question from a protestant

[missionseeker]

It's funny, I get this one all the time and can answer it. But when I have time to think about it, I keep going back and going that's not good. I'll post my official answer next time I come on

[Cre8d4Youth]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 13 2005, 12:10 AM']oh  man, that does sound like a good idea!! u pick a topic and i'll pretend to be the protestant
[right][snapback]822720[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Would it not be better to have a former, or current protestant that's Catholic friendly be your devil's advocate? That is, unless you grew up in a denomiation outside the Catholic church Phat. That way he'd get real arguements, and not the some hackneyed attempt.

Just a thought. I mean, would you want a protestant pretending to be Catholic without knowing the true arguements to debate another Christian? To me, at least, it would seem degrading. I'm just dropping my pennies around here though.

[phatcatholic]

missionseeker........................it may be better if you just join the FBC when it gets back up and running again. that way you will be able to experience protestant rebuttals to your apologetics first hand.

[missionseeker]

Nevermind..

I don't know if I could. My mother doesn't really like me joining sites. Maybe some other time. (Like when I move away lol) Meanwhile, I'll just check in here (as in the board)

[N/A Gone]

you want a protestant devils advocate?

ok...

Why does the church allow fish on friday when it says no meat? I heard the church had stock in the fish market.

Why doesnt christ talk about sacrements? Are these just an invention for catholics to control their people so they are afraid to leave and read the bible for themselves?

Why do catholics put philosophy ahead of clear biblical teaching?

The early church appeared to be small groups who met in hiding in faith. Not the overcontroled, determine everymovement and no personal faith catholic church. How can you argue that you are christs church when you invented it?

Why do you put more time and attention into mary than christ?

Why do you even need christ if you use mary for redemption?

How can you say the church is good when all you do is start wars, repress the priests so they cant marry and then *touch* lil boys? Doesnt the church know they cause the priests to do that because they dont allow them to be married?

How can you say God isnt relational when the old test uses relational language and even regret and questioning? Are u putting your greek philosophy ahead of the bible?

What about 1 tim 1: 4-7 or 1 tim 4:1-5...sounds like paul is warning about catholicism

hows that? ive heard all of those this week..

[eddieloudog]

Wow! you sound like my uncle...

[N/A Gone]

I hear this stuff all the time..this is common questions we need to go with

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Why does the church allow fish on friday when it says no meat? I heard the church had stock in the fish market.[/quote]

Abstaining from red meat (which is the rule) is a practice that far pre-dates the stock market. The idea was that fish was a common food in many places, while red meat was considered a sign of wealth, thus, giving up red meat was a sacrifice.

[quote]Why doesnt christ talk about sacrements? Are these just an invention for catholics to control their people so they are afraid to leave and read the bible for themselves?[/quote]

Christ does talk about, and institute, the sacraments. The word "sacrament" is not in the Bible just like the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but they are there. There are way too many scriptural references for me to note here - go to the reference section and they have a whole part on the sacraments.

[quote]Why do catholics put philosophy ahead of clear biblical teaching?[/quote]

We don't, Scripture is inspired, philosophy is not. We use philosophy when it helps to explain and get us to the Truth. The Catholic Faith rests on the three pillars of the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition. All three are inspired, and so trump philosophy, but at the same time, you cannot isolate the three from each other. Thus, Scripture cannot exist or be used without reference to Tradition and Magisterium, Magisterium cannot exist or be used without reference to Tradition and Scripture, and Tradition cannot exist or be used without reference to Magisterium and Scripture.

[quote]The early church appeared to be small groups who met in hiding in faith. Not the overcontroled, determine everymovement and no personal faith catholic church. How can you argue that you are christs church when you invented it?[/quote]

The early church [i]did[/i] look to Peter and his successors in Rome for guidance. The early church was more "decentralized" because that is what the times called for. Structural organization does not equal ecclesiology. The ecclessiology was the same, even if the exact structure that the Church has now is slightly different from what it was then. For example, the Lutheran Church is certainly not structurally identical to the time of ML, but no one is kicking and screaming that it is a different church.

[quote]Why do you put more time and attention into mary than christ?[/quote]

We don't. Protestants always want to bring up Mary and argue about her, so perhaps that may be what Protestants see, but Catholics give exactly the amount of attention to Mary as Christ, dying on the cross, asked of John. Our eyes never turn from Christ. When we look to Mary and the Saints, it is for the purpose of seeing Christ more clearly.

[quote]Why do you even need christ if you use mary for redemption?[/quote]

We don't. Christ is the sole source of our redemption. Period.

[quote]How can you say the church is good when all you do is start wars, repress the priests so they cant marry and then *touch* lil boys? Doesnt the church know they cause the priests to do that because they dont allow them to be married?[/quote]

The last wars we were in were wars against Protestants. If we can be blamed for that, so can they. But do you see Catholics accusing protestants of just getting in wars?

The celibacy of the priesthood is a Roman Rite tradition. It has not been a serious issue for thousands of years. The problem is clearly one of catechesis, not of the practice itself. I would love to see the statistics that back up the claim that unmarried men are, on average, more prone to pedophelia than married men, could you show me?

[quote]How can you say God isnt relational when the old test uses relational language and even regret and questioning? Are u putting your greek philosophy ahead of the bible?[/quote]

We do say God is relational. God is the ultimate relational being, for He is love, and love is definitionally relational. That means that God will [i]not[/i] be relational in exactly the same way as you and I are. Our relation can change, His cannot. No, I am not putting greek philosophy ahead of the bible, the ancient Jews believe the same thing about the relational nature of God as catholics do. The real question is, how can you make God's relational nature exactly the same as a humans? Is God just a really gigantic man?

[quote]What about 1 tim 1: 4-7 or 1 tim 4:1-5...sounds like paul is warning about catholicism[/quote]

1 Timothy 1: 4-7 is a reference to the gnosticism that was prevelant at the time. If you read gnostic texts from that era, they engage in countless geneologies regarding the emanations from the One - Pistia Sophia, for example. The gnostic claim being refuted here is that [i]knowledge[/i] will get you to heaven. This is the false teaching in question.

1 Timothy 4: 1-5 is also a refutation of the gnostic heresy. The gnostics believed that all matter was evil, and all spirit was good. Thus, marriage (and the procreation of children) was condemned as evil for bringing forth more material beings into the world. Asceticism was practiced because the world was seen as evil, and so detatching from it was encouraged. The doctrine being condemned here is the idea that all of material creation is evil

These passages do not contradict the Catholic faith, in fact, they support it. Any condemnation of heresy implies an authority behind the condemnation, and that authority is the Magisterium of the Church (in this case, the Apostle Paul). Thus, one cannot understand these passages of Scripture without understanding the authority of the Church

[Guest JeffCR07]

alright, now im actually going to go do something with my life, rather than post my day away. :

Have a good day, everyone!

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 19 2005, 08:26 AM']Christ does talk about, and institute, the sacraments. The word "sacrament" is not in the Bible just like the word "Trinity" is not in the Bible, but they are there. There are way too many scriptural references for me to note here - go to the reference section and they have a whole part on the sacraments.
[right][snapback]830469[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The word "sacrament" is used all over the place in the Bible. But that's really beside the point. The english word "sacrament" is from the latin "sacramentum" which in Greek = mysterion. The NT use of mysterion is general, not specific as in the sense of the word sacrament in modern English. It more generally means something secret or mysterious often with the sense of something formerly unknown but now revealed. Referring to the Eucharist, Baptism, etc. by the word mysterion or sacramentum in Latin was common usage in the early Church.

just a silly side note.. sorry to intrude.

[N/A Gone]

ok.jeff..u know those werent cause of me..just playin devils advocate..but i have a question..if it is "red meat" how come chicken isnt aloud

[Guest JeffCR07]

Im not sure, maybe I've just got it wrong and rather than "red meat" it is just any land-animal. I need to check the Code of Canon Law on that. thanks! :

[Guest JeffCR07]

PS, thanks a ton, LD, I've been taught that before, but it completely slipped my mind. Good call - I stand corrected!

[phatcatholic]

so which is it? red meat or any land animal?

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]Days of Abstinence and Fasting

Canon 1251 -- Abstinence from eating meat or another food according to the prescriptions of the conference of bishops is to be observed on Fridays throughout the year unless they are solemnities; abstinence and fast are to be observed on Ash Wednesday and on the Friday of the Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

This canon is taken from Poenitemini, part III, 112. Poenitemini exempted holy days of obligation from Friday abstinence; this canon extends that exemption to all solemnities whether they are of obligation or not. The Code also gives the conference of bishops the power to substitute another penance to be observed on Fridays in place of abstinence from meat.

Neither Poenitemini nor the Code mentions fasting on Holy Saturday whereas The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (SC 109) states:

The paschal fast must be kept sacred. It should be celebrated everywhere on Good Friday, and where possible should be prolonged throughout Holy Saturday so that the faithful may attain the joys of the Sunday of the resurrection with uplifted and responsive minds.

Poenitemini adds the following explanation of abstinence and fast:

The law of abstinence forbids the use of meat, but not of eggs, the products of milk or condiments made of animal fat. The law of fasting allows only one full meal a day, but does not prohibit taking some food in the morning and evening, observing--as far as quantity and quality are concerned--approved local custom (III-1 & 2).[/quote]

The commentary after the text of the Paragraph is from the American Canon Law Society. It says no meat, period, but I guess "fish" isn't considered a meat.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff