Ask a Catholic

[EricH]

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.

Rather than making accusations why not put this in the form of a question like: What is your reason for using icons, and how do you feel this lines up with such and such passage. The answer will speak for itself

[Kansasdad]

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

[Kansasdad]

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.

I think there is a difference in the understanding of tradition.

[Kansasdad]

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

Paul instructs us to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

The difference is that Mormons are not following the oral teaching that were passed down from the Apostles. So the time frame in which the teaching was presented does have a bearing. Obviously an extra Biblical teaching that has its origin from 150 years ago could not possible be oral teaching from the Apostles. Now just as valid is that just because the oral teaching comes from the time of the Apostles does not necessarily make it an oral teaching of the Apostles.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[Kansasdad]

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?

I don't know that I can answer this with out sounding apologentic, but here goes.

"Luke mentions Peter and John, but he sets Peter first; and in his record of what happened to Simon, John acts the second part, and it is Peter alone who teaches, commands, judges, and condemns with authority, as the head and supreme ruler. Peter alone replies to Simon, and not only so, but condemns his profaneness, enlarges upon his guilt, and solemnly declares that the gifts of God are not purchasable with money"

But this then often gets the question of, Did not James preside at the Council of Jerusalem, and give the definite sentence? How then was Peter chief Apostle?

St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic law. Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, just as Bishops were present at the Vatican Council, but Peter was their head, and the supreme arbiter of the controversy, This is evident because, St. Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly, declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15: 7), and he severely rebuked those who held the opposite view (Acts 15: 10). After he had spoken "all the multitude held their peace" (Acts 15: 12). Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision, mentioning like Paul and Barnabas the miracles wrought by God on their missionary journeys, or suggesting, like James, that the Gentiles respect the scruples of the Jewish converts, by abstaining from the things they detested (Acts 15: 20, 21).

The translation in the King James Version of krino, "my sentence is" (Acts 15: 19) should be "I think; I am of the opinion"; as we learn from other passages of the Acts (13: 46; 16:15; 26: 8). James gave no special decision on the question, but merely expressed the views that had been adopted at the meeting spoken of in Gal. 2: 6. Moreover the decree is attributed to the Council of Apostles and Presbyters, assisted by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16: 4; 15: 28), and not to James personally.

I am only trying to answer your question of where the Catholic Church can demonstrate Peters authority, after Christ resurrection, to the best of my understanding and research.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

[Elisabeth]

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?

That's why I raised this question. If it were truly the blood of Christ, and if your heart truly was aligned with the Lord when you participated in Communion, then what would there be to fear? In terms of germs, etc. And if that were truly a concern, then why doesn't the RCC use a different method of serving the wine?

I am personally having a difficult time appreciating why someone would take the bread (body) but not the wine (blood) if our Lord instructed us to do so.

[Elisabeth]

This topic came up today at lunch today. I'm sorry if this has already been addressed here -- I don't believe it has.

Under what conditions may a marriage be annulled? What is the purpose of an annulment, and when can it be granted?

For example, Ted Kennedy had his first marriage annuled (I think, I hope I am not stating something incorrectly here).

I realize this is a church, not a civil issue, but I ask this question because many of us who are not of the RCC have a hard time understanding how someone who was married for many years and had children, can have their marriage "wiped away."

I've seen the negative emotional consequences this has had on children whose parents were divorced and then one of the parents sought an annulment.

By the way, Fiosh, I really respect how you have handled this thread.

[Scarletprayers]

36 pages! Betcha can't beat my record!

Bragger!

[Kansasdad]

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?

That's why I raised this question. If it were truly the blood of Christ, and if your heart truly was aligned with the Lord when you participated in Communion, then what would there be to fear? In terms of germs, etc. And if that were truly a concern, then why doesn't the RCC use a different method of serving the wine?

I am personally having a difficult time appreciating why someone would take the bread (body) but not the wine (blood) if our Lord instructed us to do so.

You are asking why some people with in the church do what they do, and I can not honestly answer for them. I can tell you what the Church teaches and what I do and think. Personally, I take both whenever it is available. However, Jesus is completely present in both, It would never be an incompleteness, in receiving one and not the other.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Kansasdad]

This topic came up today at lunch today. I'm sorry if this has already been addressed here -- I don't believe it has.

Under what conditions may a marriage be annulled? What is the purpose of an annulment, and when can it be granted?

For example, Ted Kennedy had his first marriage annulled (I think, I hope I am not stating something incorrectly here).

I realize this is a church, not a civil issue, but I ask this question because many of us who are not of the RCC have a hard time understanding how someone who was married for many years and had children, can have their marriage "wiped away."

I've seen the negative emotional consequences this has had on children whose parents were divorced and then one of the parents sought an annulment.

By the way, Fiosh, I really respect how you have handled this thread.

A declaration of nullity states that, according to Church law, a given marriage was not valid (and therefore not binding) at the time a couple spoke their marriage vows. A person will asks the Church to look at a previous marriage which has ended in divorce, and, if possible, to issue a declaration that this previous marriage no longer binds either party to the union. In no way should this process be thought of as a type of "Catholic Divorce." A declaration of nullity states that a marriage was invalid from the beginning. A civil divorce, on the other hand, asserts that a marriage, valid or not, is dissolved. The Catholic Church does not grant divorces.

Neither is an annulment a statement that a marriage never existed civilly. Rather, it is a determination that certain conditions were present at the time the marriage was entered that made it an invalid union according to Catholic Church teaching. The civil effects and recognition of that marriage remain intact and unchanged.

Moreover, an annulment is not a statement that the marriage was entered into in bad faith by either of the parties. It is not a statement of who caused the marriage to fail or who was most guilty for its failure. Those are certainly important questions for a person to ask. But they are not the questions the Church must answer.

The annulment process, in its most simple form, involves any person coming to the Church and asking to be heard. Information is gathered by the Church and in the end, The Church, usually a Tribunal, answers that person's request: the marriage was invalid or valid according to the laws of the Church. Some cases are given a negative decision; that is, the judge decides that the marriage was a valid and binding union

The most common reasons to grant an annulment are insufficiency or inadequacy of judgment (also known as lack of due discretion, due to some factor such as young age, pressure to marry in haste, etc.), psychological incapacity, and absence of a proper intention to have children, be faithful, or remain together until death.

These grounds can manifest themselves in various ways. For example, a couple, discovering her pregnancy, decide to marry; only much later do they recognize the lack of wisdom in that decision. Or one spouse carries an addictive problem with alcohol or drugs into the marriage. Perhaps a person, unfaithful during courtship, continues the infidelity after marrying.

In cases like these, the Church judges may decide that something contrary to the nature of marriage or to a full, free human decision prevents this contract from being sound or binding.

As far as Ted K. I don't know and it would be hard to know what led to the conclusion of the annulment....Well maybe it would not be so hard to figure out.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad