Catholicism Q&a: A Counter-Argument To Mr. Riggs's "why I

[Skeetergirl291]

I found an article online entitled "Why I left the Catholic Church" by David J. Riggs and I would like to address some of the arguments that I found there.

Also, I'd like to address some of the issues and/or concerns that you might have against Catholicism. I'll try my best to understand where you're coming from and to maybe give you some insight on what we as Catholics believe and why we believe it.

Now, I'm 15 years old and even at my age I've heard alot about the Catholic Church. We've been accused of "worshipping" statues of Mary and the Saints, of being hypocrates, etc. I like Mr. Riggs's arguments because they're precise. He pin-points his reasons frankly and honestly. He doesn't sugar-coat it.

He says:
[indent=1]"THE FIRST REASON I LEFT [THE CATHOLIC CHURCH] IS BECAUSE THE CATHOLICS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT ATTITUDE TOWARD THE TRUTH. To illustrate what I mean by this, I will explain the difference in the two sides. Those with the right attitude toward the truth are always willing to test what they teach with others. They invite those of opposite views to work together for truth and unity. They appreciate when those who differ with them point out where they think they are wrong. They have everything thoroughly tested, studying arguments both for and against, looking at both sides of the question."[/indent]

I'm Catholic. What do you think I'm doing now?

[indent=1]"Those with the wrong attitude toward the truth are not willing to test what they teach in fair and open discussion, privately or publicly. They do not invite others to point out where they think they are wrong, and do not appreciate when others try to do so. They won't allow their members to hear both sides of an issue, and especially they don't want them to examine opposing arguments."[/indent]

Again, what am I doing right now? I'm inviting you to "point out where [you] think [I am] wrong" I am share your "side of an issue" that you might have and I [i]want[/i] to "examine opposing arguments."

He continues to say:
[indent=1]"Hopefully, one can now understand what I mean when I said the Catholics do not have the right attitude toward the truth. Catholics are not allowed, and especially are not encouraged to hear both sides regarding truth and error. They are not to read books that differ from their doctrine. Thus, they are encouraged by the clergy to be closed minded to anything that differs from Catholicism. We ask, 'Why don't Catholic officials encourage their members to examine opposing Scriptural teaching?' False teachers have learned that when truth and error are examined side by side, some begin to see the truth. False teachers are afraid of being exposed and of losing their members."[/indent]

If that were the case, don't you think the Phatmass creators would have been excommunicated by now? And, even if they were, don't you think that they might have such an anger towards the Catholic Church that they would've shut down the Patmass website so as not to invite promoters of Catholicism?

[indent=1]"THE NEXT REASON I LEFT IS BECAUSE THE BIBLE ONLY IS THE ALL SUFFICIENT GUIDE TO SALVATION, BUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES THAT IT IS NOT. The Catholic [b]Catechism For Adults [/b]on page 52 says, 'Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because the Bible does not have everything God taught.' Notice that the first part of their answer to 'Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible?' is, 'No...' However, their own translations of the Bible teach the opposite. All Scriptural quotations that I will be giving are from Catholic translations. 2 Tim. 3:15-17 says, 'And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by faith which is Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, that the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.' Thus, the apostle Paul by the inspiration of God says to Timothy 'thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation and make you 'perfect, furnished to every good work.'[/indent]

[indent=1]Rom. 1:16 says, 'For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.' James 1:21 says, '...With meekness receive the ingrafted word, which is able to save you souls.' Consequently, the word contained in the Bible is able to save our souls.[/indent]

First of all, Mr. Riggs, you say "The Catholic [b]Catechism For Adults [/b]on page 52 says, 'Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible? No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because the Bible does not have everything God taught.' Notice that the first part of their answer to 'Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible?' is, 'No...'"

You fail to continue, their answer to "Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible?" is "No," but not [i]just[/i] "No" but , if you were to continue, as you did when you were quoting it, it also says "[i]because [/i]certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood, and because [i]the Bible does not have everything that God taught.[/i]" I'd also like to point out that it says "Can you learn to save your soul [i]just[/i] by reading the Bible?" It doesn't say "Can you learn... [i]only[/i] by reading..." No, it says "Can you learn... [i]just[/i] by reading..." As in, "reading the Bibles will help you save your soul, but, because the Bible was written so long ago, it can misunderstood" (see next argument for my input here)


Mr. Riggs continues:
[indent=1]The next part of the answer in the Catechism to the question, "Can you learn to save your soul just by the Bible?" is, "No, because certain things in the Bible can be misunderstood..." They are implying that the Bible cannot be understood. John A. O'Brien, the Catholic author of the book, "The Faith of Millions," is much more expressive when he says on page 152, "The Bible is not a clear and intelligible guide to all..." The book, "The Faith of Millions" was given to me before my conversion by my older brother Norman who was at the time a student at St. Meinrad Seminary, St. Meinrad, Indiana.[/indent]

[indent=1]The apostle Paul said we can understand what he wrote. "If yet, you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me towards you: how that, according to revelation, the mystery has been made known to me, as I have written above in few words; as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." (Eph. 3:2-4). Paul said the mystery had been made know to him by the revelation of God. He then showed that he was writing it e.g., "as I have written above in few words" (in the chapters prior to this) and "as you reading, may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." In other words, when we read what he wrote, we can understand what he understood. Paul also said, "For we write nothing to you that you do not read and understand" (2 Cor. 1:13) and "Therefore do not become foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is" (Eph. 5:17). Thus, the inspired writers taught that we most certainly can understand the Scriptures.[/indent]

Here, I'd like to put in an example that my mom uses alot when talking about this. She says, "the Bible was written a long time ago. In those days, when someone said 'razzle dazzle' they meant like 'chilly' or 'cold' but, these days, someone looks in the bible and sees 'razzle dazzle' and they might think 'neat' or 'amesome'"

[indent=1]The last part of the answer given in the Catechism to the question, "Can you learn to save your soul just by reading the Bible?" was "No...because the Bible does not have everything God taught." [b]The Faith of Millions[/b], on pages 153-154 says, "The Bible does not contain all the teaching of the Christian religion, nor does it formulate all the duties of its members." The Scriptures contain everything that is necessary to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). There is not a solitary good work that the Christian can do which is not provided in the Scriptures. The Scriptural proof they give for the Bible not containing everything God taught, is John 20:30. It says, "Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book." (See [b]Catechism For Adults[/b], p. 10).[/indent]

[indent=1]In John 20:30, John simply said that Jesus did many other signs (miracles) which he did record. Notice, though, what John says in the next verse, "...But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name." Thus, the apostle clearly shows that he wrote sufficient things to produce the faith which brings life in the name of Jesus. Life in the name of Jesus refers to eternal life and it is obtained by belief in the things written by the inspired writers.[/indent]

[indent=1]We freely admit that the Scriptures do not contain everything Jesus did. John said, "There are, however, many other things that Jesus did; but if every one of these would be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written." (John 21:25). Although we do not have everything Jesus did, we do have every [b]necessary[/b] thing. We have enough to give us life in His name.[/indent]

I quote from COGwriter's article [b]Tradition and Scripture: From the Bible and Church Writings [/b]where it says, "Should Christians rely on the Bible or tradition for doctrine? Does tradition have any value? Should tradition supercede the Bible?.... [font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]In order to provide scriptural proof for the position of the value of tradition, Catholic and Orthodox writers often point out certain writings of the Apostles John, Peter, and Paul. These writings should be viewed and examined.[/font]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]For example, John wrote,[/font]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written' (John 21:24-25).[/font][/indent]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]The above verse does make it clear that Jesus [i]did...[/i] many things not recorded in the written gospel accounts. Though it must be understood that it does not say that Jesus [i]taught[/i] many things that were essential, but not written....[/font]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Paul also wrote, [/font][/font]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'[/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us' (2 Thessalonians 3:6).[/font][/font][/indent]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'[/font][/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also' (2 Timothy 2:2). [/font][/font][/indent]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Furthermore, Paul wrote,[/font][/font]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'[/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you' (1 Corinthians 11:2). [/font][/font][/indent]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]In those verses, it is clear that Paul is saying that Christians should pay attention to the tradition that he and other church leaders taught. But does that mean that tradition is on equal or superior footing to the Bible? [/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]Certain Catholic writings suggest so, such as [i]Dei Verbum[/i] #9 from the Vatican Council II, [/font][/font]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'[/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]...both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence' (As quoted in Birch D.A. Trial, [i]Tribulation & Triumph[/i]; p.5). [/font][/font][/indent]
[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]One Orthodox bishop wrote, [/font][/font]
[indent=1][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]'.[/font][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]..to an Orthodox Christian, Tradition means...the books of the Bible; it means the Creed; it means the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and writings of the Fathers; it means the Canons, the Service Books, the Holy Icons -- in fact the whole system of doctrine' (Ware, p. 196)."[/font][/font][/indent]

[font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"]There is so much more to read about Tradition and Scripture and I encourage anyone to read the article above by clicking on the link below:[/font][/font]
[center][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][font="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"][url="http://www.cogwriter.com/tradition.htm"]http://www.cogwriter.com/tradition.htm[/url][/font][/font][/center]


Mr. Riggs:
[indent=1]Catholic officials follow up their claim (that we cannot understand the Bible) by stating that one can get the true meaning only from the Catholic Church. The [b]Catechism For Adults[/b] on page 10 says, "How can you get the true meaning of the Bible? You can get it only from God's official interpreter, the Catholic Church." The Catholics have no passages that mention an official interpreter and, thus, they try to support their claim through human logic and reasoning. Anytime men do such, it amounts to nothing more than human philosophy rather than Scriptural proof. The Bible says, "Let God be true, but every man a liar..." (Rom. 3:4). It also warns, "See to it that no one deceives you by philosophy and vain deceit, according to human traditions, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ." (Col. 2:8).[/indent]

[indent=1]The doctrine of the "infallible interpreter" implies that God did not make Himself clear. It implies that God gave us a revelation that still needs revealing. Did God fail in His attempt to give man a revelation? Do the Catholic officials want us to believe they can express God's will more clearly than God Himself? We believe that God made the mind of man and is fully capable of addressing man in words which man can understand.[/indent]

Yes, that is why He gave us the Pope. When we have questions, concerns, or misunderstandings, we go to the Pope who [i]is[/i] our Official Interpreter, our Divinely Appointed Translator. When he speaks infallibly, the Holy Spirit enters in him so that he might speak the words that God wants us to hear. He's like God's cell phone, if you will. God speaks into him, and we hear what God is saying through him. All our Pope's all the way down to our first Pope, Peter, have been chosen by God to guide us and shepard us.

Which brings us to Mr. Riggs's next argument:
[indent=1]"THE THIRD REASON I LEFT IS BECAUSE CHRIST DID NOT MAKE HIS CHURCH INFALLIBLE AS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES. The Catholic writers try to teach that the church could never go into error and is preserved from error. The [b]Catechism For Adults[/b] on page 56 says, 'Why can't the Catholic Church ever teach error? Because Jesus promised to be always with His Church to protect it from error.' The book, '[b]My Catholic Faith'[/b] which is based heavily on materials from the Baltimore Catechism, was given to me by my father not long after I was converted. I think his intentions were that somehow it would cause me to return to the Catholic Church. It says on page 144, 'Jesus Christ promised to preserve the Church from error.' On page 145, it says, 'Jesus Christ commanded all men to listen to and obey the Church, under pain of damnation. If His Church can teach error then He is responsible for the error, by commanding all to obey.' On page 54 the [b]Catechism For Adults[/b] says, 'Does everyone have to obey the Catholic Church? Yes, because she alone has the authority of Jesus to rule and to teach.' It is easy to see that Catholics have the authority in the wrong place. The authority is not in the body, but in the Head (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). The ruling is not in the kingdom, but in the King (Heb. 7:1-2; Rev. 1:5-6). The authority is in not in the church, but in Christ (Matt. 28:18; 1 Pet. 3:22). The church is not the Savior, but simply the body of the saved (Acts 2:47; Eph. 5:22-24).[/indent]

Yes, that's correct. The church's authority [i]is[/i] in the head of the church: that being Christ. The Pope is like Christ's ambassoder. Someone we can see and touch. One who everyone agrees, "Yeah, that's the Catholic Pope." Also, "The Church" refers the all the Catholics, so, yeah, the church is not the Savior, but the body of the saved.

Mr. Riggs:
[indent=1]"A FOURTH REASON I LEFT WAS BECAUSE CHRIST DID NOT MAKE PETER A POPE."[/indent]

Here's from Fr William Saunders's article [b]Did Jesus Make Peter Pope? [/b]([url="http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp"]http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/peter.asp[/url])
[indent=1]In Catholic tradition, the foundation for the office of the pope is indeed found primarily in Matthew 16:13-20. Here, Jesus asked the question, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" The Apostles responded, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." Our Lord then turned to them and point-blank asked them, "And you, who do you say that I am?"[/indent]
[indent=1]St. Peter, still officially known as Simon, replied, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Our Lord recognized that this answer was grace-motivated: "No mere man has revealed this to you, but My heavenly Father."[/indent]
[indent=1]Because of this response, our Lord said to St. Peter, "You are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The name change itself from Simon to Peter indicates the Apostle being called to a special role of leadership; recall how Abram's name was changed to Abraham, or Jacob's to Israel, or Saul's to Paul, when each of them was called to assume a special role of leadership among God's people.[/indent]
[indent=1]The word "rock" also has special significance. On one hand, to be called "rock" was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered "rock" because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.[/indent]
[indent=1]On the other hand, no one except God was called specifically "rock," nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name "rock" to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority. Some antipapal parties try to play linguistic games with the original Greek Gospel text, where the masculine-gender word "petros," meaning a small, moveable rock, refers to St. Peter while the feminine-gender word "petra," meaning a massive, immoveable rock, refers to the foundation of the Church. However, in the original Aramaic language, which is what Jesus spoke and which is believed to be the original language of St. Matthew's Gospel, the word "Kepha," meaning rock, would be used in both places without gender distinction or difference in meaning. The gender problem arises when translating from Aramaic to Greek and using the proper form to modify the masculine word "Peter" or feminine word "Church."[/indent]
[indent=1]"The gates of hell" is also an interesting Semitic expression. The heaviest forces were positioned at gates; so this expression captures the greatest warmaking power of a nation. Here this expression refers to the powers opposed to what our Lord is establishing-the Church. (A similar expression is used in reference to our Lord in Acts 2:24: "God freed Him from the bitter pangs of hell, however, and raised Him up again, for it was impossible that death should keep its hold on Him.") Jesus associated St. Peter and his office so closely with Himself that He became a visible force protecting the Church and keeping back the power of hell.[/indent]
[indent=1]Second, Jesus says, "I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the Old Testament, the "number two" person in the Kingdom literally held the keys. In Isaiah 22: 19-22 we find a reference to Eliakim, the master of the palace of King Hezekiah (2 Kings 18:17ff) and keeper of the keys. As a sign of his position, the one who held the keys represented the king, acted with his authority and had to act in accord with the king's mind. Therefore, St. Peter and each of his successors represent our Lord on this earth as His Vicar and lead the faithful flock of the Church to the Kingdom of Heaven.[/indent]
[indent=1]Finally, Jesus says, "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is rabbinic terminology. A rabbi could bind, declaring an act forbidden or excommunicating a person for serious sin; or a rabbi could loose, declaring an act permissible or reconciling an excommunicated sinner to the community.[/indent]
[indent=1]Here, Christ entrusted a special authority to St. Peter to preserve, interpret and teach His truth. In all, this understanding of Matthew 16 was unchallenged until the Protestant leaders wanted to legitimize their rejection of papal authority and the office of the pope. Even the Orthodox Churches recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter; however, they do not honor his binding jurisdiction over the whole Church but grant him a position of "first among equals.".....[/indent]
[indent=1]When our Lord selects a group of three for some special event, such as the Transfiguration, St. Peter is in the first position. Our Lord chose to teach from St. Peter's boat. At Pentecost St. Peter preached to the crowds and told of the mission of the Church (Acts 2;14-40). He performed the first miraculous healing (Acts 3:6-7). SL Peter also received the revelation that the Gentiles were to be baptized (Acts 10:9-48) and sided with St. Paul against the need for circumcision (Acts 15). At the end of his life, St. Peter was crucified, but in his humility asked to be crucified upside down."[/indent]

Mr. Riggs:
[indent=1]"In the books of men, the following titles are commonly used with reference to a man: 'Pope,'[/indent]
[indent=1]Holy Father,' 'Vicar of Christ,' 'Sovereign Pontiff.' All of these are titles that rightly belong only to the Lord Jesus Christ and to God the Father. There is not a single instance in the Scriptures where any of the above titles are applied to a man. The term, 'Holy Father' is used only once in the entire Bible, and it is used by Jesus in addressing God the Father. (John 17:11). Among the above titles is the bold assertion that the Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ.' A 'vicar' is 'One serving as a substitute or agent; one authorized to perform the functions of another in higher office.' (Webster).[/indent]

Great! That's a perfect definition of the Pope! :D Thanks Webster!

[indent=1]"When one searches the Bible from cover to cover, he finds only one passage which gives an indication of a vicar of Christ or God. It is 2 Thess. 2:3-4 and is worded as follows: 'Let no one deceive you in any way, for the day of the Lord will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and is exalted above all that is called God, or that is worshiped, so that he sits in the temple of God and gives himself out as if he were God.'[/indent]

Don't forget about the passages in Matthew 16, and the ones in John 21:15-18, John 1:42, and 1Corinthians 10:4b


If you want to read more of Mr. Riggs's article, it can be found at [url="http://www.bassfishing.org/thebiblespeaks/articles/falseteachings/denominationalism/Catholic.htm"]http://www.bassfishing.org/thebiblespeaks/articles/falseteachings/denominationalism/Catholic.htm[/url]

[Autumn Dusk]

this is one of those dead horse things. Nevermind it was year 1600 something before the idea of a pope was questioned....its good to put resources out there but riggs is a lost cause.

And part of what he sais is true. The catholic church is crappy at hearing new insight and different opinions.

[r2Dtoo]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' timestamp='1334534105' post='2418350']And part of what he sais is true. The catholic church is crappy at hearing new insight and different opinions.[/quote]
Well, supposedly every idea humans could ever conceive of has already been thought of by the Greeks, and the Catholic Church is the only one who knows which of the ideas were right, and which were wrong.