Ask a Catholic

[Kansasdad]

It is however a doctrine within Catholicism, and will never change.

That says it all.

This was addressed in Post 231

[Kansasdad]

3 Kings 6: 23,...3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36,...3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20,

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

3 Kings?

3 Kings 6:.18 And all the house was covered within with cedar, having the turnings, and the joints thereof artfully wrought and carvings projecting out: all was covered with boards of cedar: and no stone could be seen in the wall at all.

3 Kings 6: 23 And he made in the oracle two cherubims of olive tree, of ten cubits in height. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub was five cubits: that is, in all ten cubits, from the extremity of one wing to the extremity of the other wing.

3 kings:6 35 And he carved cherubims, and palm trees, and carved work standing very much out: and he overlaid all with golden plates in square work by rule. 36 And he built the inner court with three rows of polished stones, and one row of beams of cedar.

3 Kings 10: 19 It had six steps: and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were two hands on either side holding the seat: and two lions stood, one at each hand. 20 And twelve little lions stood upon the six steps on the one side and on the other: there was no such work made in any kingdom.

[Kansasdad]

That would be a major difference between you and me. I know that my doctrines are correct and will not change. That is not arrogance. It is my faith in Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead His Church to all truth.

If you know your doctrines are correct and will not change, then you are not likely to ever second guess yourself or look at the doctrines objectively, as I had asked a few posts back.

I would add that the difference is between you and me is that I know the Bible and my God will not change. Man-made doctrines will change. Eating meat on Fridays is a good example.

I understand the current Pope is also wondering about going back to completely Latin masses and no more folk music or modern music, only the old-time hymns.

This is the second time you have said this. It is news to me. Where did you get this. I have very serious doubts on this one, you might want to question your source of information.

God Bless,

K.D.

[Fiosh]

Judging by the answer, I guess you agree that the boy on the island with just a Bible would probably not conclude the Catholic doctrine as taught in your church.

Fiosh: Then you would assume wrongly.

I do agree to an extent. However, in the story you refer to, the man was reading Isaiah and I beleive he probably only had that one book. The passage was about prophesy and the man may not have known the story of Jesus in order to understand the passages.

F: And many educated Christians refer to commentaries to help them understand both the Old and New Testament.

In the scenario that I presented, the young man would have had access to the entire Bible just like you and I have.

Having studied and read it all, he would have been able to decipher the messages. He likely would have eventually realized that the Isaiah passage was speaking prophetically about Jesus. But would he ever have come to the conclusion that Mary remained a virgin? That he should speak to dead people to intercede for him? That the wine in Jesus cup turned into his blood? He could have remained there until he was 80, studying it every day and never would have come to some of those conclusions. One wouldn't unless they were reading into something that was just not there.

F: You assume an awful lot. Remember that even the Apostles needed to be filled with the Holy Spirit in order to understand all that Jesus had taught them. If we then also assume that somehow this boy had been filled with the Holy Spirit he could very easily have come to understand the truths taught by the Catholic Church.

I would assert that back when the Catholic Church founders were deciding on rules for the church, or doctrines, they were not aware of metaphors used in the Bible and incorrectly beleived that Jesus wine actually did turn into blood.

F: You can assert it.....but, you'd be wrong.

The Church, like any church is fallable. Any rules outside of the Bible are just not right imo. That it's not okay to eat meat on Fridays because today it is okay to eat meat on Fridays. Why did they make this up? It's not in God's word?

F: You are confusing doctrine with practices. One is infallible, the other is not.

The Bible itself should stand alone as the single and only real authority.

F: Show me where you find that in the Bible.

RE: "If he doesn't tell you audibly, how does he tell you you're not wrong?"

I'm also not going to argue with you about whether or not I am led by the Holy Spirit. If you choose to believe I am not, ok.

Sorry, I was seriously asking and i'm sorry you are offended.

F: I wasn't offended. I truly don't care if you choose to believe I am not led by the Holy Spirit.

In an extreme example, Muslims think they are led by the God, even terrorists too, fully beleive this. Television evangelists beleive they are led by God. I'm not comparing you to a terrorist or a tv evangelist but just because someone says they are led by God doesn't mean they are. In the two examples given above, I would obviously not beleive them, nor would I suspect even their intentions were good.

With you, I do believe your intentions are very good and that you really do love the Lord. I'm not saying you're NOT led by the Holy Spirit, but I just asked how you know that you are. I'm sorry if I offended you.

F: How do you know that you are?

[Fiosh]

That would be a major difference between you and me. I know that my doctrines are correct and will not change. That is not arrogance. It is my faith in Jesus' promise that the Holy Spirit will lead His Church to all truth.

If you know your doctrines are correct and will not change, then you are not likely to ever second guess yourself or look at the doctrines objectively, as I had asked a few posts back.

I would add that the difference is between you and me is that I know the Bible and my God will not change. Man-made doctrines will change. Eating meat on Fridays is a good example.

I understand the current Pope is also wondering about going back to completely Latin masses and no more folk music or modern music, only the old-time hymns.

1. You asked if I, personally ever struggled with doubt. And, I honestly answered you that, yes, I have. However, my own personal struggles have absolutely nothing to do with the doctrines of the RCC, which have not changed in 2,000 years.

2. Eating meat is not an example at all, as it is not a doctrine, but rather a practice. Only doctrines are infallible.

I also believe that God is unchanging and the Bible, which is His word, is also unchanging. In addition, the doctrines of the Church established by Jesus Christ are also unchanging.

3. The Latin Mass is very beautiful. Have you ever attended one?

I have heard something about the Pope's preference for sacred music, but what the Pope does with music has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine or infallibillity.

[Fiosh]

For the rest of us Christians it's our faith in Christ that matters and our denominations mean very very little.

Interesting. So you are now speaking for all non-Catholic Christians???

I imagine if I were a Protestant, my denomination would be important to me, in that I would choose the one that best reflected the truths of faith taught by the Apostles, as I understand them. If I believed that my denom was teaching incorrect doctrine, I would leave and find one that was true to Christ's teachings.

[ayin jade]

3 Kings 6: 23,...3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36,...3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20,

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

3 Kings?

3 Kings 6:.18 And all the house was covered within with cedar, having the turnings, and the joints thereof artfully wrought and carvings projecting out: all was covered with boards of cedar: and no stone could be seen in the wall at all.

3 Kings 6: 23 And he made in the oracle two cherubims of olive tree, of ten cubits in height. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub was five cubits: that is, in all ten cubits, from the extremity of one wing to the extremity of the other wing.

3 kings:6 35 And he carved cherubims, and palm trees, and carved work standing very much out: and he overlaid all with golden plates in square work by rule. 36 And he built the inner court with three rows of polished stones, and one row of beams of cedar.

3 Kings 10: 19 It had six steps: and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were two hands on either side holding the seat: and two lions stood, one at each hand. 20 And twelve little lions stood upon the six steps on the one side and on the other: there was no such work made in any kingdom.

3 Kings is not in my bible. I believe only scripture was allowed. However something similar is in 1 Kings. Just not quite the same as you have.

[Guest man]

If you guys aren't going to answer my questions...please be kind enough to say so.

I assume you are talking about Images?

Even if we grant that God forbade the making of all images to the Jews, such a law would not bind Christians, as the positive Jewish law was abrogated by the Gospel (Rom. 8: 1, 2; Gal. 3: 23-25). There is certainly no inherent wickedness in making an image. The eternal law can never be abrogated; it will always be sinful "to adore them and serve them/" We know that the Jews did not understand the command as an absolute prohibition of images, for we find a number of them in the Temple. There were, for example, the brazen serpent (Num. 21: 9), the golden cherubim (Exod. 25: 13; Ezech. 1: 5; 10: 20; 3 Kings 6: 23), the carved garlands of flowers, fruit and trees (Num. 8: 4; 3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36), the carved lions which supported the basins and the King's throne (3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20), and the ephod (Judges 8: 27; 1 Kings 19: 13). The Jews of the dispersion, despite their bitter hatred of idolatry, decorated their cemeteries with paintings of birds, beasts, fishes, men and women.

The early Christians adorned their Catacombs with many frescoes of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, which recalled incidents in the Sacred Scriptures. The most common paintings were Moses striking the rock, Noe in the ark, Daniel in the lion's den, the Nativity, the Coming of the Wise Men, the marriage feast of Cana, the raising of Lazarus, and Christ the Good Shepherd. Statues were rare only because they were costly and difficult to make. When the Church came up from the Catacombs, she began to decorate her churches with costly mosaics, carvings, paintings and statues. No one can honestly accuse these early Christians of idolatry, for they died in protest against it by the thousands, and wrote treatise after treatise condemning it.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

Can you give me a verse where God said it's ok to make an image of a man or woman?

The serpent that Moses made was later destroyed because people started treating it like a god.

The ephod was a snare for Gideon.

None of your ref. makes any mention of the image of a man or woman.

Deut. 4:16 says it an act of corruption to make an image of a man or woman.

Romans 1:22-23 Professing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptable God into an image made like corruptable man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things.

God never says it's ok to make these images.

And just because someone dies for a cause, doesn't make that cause correct. Look at the Nazis and the muslims.

No, there is no justification for the images the catholic church holds dear. It is idolatry...the bible clearly spells that out.

[Kansasdad]

3 Kings 6: 23,...3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36,...3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20,

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

3 Kings?

3 Kings 6:.18 And all the house was covered within with cedar, having the turnings, and the joints thereof artfully wrought and carvings projecting out: all was covered with boards of cedar: and no stone could be seen in the wall at all.

3 Kings 6: 23 And he made in the oracle two cherubims of olive tree, of ten cubits in height. 24 One wing of the cherub was five cubits, and the other wing of the cherub was five cubits: that is, in all ten cubits, from the extremity of one wing to the extremity of the other wing.

3 kings:6 35 And he carved cherubims, and palm trees, and carved work standing very much out: and he overlaid all with golden plates in square work by rule. 36 And he built the inner court with three rows of polished stones, and one row of beams of cedar.

3 Kings 10: 19 It had six steps: and the top of the throne was round behind: and there were two hands on either side holding the seat: and two lions stood, one at each hand. 20 And twelve little lions stood upon the six steps on the one side and on the other: there was no such work made in any kingdom.

3 Kings is not in my bible. I believe only scripture was allowed. However something similar is in 1 Kings. Just not quite the same as you have.

It very much is scripture:

Latin Vulgate

Douay-Rheims Bible

Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Josue

Judges

Ruth

1 Kings

2 Kings

3 Kings

4 Kings

1 Paralipomenon

2 Paralipomenon

1 Esdras

2 Esdras

Tobias *

Judith *

Esther

Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Ecclesiastes

Canticles

Wisdom *

Ecclesiasticus *

Isaias

Old Testament

Jeremias

Lamentations

Baruch *

Ezechiel

Daniel

Osee

Joel

Amos

Abdias

Jonas

Micheas

Nahum

Habacuc

Sophonias

Aggeus

Zacharias

Malachias

1 Machabees *

2 Machabees *

* The seven

Deutero-Canonical books, missing from non-Catholic Bibles.

New Testament

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts of Apostles

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Philippians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

2 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Titus

Philemon

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

1 John

2 John

3 John

Jude

Apocalypse

[Kansasdad]

If you guys aren't going to answer my questions...please be kind enough to say so.

I assume you are talking about Images?

Even if we grant that God forbade the making of all images to the Jews, such a law would not bind Christians, as the positive Jewish law was abrogated by the Gospel (Rom. 8: 1, 2; Gal. 3: 23-25). There is certainly no inherent wickedness in making an image. The eternal law can never be abrogated; it will always be sinful "to adore them and serve them/" We know that the Jews did not understand the command as an absolute prohibition of images, for we find a number of them in the Temple. There were, for example, the brazen serpent (Num. 21: 9), the golden cherubim (Exod. 25: 13; Ezech. 1: 5; 10: 20; 3 Kings 6: 23), the carved garlands of flowers, fruit and trees (Num. 8: 4; 3 Kings 6:. 18; 6: 36), the carved lions which supported the basins and the King's throne (3 Kings 6: 24; 10: 19, 20), and the ephod (Judges 8: 27; 1 Kings 19: 13). The Jews of the dispersion, despite their bitter hatred of idolatry, decorated their cemeteries with paintings of birds, beasts, fishes, men and women.

The early Christians adorned their Catacombs with many frescoes of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the Saints, which recalled incidents in the Sacred Scriptures. The most common paintings were Moses striking the rock, Noe in the ark, Daniel in the lion's den, the Nativity, the Coming of the Wise Men, the marriage feast of Cana, the raising of Lazarus, and Christ the Good Shepherd. Statues were rare only because they were costly and difficult to make. When the Church came up from the Catacombs, she began to decorate her churches with costly mosaics, carvings, paintings and statues. No one can honestly accuse these early Christians of idolatry, for they died in protest against it by the thousands, and wrote treatise after treatise condemning it.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

Can you give me a verse where God said it's ok to make an image of a man or woman?

The serpent that Moses made was later destroyed because people started treating it like a god.

The ephod was a snare for Gideon.

None of your ref. makes any mention of the image of a man or woman.

Deut. 4:16 says it an act of corruption to make an image of a man or woman.

Romans 1:22-23 Professing to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptable God into an image made like corruptable man-and birds and four footed animals and creeping things.

God never says it's ok to make these images.

And just because someone dies for a cause, doesn't make that cause correct. Look at the Nazis and the muslims.

No, there is no justification for the images the catholic church holds dear. It is idolatry...the bible clearly spells that out.

Which of course is your opinion of which I respectfully disagree as I explained in the first sentence of the above paragraph.