...

Maybe you shouldn't be looking at protestantism vs. catholicism but instead look at Catholicism vs. scripture. We all need to compare ourselves to scripture. Protestantism isn't the final answer. God's word is.

But in the absence of a church with authority how do I know what 'scripture' is? Perhaps they are all just great historical documents.

Jennie said...

Clare,
the Israelites knew what constituted their scriptures, which we call the Old Testament. The Church knows what constitutes the scriptures of the New Testament. 'My sheep know My voice.' I don't consider the church that compiled a list of the inspired scriptures (which were well recognized for centuries already) as the 'Roman Catholic' church, but as 'the church' which is our common 'ancestor' of the time when our histories were united.

Jennie said...

Clare,
also I should say that the body of Christ, wherever it is, has the authority of God's word and the Holy Spirit. Everyone who has the Holy Spirit by faith has this authority, and we each also submit to the Biblical authority, our pastors and teachers, recognizing by the witness of the Spirit when they are speaking with His voice.

Clare@ BattlementsOfRubies said...

"the Israelites knew what constituted their scriptures, which we call the Old Testament.

Was there unanimous agreement among the Jews about what constituted the canon of scripture?
My understanding is that the Jews include at least Maccabees in which we find the origin of the feast of Hannukah..

Clare@ BattlementsOfRubies said...

also I should say that the body of Christ, wherever it is, has the authority of God's word and the Holy Spirit. Everyone who has the Holy Spirit by faith has this authority, and we each also submit to the Biblical authority, our pastors and teachers, recognizing by the witness of the Spirit when they are speaking with His voice.

This sounds very confusing to me. Many, or most, pastors and teachers may be sincerely holy and love studying the bible and yet still get different meanings out of the scriptures.
The discussions on this website attest to this very well I think.

When I was an evangelical I found it very hard to get consistent answers on many things ( eg tithing, baptism, contraception, healing, suffering, divorce even abortion)and often found myself gravitating towards those pastors whose theology lined up with mine.
I was somewhat aware that that was inherently problematic and it confused me. Why would Jesus set up such a haphazard and risky system as 'church'?

Kelly said...

According to Jewish
Encyclopedia
, the Jews used the Septuagint until the early 10th
century.

Jennie said...

Why would Jesus set up such a haphazard and risky system as 'church'?

Clare,
I've often wondered why He set up such as hazardous and risky system as the human race, and the Israelites as His chosen people. Why should it be any different with the church? He promises to be with us personally and with each church that gathers in His name. Things go wrong, yet He works everything for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Jennie said...

Was there unanimous agreement among the Jews about what constituted the canon of scripture?
My understanding is that the Jews include at least Maccabees in which we find the origin of the feast of Hannukah..


My understanding is that the Jews knew perfectly which books were inspired and that the Maccabees were not considered inspired but were historical non-scriptural books. I'll try to see if I can find a reference on it.

Jennie said...

Kelly and Clare,
In the Jewish Encyclopedia that Kelly used, I found this reference to the Apocrypha, which mentions the books that the Jews did not accept as canonical: ttp://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1644&letter=A&search=jewish%20canon

Jennie said...

The part I read was under # III. Lists of Apocrypha/Classification. "First, then, there are the books which are commonly found in the Greek and Latin Bibles, but are not included in the Hebrew canon, and are hence rejected by Protestants; to these, as has already been said, Protestants give the name "Apocrypha" specifically. These are (following the order and with the titles of the English translation): I Esdras; II Esdras; Tobit; Judith; The Rest of the Chapters of the Book of Esther; Wisdom of Solomon; Wisdom of Jesus, the Son of Sirach, or Ecclesiasticus; Baruch, with the Epistle of Jeremiah; Song of the Three Holy Children; History of Susanna; Destruction of Bel and the Dragon; Prayer of Manasses; I Maccabees; II Maccabees. These, with the exception of I, II (III, IV) Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses, are canonical in the Roman Church."

Read more: http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1644&letter=A&search=jewish%20canonh#ixzz0cAoF3YNt