Ask a Catholic

October 5, 2006

It is important to note that nothing in RCC doctrine is anti-Biblical,

The catholic church uses images in their worship of God.

That's anti-biblical.

October 5, 2006

Man,

My hands are tied. Catholicism doesn't hold to Sola Scriptora, so to only site Bible verse doesn't paint an accurate picture of Catholicsm. However, I will honor the wishes of the moderators and give you only Biblical verses. Every Catholic doctrine must have some Biblical backing. Of course this isn't going to be word for word and as I stated above Catholics don't base their entire faith on the Bible.

Since I only have the bible as a tool for instruction, am I missing out on salvation?

If not...why do catholics use things other than the bible to attain their salvation?

Fiosh

Feel free to jump right in here.

My questions are directed to catholics in general, so don't be afraid to speak up.

October 5, 2006

Pax

In the center of St. Peter Square there is a column or tower or whatever...what is that?

Who made it and where did it come from?

I have no idea.

I had to Google this one. Do you mean the towers that remain from the wall built by Pope Leo IV to protect the basilica after it was pillaged by the Saracens in 847???

Why is there an oblisk in the center of St. Peter Square?

You say the catholic church is the one true church of God and that the body of Christ is that church.

If this is true...why would He share His church with another god?

Also...that oblisk sits in the center of a symbol of Baal...so there are actually two gods.

Why would Christ allow these two abominations to become a part of His body?

October 5, 2006

This question is in regards to the Eucharist. I have been to many a Catholic Mass, and I have observed that many people take the wafer, but they do not take the cup.

When I inquired about this, my Catholic friends told me that some choose not to drink the wine, since a common cup is used, because of health reasons -- getting a germ from someone else.

My question is: If Catholics really believe that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus, then wouldn't that be the most purest, safest thing to drink?

Thank you.

Sure, but someones mouth filled with germs is still going to be placed on the cup. Then the next person is going to put their mouth on the cup and on for 300 people. It isn't the contents one is worried about, but rather the germs from ones mouth that will be on the edge of the cup. I personally would drink the precious blood of Christ, but if I had a cold I wouldn't out of respect for others. I wouldn't want them to get sick. A Catholic isn't obligated to drink the precious blood of Christ and essentially one is receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. The parish I belong to only offers the precious blood to all the lay people during two masses a year. Easter, and Christmas. However the Eucharist is offered at each mass. Some parishes will offer both at each mass.

If you truly believe you are drinking the blood of Christ...wouldn't your faith prevent you from becoming sick?

If you truly believe the blood of Christ is in that cup...wouldn't His blood kill those germs?

October 5, 2006

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of?

Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down?

Kansasdad · October 5, 2006

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

Can you point me to the scripture you speak of?

Where does scripture mention oral traditions to be passed down?

Man I don't think you are reading the replies. This has been answered several times, but here it is again,

Kansasdad Yesterday, 04:41 PM Post #311

I think this accurately describes each position:

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church

WayneB · October 5, 2006

You are absolutely correct, Eric, Catholics are not "sola scriptura" believers. We believe that Jesus blessed us with not only the Bible, but with an oral Tradition passed down from the Apostles; and a Church---guided by the Holy Spirit---to interpret Scripture and guide us in our faith journey.

We revere the word of God and believe that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit. We simply believe that Jesus left us with much more than a book.

All this is defensible from Scripture.

Blessings,

Fiosh

God Bless you sister.

Yes HE did and yes, God has given us many wonderful traditions dating back to the beginning of time that help us understand HIM better. We have many oral traditions passed down through various sources before and after Christ many of which have been written down. The difference between us, I think, is what is considered "authoritative". ANY source other than Holy Scripture as the Holy Spirit gives understanding is not authoritative. Helpful, enhancing, thought-provoking? YES. Authoritative, the final say? NO.

One tradition in the Bible are the seven festivals of Messiah. Currently we are in the series of Fall festivals, all which prophetically reveal the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the authoritative source regarding these festivals but there are many Jewish traditions relating to Rosh Hashanah (13 days past), Day of Atonement (3 days past) and the Feast of the Tabernacles (coming up in 2 days) that are wonderful festivals full of tradition, all of which have a prophetic message for mankind. So the Bible is the authority but the details of the traditions recorded in other sources are meant to enhance our understanding and experience BUT are not authoritative.

There is the difference I think.

WayneB · October 5, 2006

You received sanctifying grace thru Baptism.

What of those who have not been Baptised?

WayneB · October 5, 2006

Okay, now that we have that out of the way...

My questions.

What does it mean to you when you consider "the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom" the moment Jesus yielded His spirit? [Matthew 27:51]

In the same context, the writer of Hebrews specifically mentioned a new High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek. Who is this? [Hebrews 7] Why wasn't Peter mentioned?

Lastly, and still in the same context, why did Jesus never mention Peter as a source of knowledge and remembrance? He only mentioned the Holy Spirit when He spoke to His disciples and recorded for all believers. Why did he not mention Peter if Peter was the 1st of a long line of high priests?

EDIT:

One more question (all in context to the original)... What role does Paul, Timothy, the Ethiopean Eunuch, James, et.al. serve? Do they all come under Peter's authority? If so, what Scriptural reference reflects this?

I am sure that you folks see my real point here. Essentially I am asking you to clearly establish Peter's authority as the first leader of the Church and in context to the whole and not just one Scripture taken out of context.

I think this series of questions were missed. Any takers?

EricH · October 5, 2006

I would fully agree with this as would any Catholic, but notice the first word of the verse is ALL. It doesn't say ONLY Scripture. If it did I would be a Protestant. This is all I will say on this matter and would love it if you started a thread on this issue.

The Mormons use other scripture...are you saying they are correct?

Not at all. Do the Mormans have two thousand years of history? No, about 150. Did the early Church fathers align themselves with Joseph Smith? Nope he wouldn't be born for 1850 more years. They aligned themselves with the apostles who followed Jesus Christ. Do the Mormans believe in the Trinity? Nope. Mormans are not Christians, just as Muslims aren't. Catholics are Christians, just as you are.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. Time in existence does not speak to the issue of using other scripture. It just means you have been using other scripture longer