debate. I agree 100% with his assessment as to why many Protestants disagree with the Catholic church. In short: Show me the money.

vt

http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/03_ecumenism/peter-kreeft_ecumenism.mp3

I listened to it.

I agree with much of it. I didn't see how it had anything to do with money though.

vt, if the "money" is shown to you, will pride let you accept it?

I present to you the life, work and writings of John Paul the Great as the "money".

In all fairness, the sin of pride also prevents many Catholics from seeing the face of Christ in many great Protestant men and women.

Kreeft's thesis, in my opinion, is that the breach between Catholics and Protestants will be healed when each can identify Christ and his teachings in one another.

what I mean by "Show me the money" is the point that he makes about Catholics educating their own. Like he said, many Protestants look at many Catholics and see little to no knowledge of the Bible and simply a system of going to church cuz it's the thing to do. I agree entirely with his assessment.

vt

and many Catholics look at protestants and see no knowledge of the context that the Bible was written in, so that it is taken out of context.

i have had many debates with Protestants that have come down to the 'wording of the Bible'
this just shows a complete disregard for the history of the time, and the context that those letters were actually written in.

Granted, the average Protestant probably spends more time reading their Bible than the average Catholic. BUt thats where the difference lies.

Most protestants believe that the fullness of faith is contained in the Bible, where as Catholics believe that the fullness of faith is found in the Church, and the Bible is part of that.

I like the anaology of the Bible as a study guide. The night before your big test, you don't spend the time cramming to learn every little detail about organic chemistry, but rather the concepts that are key to pass the class. The textbook you have for the class covers alot of information on the subject, but not everything there is to know, and even that textbook is too much to study in one night. So you make a review sheet, a study guide, to help you hit the key points and pass the test.

The Bible is that study guide. It holds the inforation that is important in order to pass the test, but it doesnt hold everything there is to know about the subject.

Now, in life, we're not cramming the night before the test, but rather, studying and learning the whole time. WHat sense does it make then, to study only the review sheet, when we have the church as a whole library of knowledge on the topic, complete with professors, and people who have spent their lives learning the subject, who are there to help, all at our disposal? Many of the key points are on that review sheet, but if all you do is read the concept yourself, then you may not get it quite right, and screw it up on the test. Better to spend the time going to class, and learning from someone who knows what they're talking about, and can point you in the right direction.


Its the difference between a B and a C, or an A and a B...

Now, whether or not the grade transfers, i have no idea... but it just seems like as long as your dedicating the time to it, and its a topic that youre gonna use for a LONG time... why not learn as much as you can about it?

[This message has been edited by kbaum07 (edited 6/27/2006 2:57p).]

I listened to it again. The one thing that I really disagreed with was when he said, "When God Banged Out the Big Bang."

The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than a guess derived by science. There is no proof or evidence of a Big Bang.

quote:

---

The Big Bang Theory is nothing more than a guess derived by science. There is no proof or evidence of a Big Bang.

---

check out Hugh Ross' stuff. he's a cosmologist who is also a Christian.

vt

WhoDat:

There *is* proof of the Big Bang:

quote:

---

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. Gen 1:3

---

-td

This is also a fascinating blog written by a nuclear physicist named David Heddle:

http://www.helives.blogspot.com/

quote:

---

There is no proof or evidence of a Big Bang.

---

There certainly is evidence. Do you think science just decides to make stuff up for fun?

The Big Bang is one of the biggest reasons I believe there is a God. It is not contrary to the Bible, it just a different interpretation of it's meaning.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBevidence

quote:

---

The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:

The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario.

---

A "Big Bang" in the sense that at one moment there was nothing and then there was something (God put into motion) then I agree.

The very terminolgy "Big Bang" expresses the lack of God. It's science's attempt at removing the creator from creation.

The biggest problem I see w/this guy is he sees (as do all Catholics)the Church as the magesterium and the doctrines of the Catholic Church which is summed up in a monolithic organization rather than seeing believers as the Church. It's the believers, who are living stones of the Church, who make up the Body of Christ-We are the Church! It is our faith which that unites us w/Christ and makes us members of His Body, the Church. So I am the Church or rather a part of the Church and so is Notafraid and every other believer!

There's your visible Church! You want to see her then look at your brother and sister in Christ!

True Mrs. Lovelight...but surely denominations are a human construct and lead to much false teaching etc. I don't think I could be Catholic given some serious doctrine issues...but I wish that all believers could be part of a trully one holy catholic (little "c" and apostolic church.

whodat - what sort of doctrinal issues? (not to get into a debate... just for understanding)

Mrs. Lovelight - With all due respect - You are correct in a sense. But could you please use another term besides "We Are the Church"? "We Are Church" is a group of cafeteria catholics who want women priests, homosexual priests, and every other ECUSA idea there is to come into the church.

You are also wrong in the respect that Jesus did indeed establish His Church, not Churches. You only have to go back to the early church fathers of the 1rst -5th centuries to see which church that exactly was.

Christ establishes His Church through union w/Himself!

As for the We are the Church, I know nothing of them. It sounds as if they have hijacked a very true statement in order to further their own agenda.

Mrs. Lovelight - please stop presuming to speak for the Catholic belief.

the word "Church" means several things to Catholics. you only understand it to mean the shortened version of "the Roman Catholic CHurch" which you somewhat crudely, yet without inadequacy, discussed is ONE definition of the Catholic use of the word "Church"


the word is also the name for the buildings in which we hold services.

Catholics also use the word "Church" as you use it, to discribe the Mystical Body of Christ. A community of believers.

But Catholics also expand on this last use of the word "CHurch" - there are 3 parts.
1) The Church Militant - (thats you and me, here on earth)
2) The Church Suffering - these are the faithful who have died, who will enter into heaven, but are currently in Purgatory, atoning for their sins.
3) The Church Triumphant - These are our brothers and sisters in heaven, in the presance of God.

All Three parts worship God, and TOGETHER make up the Mystical Body of Christ.

kbaum, mine would be in no particular order:

transubstantiation
confession to a priest and associated penance
the notion of purgatory (and indulgences)
the notion of the infallibility of the pope and him being the vicarious person of Christ on earth
the mass
the 7 sacraments

Some of these would be bigger deals for me than others... but inasmuch as most Catholics (I suspect) consider many of these things to be a core part of their faith, so I also consider the 5 Solas part of mine - and anywhere those things get cross-ways would be a huge problem for me in considering a unification.

And, for what it's worth, I don't think "unification", as it is described in the audio link above, is something I consider even remotely important. It may be something the Catholic church wants, but for me as an individual, it is something of a pointless exercise.

I don't think it will ever, ever happen, and I don't think it's necessary for it to happen.

Why? Because I believe we (all Christians) are already a part of the church that Jesus founded.

Denominations are a construct of man - and in being so, ALL are flawed. It is in believing in Christ that we join the catholic church, and all believers are members. And that church is without flaw.

-td

I don't have a problem w/denominations, either you are one of the elect or you are not.

im interested in knowing more about what you find flawed in the mass and the 7 sacraments.

kb,

quote:

---

Mrs. Lovelight - please stop presuming to speak for the Catholic belief.

---

I just call it like I see it.

quote:

---

You are also wrong in the respect that Jesus did indeed establish His Church, not Churches. You only have to go back to the early church fathers of the 1rst -5th centuries to see which church that exactly was.

---

It is exactly this legalistic sort of thinking that would keep me from ever joining the Roman Catholic church.

Jesus DID found ONE church. The only requirement for membership is that you accept Him as savior and lord. And He is the head of that Church. Not the Pope, not the head of the Southern Baptist Convention, not someone in Utah. Jesus is the head of his Church.

And we are already unified in one body.

-td

Mrs. L - I'm sorry, but you see it wrong.

Techdiver - Yes, Jesus is the head of the Church. the Pope is filling in for logistical things while Jesus is away.

kbaum:

Again in no particular order:

I certainly have no problem with baptism. I disagree with the notion of infant baptism, only in that I view baptism as an outward, public statement of faith, and an infant can't make such a statement.

But in any case, I don't believe that baptism is necessary to enter heaven. It's simply a statement of faith. It's the right thing to do, but not a requirement for salvation.

Which leads to confirmation... confirmation isn't necessary at all IMO.

Penance/Confession:

I confess my sins to God. Not to a priest. A priest is a man. He is always a man - he is never God. He can't forgive my sins, nor can he tell me what to do to have them forgiven.

A key difference in reformed and RC beliefs seems to be around faith vs. works. In my opinion, it doesn't matter how many Our Fathers and Hail Marys I say - none of those can wash away my sins. Only the blood of Jesus can do that.

I don't believe the notion of penance is remotely biblical.

Communion:
I take communion. I do it in remembrance of Christ, as He commanded. I do not believe I am eating His physical body, nor drinking His physical blood, nor do I believe He commanded that I believe that.

I do not believe that I am required to believe that in order to get to heaven, although Catholic dogma says that I'm "anathema" for thinking that.

I also don't think one has to be a priest to administer communion.

Matrimony/Marriage: I have no disagreements with this.

I don't really understand Holy Orders. Is this basically the Great Commission? It seems to me that Holy Orders are how priests get to be priests. I may be wrong. It seems to me that the only test the Apostles had to take to become Apostles was to say "Okay" when Christ said "Follow me."

Anointing of the Sick/Extreme Unction/Last Rites: I certainly believe God can and does heal the sick. I don't think Last Rites, etc., are needed, and if they aren't needed then why bother.

The Mass: First, the liturgy is boring. I don't know where it came from, but it's boring. Second, as I understand it, the priests do some trick that makes the bread become flesh and the wine become blood, and that ONLY a priest can do this trick.

Does God really need a priest to do this trick, if in fact it happens? Seems like that would be akin to God saying to Moses "Hey, would you mind lighting that bush? There's a box of matches next to that rock over there..."

Anyway... gotta go for now, but my answers are pretty predictable.

Not looking for a debate, but since you asked, there it is.

-td

kbaum,

I don't think I'm seeing it wrong. Catholics are the ones who claim that many different denoms equals many different faiths or churches. Not so, just because there happen to be many different denominations of protestantism it's the same faith-one which looks to Christ as Savior and Lord. That faith is what qualifies one as a member of Christ's Body, which is a result of union w/Him.

Are you familiar w/the term union with Christ and exactly what that means?

"The very terminolgy "Big Bang" expresses the lack of God. It's science's attempt at removing the creator from creation."

You are wrong.

Your definition does not match the definition of the big bang in scientific theory. The theory always recognizes the prescence of matter/energy. The big bang is a theory explaining how a dense matter and energy expanded to the universe we see today. It does not attempt to answer where the original matter/energy came from.

Catholics - Love Mary.
Protestants - She's no big deal.

Catholics - See protestants as reading the bible without the proper context.
Protestants - See catholics as adding to scripture and connecting unconnectable dots.

Catholics - See the Church as the teacher.
Protestants - See the Bible as the teacher.

Catholics - See the Eucharist as the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ.
Protestants - May or may not believe the literal inerrancy of John 6:53-58.

Catholics - Get grace through the sacraments.
Protestants - Get grace from Jesus when he pleases.

Catholics - Salvation is an ongoing process.
Protestants - Once saved, always saved.

Catholics - Scripture + Church's teaching authority + Tradition = Truth
Protestants - Sola Scriptura = Truth

Catholics - Dead Christians can intercede for us.
Protestants - Dead Christians are dead.

quote:

---

May or may not believe the literal inerrancy of John 6:53-58.

---

Jesus draws His own analogy in the text and it's NOT the Eucharist. Why?

quote:

---

Get grace from Jesus when he pleases.

---

and He is pleased to give grace! Praise Him!

quote:

---

Once saved, always saved.

---

actually there are Protestants who do not believe this doctrine, but you may use as broad a brush as you would like. it's your perogative.

quote:

---

Dead Christians are dead.

---

this is the furthest thing from the truth, and I'm almost offended by your implication.

vt

quote:

---

Yes, Jesus is the head of the Church. the Pope is filling in for logistical things while Jesus is away.

---

I don't know why, but this quote above struck me as kinda funny. I can just see the conversation that is implied here.

Pope: "OK Jesus. I'll take care of the flowers, the food, all of the invitations, I'll get the Vatican all ready and make it look real nice, I'll go ahead and forgive the sins of the ones that I think need forgiving. And, instead of hiring a priest, I'll go ahead and perform the ceremony myself. All you need to do is just show up for the wedding supper of the Lamb."

TechDiver-

quote:

---

The Mass: First, the liturgy is boring. I don't know where it came from, but it's boring.

---

First of all the Mass is worship and not meant to entertain you; second, from what I've seen of Protestant worship services they are no more "entertaining" than the average Catholic litugical service.

quote:

---

Second, as I understand it, the priests do some trick that makes the bread become flesh and the wine become blood, and that ONLY a priest can do this trick.

---

The consecration is not some kind of trick or magic worked by the priest. It is God who works the change. Early in the Eucharistic Prayer there is a portion of it called the epiclesis in which the priest prays for the gathered community that Father send his Holy Spirit over the bread and wine so that they may become the body and blood of Jesus. Therefore it is the Father who consecrates through his Spirit. The priest merely says the prayer, in the name of the community. However, the Church does teach only an ordained priest may validly lead the congregation.

As for the question actually changing the bread & wine into the body & blood of Christ, it is the belief of the Church that at the Last Supper Jesus did not give his apostles just blessed bread and wine. He was giving His whole life– Body, Blood, and Divinity. He was giving His very self. It is believed that by the will of the Father, the work of the Holy Spirit, and through the words of consecration prayed by the priest, that bread and wine is transformed into the body and blood of Jesus. The bread and wine do not change in characteristics– they still look the same, taste and smell the same, and hold the same shape. However, the reality, the what it is, the substance does change. When we partake in Communion we do not receive mere bread and wine; we receive the Body and Blood of Christ.

Do I actually understand the mystery of the Euchrist and how it becomes the Body & Blood of Christ? No, but I do believe it.

Tech Diver - i think the reason you dont agree with Catholics on baptism is that you dont know waht it is exactly that we teach (sorry for the brevity, but im just gonna point you to the thread i started the other day titled "Baptism" so as to avoid rehashing topics on different threads)

Confirmation is directly Biblical - it is what the apostles experienced at Pentecost - receiving the Holy Spirit.

Communion - Yes, when you read your king james bible, it says "do this in rememberance of me..." but thats why you need someone who knows how to read the origional scripture, and knows how things were done from the very BEGINING of the Church. You know that the Last Supper was the Passover Supper. The Jewish faith holds that when they celebrate the passover, they are not remembering what once happened long ago, but rather, that God's passover takes place out side of time, and that they are experiencing it along with those who were there the 'first time.' The language used by Christ was the same concept as this... Christ instituted the Eucharist as the new Passover, as part of the New Covenant.

Correct me if im wrong but neither you nor I speak/read Aramaic, or any of the languages that scripture was written in. We rely on translations to draw our faith from the bible. Even now, try to translate something from English to Spanish, and you will loose something in the translation. Imagine translating it 1000 years from now, and take out any cultural tones and phrases, and tell me that word for word, you can get the exact meaning, simply because you can read the language it was translated to. Thats why you need the scholars of the Church to interpret it. People who DO know the language and the history and traditions of that culture.

Confession - how bout when Christ said to his Apostles "Who's sins you forgive are forgiven them, and who's sins you retain are retained them?" Yes, it is Christ who forgives our sins, not the Priest, but Christ does it THROUGH the priest. Penance is just an act to prove that you are honestly sorry for your sins. Priests these days will rarely say "give me 15 Our Fathers, 18 Glory Be's, and 27 Hail Mary's..." But rather ask you to spend some time in quiet reflection on your sins, some Eucharistic Adoration, or some sort of service to the community.

There are 2 parts to practically everything God made. Spiritual and Physical. Sin is no different. When we sin, we hurt our relationship with God, and with our fellow man. The Priest is there to offer forgiveness from both parties whom we have offended.

I'm tired... i'll get to the rest later.

Regarding the Eucharist: I don't believe that Jesus carved off a hunk of His thigh and opened a vein and served up His literal flesh and blood to the apostles. I believe what Christ said, AND DID, at the Last Supper was symbolic, rather than literal, in its meaning in scripture.

Regardless, I don't really care if Catholics (or any other denomination) believe in transubstantiation or not. It's the Catholic church that has an issue with my beliefs, and not the other way around. I'm anathema, remember?

kbaum: I agree that I am not a biblical scholar. There are lots of people that I turn to for guidance and interpretation - personally, in books, online, and in the church. Some of them are Roman Catholics.

But not all of them. I believe the RC church knows a LOT about the scriptures... and I think lots of other people do too.

But the RC church tells us that it is the sole and final arbiter of what the scripture says and means. And more than that - it says that the scripture isn't enough... you also need sacred tradition, which conveniently the church gets to dictate.

Regarding confession: we're never going to get to any sort of agreement here, so let's just work towards respecting each other's opinion. As with the Eucharist, the RC church is telling us that God needs an ordained priest to do some stuff... turn bread to flesh, or to forgive sins.

See, it's not that I have a problem with communion or confession. I don't. Both are biblical. It's that I have a problem that the church insists that a man MUST be involved, and not just any man - but a priest. Those ideas aren't found anywhere in the bible.

Anyway - I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong, and it's not likely that you'll convince me that I'm wrong. So I'm simply trying to answer the questions posed to me, rather than engage in a debate.

And if my answers have offended, please accept my apology... this medium can be pretty cold sometimes, and I'm not a very good communicator.

-td

I think that both the Apostles and early Christians believed the Eucharist to be literal.

The Apostles at times thought Jesus was insane, but not enough to leave Him, Judas excepted. For me, when I view the verses of the first Communion, it really does appear that the Apostles had NO IDEA of what to make of "eating flesh" and "drinking blood," but that Jesus meant it literally.

The early Church fathers believed this as well.

TechDiver-

quote:

---

I certainly have no problem with baptism. I disagree with the notion of infant baptism, only in that I view baptism as an outward, public statement of faith, and an infant can't make such a statement.

But in any case, I don't believe that baptism is necessary to enter heaven. It's simply a statement of faith. It's the right thing to do, but not a requirement for salvation.

---

Just posting this so you can get a better understanding of the Catholic view on infant baptism, not really looking for a debate.

Peter Kreeft on infant baptism
http://blog.defensorveritatis.net/?cat=6

“Since the beginning of the Church, adult Baptism is the common practice where the proclamation of the Gospel is still new” (CCC 1247). But also “[t]he practice of infant Baptism is an immemorial tradition of the Church. There is explicit testimony to this practice from the second century on, and it is quite possible that, from the beginning of the apostolic preaching, when whole ‘households’ received baptism, infants may also have been baptized [cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16]” (CCC 1252).

The reasons for infant Baptism are as follows:

a. “Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism” (CCC 1250).

b. Infant Baptism shows our faith in God’s initiative. “The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism” (CCC 1250). Infant Baptism fits the nature of God’s love: God loves us before we love him. Even our desire for him is his gift.

c. Infant Baptism shows the wideness of God’s grace. God withholds his love from no one. Intelligence is not a qualification, only openness. And who is more open than an infant? There is no actual sin, no guilt, no refusal.

d. Loving parents want to give their children the very best of everything, and nothing is better than God’s grace, nothing is more necessary for a good life. “The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth” (CCC 1250).

e. Christ told his apostles to let the children come to him (Mk 10:14-16).

f. God deals with us not only as individuals but also as families. Throughout Scripture, covenant (marriage) and kinship (family) are central.

g. Infant Baptism is sciptural (see Acts 16:15).

h. Finally, since we simply cannot understand how God’s grace works, we cannot limit it.

Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity, pp. 312-313

Techdriver - Concerning your disbelief of Jesus being truly present in the Eucharist, and that you think it's only symbolic, which is not in the bible, what do you think of 1 Corinthians 15:44? Is there a different kind of body, that is real, maybe?