Catholicism Examined

[Douay]

The Church says that if you spend 15 minutes per day reading the Bible then you recieve an indulgence(lessening of the time spent in Purgatory) of 300(?) days. I don't remember the specifics, it is written in my Bible which I gave to my girlfriend(I could only afford one).

Baptism by immersion only- It is my understanding that this concept is due mainly to the translation of the Greek word baptizo, which can be translated as immerse or clean, both with water. The Fundamentalist simply chose to ignore the latter and stick with immerse. As early as 70 A.D. there are written instructions on how to perform a baptism and pouring of water is described, also the earliest depictions of baptisms in the form of art show people standing in a river with water being poured over them.

If anyone has a scripture showing that baptism is to be done by immersion please produce it.

[Douay]

Ronald-

Sorry, but the passage of Scripture you gave IS NOT talking about one church in particular. It is a promise given to believers in general.

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. "

No, he wasn't talking to the whole world at that time, he was talking to Peter and gave him and the apostles this authority. Did he say whasoever anyone shalt bind on earth?

Mike-

is that saying that all we need is an hour one day a week? and 15 minutes aday to have a relationship with the Lord????

Quit with the kneejerks already, it's annoying.

[Douay]

Charlie,

[serotta]

Douay wrote:

Quit with the kneejerks already, it's annoying.

and

I think we are all stubborn that's what I think. 

Amen. Can we change the topic of this thread to "Catholicism explained to Catholics by non-Catholics"?

[Douay]

That's pretty funny.

[RGR]

As for baptism, I'm not going to argue that one. Frankly, I don't much think the METHOD of baptism is all that important, but the outward proclamation of washing away your sins.

However, on the subject of binding, I would like to ask that we look at that in context of other Scripture that surrounds it:

Mt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother.

Mt 18:16 But if he doesn`t listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

 

Mt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.

Mt 18:18 Most assuredly I tell you, whatever things you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever things you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Mt 18:19 Again, assuredly I tell you, that if two of you will agree on earth concerning anything that they will ask, it will be done for them by my Father who is in heaven.

 

Mt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them."

When you look at the verse in context with other verses, it is talking to believers in general, not just Peter. As a matter of fact, this statement in Matthew doesn't even refer to Peter! While it is true that Peter was the rock the church was built upon, Jesus did not exclusively promise him the right to bind. While it may be a bit off of the beaten path, take a look at this next set of verses:

Mr 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation.

 

Mr 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who disbelieves will be condemned.

Mr 16:17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new languages;

Mr 16:18 they will take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will in no way hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover."

I don't think you will argue those are meant for the church as a WHOLE, so why try to argue that another verse was meant for only Peter when it is eloquently re-stated elsewhere in the NT?

Now, for the issue of purgatory. Where is purgatory in the Bible? Please consider the next few verses:

Mt 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of HEAVEN.

Mt 5:10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for righteousness` sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of HEAVEN.

Mt 5:12 "Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in HEAVEN. For that is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Now, I am not well schooled in the teachings of Catholicism, but as I understand it, purgatory is the place for those who are to be cleansed from their sins before they can get to Heaven. By your own statement, you have said that even faithful Catholics will endure purgatory, hence your statement of 15 minutes of Bible reading would lessen the sentence of purgatory. Well, what did Jesus have to say about things such as this?

Mt 9:13 But you go and learn what this means: `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,` for I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

I think we will agree upon the fact that when we do repentance, we have our sins forgiven. Now, let's say I owe you a huge sum of money. If you tell me you forgive that debt, I no longer have to find a way to pay it off-it is no longer held against me. Why would God sentence a faithful Christian to purgatory when there is nothing to sentence them for? If we're talking a non-Christian, let's look at what King Solomon had to say:

Ecclesiastes 11:3b...And if a tree falls toward the south, or toward the north, In the place where the tree falls, there shall it be.

God wasn't making a simple statement about trees in this verse-Ecclesiastes is wisdom literature and it I believe we can see that Solomon is referring to people here. When I die, it's over-there isn't any turning back. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man provides us with more than ample evidence on this.

[serotta]

Ronald wrote:

When you look at the verse in context with other verses, it is talking to believers in general, not just Peter.

Actually, both of you are correct. In Mat 16:19 that is spoken directly to Peter, but then in Mat 18:18 it is directed to all the disciples.

Infallibility? Would everyone agree that God is infallible? And there have been times when all of us would agree that humans have also been infallible; ex/ those that were inspired by God to write the books of the Bible. Correct? So if one is doing something purely as inspired by God, then that person at that time would be considered infallible, correct?

[Guest mcm42]

and then will he render to every man according to his WORKS. Not to mention the epistle of James, or 1 John 3:16 "In this we have known the charity of God, because he hath laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

What if Faith determines destination (hevean or hell)

and your works will determine your degree of punishment in hell!

And James does not teach a salvation by works, he speaks of a faith that produces works... there's a big difference.

Notice it says "ought" doesn't say "have to to be saved"

There are two ways to be saved

1. Faith given by God

2. Forever follow and root for the Texaco Havoline RaceCar...(J/K )

Woohoo Go Jamie Mcmurray!!

[serotta]

mcm42 wrote:

And James does not teach a salvation by works, he speaks of a faith that produces works... there's a big difference.

And as far as I can tell that is what Douay has been saying here also. Again, IMO, Catholicism does not teach salvation through works, it teaches that the proof of your faith is measured by how you put it into practice (works), which is what James teaches. I like Wesley's note for James 2:22 "works do not give life to faith, but faith begets works, and is perfected by them." Does anyone here disagree with Wesley?

[Guest mcm42]

Does anyone here disagree with Wesley

On what? not on this issue