Responses on Catholicism

Conversations with Debbie

I conversed with Debbie (a very gracious person) over a week about Catholicism.

From: Debbie

I commend your enthusiasm; however, it is painfully obvious that the information you have acquired about the Catholic Church, its history, its doctrine, its very creed lacks one thing...truth. Yes I do see bits of truth in what you are saying, but the truth of the matter is that your perception of the Catholic Church is terribly misguided. It is not a lazyman's faith, it is not "blind faith! Certainly, as in all churches, there are those that are lazy and dependent on priests and other "authorities" in the church to explain their faith and instruct their weary hearts. Can you say that the Protestant churches lack that? I don't think so.

There are certainly many, many otherwise devout Christians that very simply have never questioned, never challenged, never done in-depth study into their reasons for believing in Our Lord. Maybe we should commend them for their complete trust in the church. Or perhaps we should just continue to encourage them to study, to shake up their faith, to strengthen it. I don't know. Some will never stop believing the faith of their childhood because they were told to NEVER question, NEVER to challenge....but that takes the responsibility from the believer and dumps it on the organization and THAT is the easy way out. That is the easy way to "be Christian". The challenge, which many refuse to accept, is the difficult way....the way of searching and questioning, and not just believing something because we are told to.

Being a Christian is hard as you say but oh what a reward! And let me tell you something, I have been in the Catholic church for almost 40 years, and I have never been denied or instructed not to question or study or challenge the cathecism....in fact, I have always been encouraged to do so!

I chose not to judge Protestants by a handful of misguided wrongdoers...even people "in authority". Dana, remember, Christ's church was never intended to be divided. The Holy Spirit didn't divide it The apostles didn't divide it. It was divided by well-intentioned individuals who lacked the understanding of the big picture and who took it upon themselves to interpret Scripture in a manner most convenient for them.

I may not agree with everything that the Catholic Church teaches and there are certainly MANY things that I have difficulty grasping the concept of, however, after years of study, I realize, the studying, the learning the growing as a Christian never stops. And over the years, understanding unfolds for me. Just please, continue in your studies, continue spreading the Good News of Our Lord, but PLEASE don't criticise my Church just because it doesn't make sense to you right now or because it doesn't "feel right".

Remember, the Catholic Church has been around for 2000 years and has survived worse persecution....and yes caused persecution...but it continues today to endeavor to be perfected for the day when the Lord returns. And there is a reason for that survival amongst all the turmoil. Review Matthew 16:13-19.

It is time to narrow the painful gap between our faiths...I challenge you to be a part of that healing. I welcome your correspondence.

From: Debbie

Wow. I am not sure how to respond to your forwarded message. It is addressed to Marge Chiuminatto and not me so I assume you must have felt your response to her was just as appropriate for me.

And that disturbs me because, if you will reread my original message, I did not accuse you of "slamming" or anything else. If I came across as doing so, I ask forgiveness.

I do not see your endeavors as slamming. I do recognize them for just what you describe; that is, you contending for the Christian faith. And that is good.

But what I was trying to say is that in contending for the faith, no matter how good your intent, when you openly describe a tenet of another faith, whether it be Catholicism or Judaism, you do a tremendous disservice to your mission, if that description is based on opinion alone or hearsay or misinformation.

I am not saying that that is how you work for you seem to put a tremendous amount of heart into your work. But let me suggest this: If you portray something about the Catholic Church that the Church does NOT teach, then are you not basing your judgement, feelings, perspective on a non-truth?

Permit me to give you an example that I heard elsewhere and not from your writings: It is the frequent opinion of some non-catholics that Catholics believe that the Pope is Infallible. The Pope is NOT infallible and the Church does NOT in anyway teach that. The Pope is a man with faults just like the rest of us. His personal opinions, or personal theological teachings, actions, etc. are not deemed infallible. They cannot be. Nor is he gifted with the ability to never say a non-truth or never to do anything wrong.

What he is gifted with BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT is to never ever be able to speak or teach "officially", not personally, anything that is contradictory to Christ's teachings or that of the apostles. This is what Catholics are taught and should believe. Granted, some Catholics don't know that, but I already gave you my opinion about that in my original letter. But ask any Catholic in authority or with any knowledge of the true teachings of the Church and you will see that this is correct.

So, if a person states that Catholics believe the Pope is infallible and the Catholic Church does not teach that, then isn't the person who makes that statement bearing false witness? Maybe they are doing it unintentionally, or maybe they mean to say SOME Catholics believe it but nevertheless, it is not justified and it appears to break God's commandments.

So that was all I was tyring to say to you....that if you decide that you must warn against untruths which the Catholic Church teaches, and you should, then please make sure it is what the Catholic Church teaches and not what someone else says the Catholic Church teaches. Don't even accept my word as truth about what the Church teaches! Ask the Church representatives what it teaches. And then you will give your mission the credibility it should exhibit.

From: Dana

You mean, he's only officially infallible?
The problem I see with the Pope is that he IS contradictory to Christ's teaching. The office of the Pope was set up by the Roman Empire of the 4th century (as were most of the Catholic church's traditions) and not according to the New Testament, Christ's teaching, and the work of the apostles and prophets, on which the true church of Christ was built.

If all the things that some non-Catholics believe about Catholics were factual, I wouldn't be Catholic either. If I were told by the Church that I must believe that the Pope is personally infallible or that I must worship Mary or that I must pray to Statues and Crucifixes, or that I could buy my way into heaven I would run from it so fast I would leave a trail of fire. But the Church doesn't teach that.

I am aware of many of the Catholic church's claims of authenticity as Christ's church. I say claims because they are not valid proofs, and many contradict the biblical Jewish traditions on which the church was established, and which God put in place in preparation for Jesus' incarnation.

BTW, my wife was also raised in a large Catholic family. Today, all of her brothers and sisters and their families are now (protestant) Christians in various denominations. The purpose of criticising Catholicism is not to say we're right and you're not, but to help others see the richness of a personal relationship with Christ Himself, something that Catholicism or any other "religious experience" can't provide.

From: Debbie

Regarding Papal Infallibility, that is one of the teachings that I had the most difficult times understanding before my studies began....but basically, yes, we (Catholics) are taught that the Pope (as Bishop of Rome) and the Magisterium (in union with him) as successors of the apostles proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly which means that "official"solemn teachings on matters of faith and morals cannot be in error. As to personal comments by these men or their theological opinions...these are not protected by the gift of infallibility. That is my understanding of the term.

You state that the office of the Pope was set up by the Roman Empire of the 4th century and not according to the NT. We are taught differently based on the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. We are taught that the office of the bishops (which the Pope is: Bishop of Rome) was set up by Christ himself as related in Luke 10:16 and Matthew 16:17-19 and 18:18 and therefore is not contradictory to NT teachings or the dictates of Christ. I would like to understand better why you say that the office was set up in a later century by the Roman Empire.

From: Dana

century and not according to the NT. We are taught differently based on the Gospels of Luke and Matthew. We are taught that the office of the bishops (which the Pope is: Bishop of Rome) was set up by Christ himself as related in Luke 10:16 and Matthew 16:17-19 and 18:18 and therefore is not contradictory to NT teachings or the dictates of Christ.

The Luke passage has nothing to do with bishops; it's part of the instruction Christ gave the seventy. It would logically apply to anyone sent by God, i.e evangelists. Saying it supports the office of the pope is twisting the passage so much it would have no resemblance to it.

The Matthew 16 passage with Peter is also taken out of context. This talks about Peter and what he had to say (that Jesus was the Son of the living God). What the Catholic church claims is that Jesus declared Peter to be infallible and that he would have passed down that infallibility to successors. Jesus doesn't say any of that.

Finally the Matthew 18 passage was directed to the disciples and has to do with church discipline and order, but from an individual rather that leadership role. "But if a brother sins against you....v. 15" The teaching applies to all believers. There is nothing here that gives the Pope credibility.

Those passages, in context, have entirely different meanings. They're only applied to this doctrine as an afterthought, the church's attempt to justify their actions. You can't read them and naturally come to the conclusion that the pope is head of the church and infallible. At best, you'd have to take an isogesic approach and read the teaching into the passage.

About bishops, the NT does refer to them in Timothy and Titus, where the term is best translated from the greek as elders or overseers. Yet, there is nothing there that suggests that they are infallible, or that their authority is passed down. Official infallibility is not found in the New Testament, and it's not something a leader can separate from his personal fallibility. His personal conduct is something that people can and do "learn" from.

I agree with you about helping others to see the richness of a personal relationship with Christ but the Catholic Church has successfully done that for me and millions of others over the centuries so I wonder what makes you feel that it lacks that ability now?

What the Catholic church has done is portray itself as the authority on Christianity and taught that believers should be subject to it, and subject their family to it. The Catholic church and many other cults have done that for centuries. I see very few Catholics that would come even close to saying they have a rich personl relationship with Christ because of the church. And those few would probably better describe their richness as feeling religious or pious.

One of the biggest heresies of modern churches is the idea that the church (as an institution) has authority over all its members. In New Testament teaching, the members ARE the church. In a New Testament church, if a member commits some act that deserves correction, it's the other members that take the action based on scriptural principles.

St. Dana

From: Debbie

++++Yes I agree it is part of the instruction to the seventy but is inclusive of the bishops, presbyters, elders of the church. I don't see how that contradicts the Catholic teaching but rather supports it.

The Matthew 16 passage with Peter is also taken out of context. This talks about Peter and what he had to say (that Jesus was the Son of the living God). What the Catholic church claims is that Jesus declared Peter to be infallible and that he would have passed down that infallible to successors. Jesus doesn't say any of that, and there is no pre-4th century history recorded that that was being done.

++++Again, I differ with you on that, refering back to Christ's declaring Peter as the rock (I know you disagree with that according to different translations of the original Greek and Aramaic) and giving him the "keys to the kingdom" in Matthew 16:19 and the following declaration.

++++Agreed. But it still supports the catholic teaching.

++++Oh well, there again I disagree, but I guess we knew we'd come to an impasse on some things! And there again I didn't say the Pope is infallible.

++++I'll have to research that again and get back to you, but a great deal does refer back to oral Tradition which I know you do not accept, so let me get with you in a few days on that one point.

++++I disagree strongly there but that is an opinion of yours that I respect.

++++Yes, but someone has to have some authority to speak as a representative of the Church whether it is an elder or priest or bishop, otherwise you have individuals making their own interpretations based frequently on emotion rather than logic and knowledge and then you have created divisions within Christ's own words and division within the Church Body. And that has happened over and over again since the Reformation. The Holy Spirit is not with us to divide us within the church but to unite and strengthen.

St. Dana (;-) Very funny)

From: Dana

Why should it be any different from times before Christ. God raised up prophets as needed to speak on His behalf. In a time, now, when we can be filled with the Holy Spirit's power, it's seems even more likely. The Apostles were the authority in the 1st century and we now have their instructions in written form. With that and the Holy Spirit, we have all we need.

Just because there is an institution that declares itself to be the official authority, does not mean their interpretations and practices are in line with Christ's teaching. History has taught us that this is very often not the case. And to tell the truth, Jesus doesn't care if there are such institutions. The Lord can bring people to himself without an institution, and sometimes without an individual evangelist. The Word of God (Bible) has been all that some people have used to come to Christ. I may not understand it all, but Jesus does have it all in control.

You mentioned Oral Tradition, and that is the essential glue that hold Catholic teaching together. Catholics are DEPENDENT upon it. Without it, you MUST read much of Catholic doctrine INTO the scripture, subjecting scripture to Tradition. That type of teaching was not used by Jesus, the Apostles or the Prophets. They spoke the words of God, either as revealed personally, or as written. Christ even warned about "traditions".

St. Dana (;-) Very funny)

Just to point out that all believers are saints (holy ones, set aside for God).

From: Debbie

Hello! "St. Dana" :-)Ok, so I agree that God raised up prophets as needed to speak on his behalf or even sent angels as messengers for Him. And yes, these times we have more people filled with His spirit than ever before, but as the apostles were given authority to teach and speak Christ's message, doesn't it seem logical to you that they would, in turn, pass that authority on to other "worthy men" so that mankind could, throughout the centuries continue to spread the Gospel as Christ commanded...without the human tendency to err?

I believe He had to have set up some sort of system for that which would be guided as he promised by the Holy Spirit. Now, if since then, so many of us are filled with the Spirit and desire to spread God's word, how then can we have so very many interpretations between denominations and still claim to be guided by the Spirit? Certainly the Holy Spirit guides us in our search for that truth which is God, but don't you think that something is missing?

Somewhere along the way man has "leaned unto his own understanding" rather than according to "the Traditions" of the early church which were depended on before even the NT was put into writing. I maintain that Christ was very specific in his instructions to the apostles and they in turn to their successors to "hold fast to those traditions" which Paul speaks of in his writings.

Someone had to have the final authority as a gift to solve any disputes or divisions within the early church otherwise you would have nothing but confusion and frustrations....that person, according to Matthew was Peter, whom along with and in union with the apostles (other bishops) had the distinct duty of "feeding the sheep". That system continues today via apostolic succession through the teaching magisterium(as servants of God) of the Catholic Church which includes the Bishop of Rome (The Pope) and the bishops throughout the world in union with him but only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Now I know you disagree, but this is just my belief and that which the Catholic Church teaches. It just makes no sense any other way to me. It would be as if to say that Christ just threw the gifts up into the air and let them land on whomever and hopefully someone would have the sense to keep things in line. I am sorry, I don't mean to sound so abrupt but I follow the teachings of the Church that Christ specifically chose the twelve for a reason, specifically chose a leader (for them for after his return to Heaven) who would be guided by the Holy Spirit to teach without error and not as he "understood" it and to subsequently pass that authority on to others throughout the centuries.

So I return to my earlier question....if this is not so, and you believe that all Christians are guided completely in their teaching by the Holy Spirit, then explain to me why there are so many different teachings and so many different divisions within the Protestant movement. There is not a doubt in me that great Bible teachers such as Billy Graham, Jimmy Swaggert, Joyce Meyer to name a few are true believing Christians that are indeed lead by the Spirit....but it just seems odd to me that there are still so many different teachings that it must be that somewhere along the way somebody starting "leaning unto their own understanding" and I just still fail to see that it was the Catholic Church when the Church doctrine is the same now as it was during the time of the apostles as attested to by the Gospels of the NT as well as great historical writers of their day and the following centuries.

Well! I guess my argument there is a little emotional, forgive me, there are just some points that I have difficulty expressing otherwise. Anyway, I agree that all we need is the Holy Spirit along with the instructions and teachings of the apostles, but those teachings include the written Word as well as oral Tradition. What do you think existed as guidance prior to the first Gospel being transcribed approximately 80 A.D.? What was there before then? In between the time that Christ instructed the apostles to spread the Word and the time it was actually put on paper ( and mainly by persons other than the original twelve)?

The authority to teach had to have been handed down in preparation for their passing, just as Christ bestowed it upon the twelve before His leaving here. Otherwise, how do we know whom to believe? Matthew? John? James? Paul? How would we know? How do we know to believe the great Bible teachers of today? They can't all be right. They can be partially right and partially wrong but not completely and without error, right? Can they? Unless they have been granted the authority and the gift to teach infallibly by someone who came before them.

And they can't all claim to have that gift bestowed upon them by the Holy Spirit and still have schisms such as we see today. The Church is not perfect, or rather it is not yet perfected, there are still things that are not easily understood or explained, but nonetheless, the Church teaches that they are true whether we understand them or not because our Lord said so, and his disciples said so, and their successors said so, and so on. I wasn't there when Christ rose from the dead, and I certainly don't understand it from a scientific or logical basis but I believe it because I am taught it happened and I am given reasonable witness to it by the inexhaustible writings about it. It is similar for many of the doctrines of the church, I wasn't there, but I believe it because I have been given reasonable witness to it by the NT and great historical writings.

Now about you thinking that Christ doesn't care about the institutions....if He didn't care, he would not have established the institution which is the Church and he would not have made provisions for a system of government within it. Yes, he does have it all in control and He can certainly bring people to Himself and to the Father without the church, but are we meant to be in this alone? If we were in this alone, He would not have commanded us to go to all nations..... Now if the Apostles did not used oral Tradition as you say, then why did Paul mention it so much? (I am not speaking of the traditions of men but the Sacred Tradition which "is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time") And as far as being dependent upon it, yes, and as equally dependent upon Sacred Scipture. Christ warned about the traditions of men. Not the Traditions of his very own teachings.

YES, All believers are saints. I agree with you completely on that matter.

I have added the creed for you to read, it summarises the doctrine of the Catholic Church, the unchangeable teachings of the church:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation He came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son He is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the prophets. We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.

That tells our basic beliefs.