The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

[FredVB]

I don't regard apocrypha as authoritative, I see problems with them. But what is wrong with the early and oldest part of 1 Enoch, which has passages quoted and referred to in the new testament?

 

[BobRyan]

This thread will sequentially discuss the biblical underpinnings of these 10 Catholic distinctives:
(1) Holy Water
(2) Holy Relics
(3) Prayer to Saints

Nothing in OT or NT for that

(4) Catholic Mariology

Not in the Bible.
Christ was confronted with it and responded "on the contrary"

(5) Priestly Confession and Absolution

Not a role specific to any office or person in the NT

(6) Infant Baptism

Not in the NT at all ( or OT)

(7) Transubstantiation/ Real Presence

"in remembrance of me" not "I am killed each time you do this"

(8) Purgatory

Not in the Bible at all ... not even in the Apocrypha

(9) Catholic Doctrine of Justification

Not sure what you mean by that

(10) Catholic View of Scripture and Tradition

Mark 7:7-13 is Christ's response to that

 

[RileyG]

Nothing in OT or NT for that

Not in the Bible.
Christ was confronted with it and responded "on the contrary"


Not a role specific to any office or person in the NT

Not in the NT at all ( or OT)

"in remembrance of me" not "I am killed each time you do this"

Not in the Bible at all ... not even in the Apocrypha

Not sure what you mean by that

Mark 7:7-13 is Christ's response to that

I can write a very long response to this, but the bold part is beyond wrong, and an inaccurate view on the Catholic view of the Eucharist and the real presence. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross happened ONCE and ONCE only. The Mass is an reenactment of the Last Supper and Good Friday.

Also in Acts 16:15, whole households were baptized. Which most certainly included children and infants.

Regarding Mariology, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples is a wonderful book that uses scripture to defend the Marian doctrines.

Prayers for the dead are an ancient Christian and Jewish practice. They weren't even questioned until the Protestant Reformation. Ideas such as soul sleep aren't biblical and weren't even thought of in Christianity until relatively recently. I think the 1800s.

Regarding confession, it's 100% biblical. John 20:19-23, Matthew 18:18, James 5:13-16, Matthew 16:19, among others.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can write a very long response to this, but the bold part is beyond wrong, and an inaccurate view on the Catholic view of the Eucharist and the real presence. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross happened ONCE and ONCE only. The Mass is an reenactment of the Last Supper and Good Friday.

Also in Acts 16:15, whole households were baptized. Which most certainly included children and infants.

Regarding Mariology, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples is a wonderful book that uses scripture to defend the Marian doctrines.

Prayers for the dead are an ancient Christian and Jewish practice. They weren't even questioned until the Protestant Reformation. Ideas such as soul sleep aren't biblical and weren't even thought of in Christianity until relatively recently. I think the 1800s.

Regarding confession, it's 100% biblical. John 20:19-23, Matthew 18:18, James 5:13-16, Matthew 16:19, among others.

I can write a very long response to this, but the bold part is beyond wrong, and an inaccurate view on the Catholic view of the Eucharist and the real presence. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross happened ONCE and ONCE only. The Mass is an reenactment of the Last Supper and Good Friday.

Also in Acts 16:15, whole households were baptized. Which most certainly included children and infants.

Regarding Mariology, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples is a wonderful book that uses scripture to defend the Marian doctrines.

Prayers for the dead are an ancient Christian and Jewish practice. They weren't even questioned until the Protestant Reformation. Ideas such as soul sleep aren't biblical and weren't even thought of in Christianity until relatively recently. I think the 1800s.

Regarding confession, it's 100% biblical. John 20:19-23, Matthew 18:18, James 5:13-16, Matthew 16:19, among others.

Households in the first century included not only the nuclear families with which we are familiar with in modern society but the extended family as well as slaves, bond-slaves, and hired servants. Do you believe that all of these individuals were routinely baptized even though some, being adults and of sound mind, had no particular interest in Jesus Christ?

 

[RileyG]

Households in the first century included not only the nuclear families with which we are familiar with in modern society but the extended family as well as slaves, bond-slaves, and hired servants. Do you believe that all of these individuals were routinely baptized even though some, being adults and of sound mind, had no particular interest in Jesus Christ?

It's possible. I wasn't there.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It's possible. I wasn't there.

Nor was I. I prefer not to speculate.

 

[RileyG]

Nor was I. I prefer not to speculate.

Fair enough.

 

[The Liturgist]

I can write a very long response to this, but the bold part is beyond wrong, and an inaccurate view on the Catholic view of the Eucharist and the real presence. The sacrifice of Christ on the cross happened ONCE and ONCE only. The Mass is an reenactment of the Last Supper and Good Friday.

Also in Acts 16:15, whole households were baptized. Which most certainly included children and infants.

Regarding Mariology, "Behold your Mother" by Tim Staples is a wonderful book that uses scripture to defend the Marian doctrines.

Prayers for the dead are an ancient Christian and Jewish practice. They weren't even questioned until the Protestant Reformation. Ideas such as soul sleep aren't biblical and weren't even thought of in Christianity until relatively recently. I think the 1800s.

Regarding confession, it's 100% biblical. John 20:19-23, Matthew 18:18, James 5:13-16, Matthew 16:19, among others.

Amen to that. it’s very frustrating when people assert things about our faith which isn’t true. As an Orthodox, I am tired of being told my church worships on Sunday because Emperor Constantine ordered this at the Council of Nicaea, which is patently false (also the Orthodox churches haven’t been in communion with Rome since 1054 in the case of the EO, 451 in the case of the OO, and have never been under the control of the Pope of Rome.

But since some leaders of 19th century churches did not discuss our church in their writings, this creates a conundrum and it seems the easy way out for some is to just classify us as Roman Catholics in denial, similar to the manner in which our Lutheran friends like @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian and our Anglican friends such as @Jipsah are treated.

 

[The Liturgist]

Households in the first century included not only the nuclear families with which we are familiar with in modern society but the extended family as well as slaves, bond-slaves, and hired servants. Do you believe that all of these individuals were routinely baptized even though some, being adults and of sound mind, had no particular interest in Jesus Christ?

If we interpret the Scripture literally, than yes. It would be the case that those members of the household outside of the nuclear family would definitely be incentivized to believe in Christ our God.

Also the history of the early church has many cases where servants embraced the faith of their employers, and slaves that of their master, and in many cases became co-martyrs.

 

[The Liturgist]

Christ was confronted with it and responded "on the contrary"

That’s a distortion.

Firstly, Mariology is the subset of theology dealing with the person of St. Mary, and does not refer specifically to Roman Catholic beliefs about her; that, rather, would be Roman Catholic Mariology. But all religions that believe Christ to have been born of Mary have some form of Mariology, even those heretical cults which deny the Virgin Birth and believe that our Lord was conceived out-of-wedlock have a form of Mariology, albeit one which is entirely wrong.

Secondly, what Christ said, if interpreted exegetically, that is, in a manner consistent with Luke ch. 1, which is inspired Scripture, is that His mother was blessed because she was the one who kept His commandments. For this reason, in the Orthodox Church, we read Luke 11:27-28 on most feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and have done so since antiquity (because of course, we do not read Luke ch. 11 in a manner that contradicts Luke ch. 1 or the rest of the New Testament; it is established that all generations will call the Mother of God blessed, and Luke 11:27-28 provides clear guidance as to why it was that the Theotokos received a blessing to become the Mother of God.

Passages such as this doubtless explain why most Christians historically venerated the Theotokos, including Martin Luther, who venerated her using one of the ancient Orthodox Theotokion hymns, the Angelic Salutation.

I would think someone as pro-commandment as you would embrace that.

The text in question, by the way, is not translated by the KJV, the NIV or most other Bibles as “On the Contrary” but as “Rather” or “Yea, Rather”, which along with “Indeed,” are valid translations of Μενοῦν.

Of course even if we used the translation “On the Contrary” the Lutheran / Orthodox / Catholic / High Church Anglican interpretation would still remain viable, which is probably why the NASB used this translation despite RCC influence.

 

[Valletta]

Households in the first century included not only the nuclear families with which we are familiar with in modern society but the extended family as well as slaves, bond-slaves, and hired servants. Do you believe that all of these individuals were routinely baptized even though some, being adults and of sound mind, had no particular interest in Jesus Christ?

"No particular interest?" That's rather vague. It is my understanding of Catholic theology that if a person internally says I will not accept the sacrament of Baptism or any other sacrament, or wants the sacrament but is receiving it by trickery and deceit, then they do not receive that sacrament. Certainly God cannot be tricked.

 

[RileyG]

Amen to that. it’s very frustrating when people assert things about our faith which isn’t true. As an Orthodox, I am tired of being told my church worships on Sunday because Emperor Constantine ordered this at the Council of Nicaea, which is patently false (also the Orthodox churches haven’t been in communion with Rome since 1054 in the case of the EO, 451 in the case of the OO, and have never been under the control of the Pope of Rome.

But since some leaders of 19th century churches did not discuss our church in their writings, this creates a conundrum and it seems the easy way out for some is to just classify us as Roman Catholics in denial, similar to the manner in which our Lutheran friends like @MarkRohfrietsch @ViaCrucis @Ain't Zwinglian and our Anglican friends such as @Jipsah are treated.

Yup. They simply don’t KNOW what the Church teaches, rather it’s based on a misconception.

 

[RileyG]

If we interpret the Scripture literally, than yes. It would be the case that those members of the household outside of the nuclear family would definitely be incentivized to believe in Christ our God.

Also the history of the early church has many cases where servants embraced the faith of their employers, and slaves that of their master, and in many cases became co-martyrs.

Yup. That’s my understanding as well.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Also in Acts 16:15, whole households were baptized. Which most certainly included children and infants.

The Baptists have already won this argument a long time ago by one simple trick: THEY REDEFINE THE HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" from all those living under the same roof regardless of age to only adults unless the Biblical text says there are children present. Do not believe this.

So how do we interpret Scripture here? We ask the diagnostic question(s): 1) Do the words and grammar of Scripture determine theological content and belief? 2) Or does your theological belief determine what words should mean in Scripture?

Clearly and plainly, Baptists use interpretative principle #2 when defining the word "household" due to their anti-paedo beliefs. By fiat, Baptists just declare a household can not have children living in them UNLESS THE TEXT SAYS CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! Pure eisegesis but this interpretation emotionally satisfies the Baptist belief in credobaptism. This is interpretive cheating.

Household baptisms scripturally are born from Peter's words....this promise is to you and your children (Acts 2:39). Baptists seem to ignore this passage of Scripture. A household is basically everyone leaving under the same roof regardless of age. A Baptist interpret a household as everyone leaving under the same roof except those under the Age of Accountability. How bogus!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a household 1) those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family 2)a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. And certainly the legal definition of a household: A household is composed of one or more people who occupy a housing unit. Tax filer + spouse + tax dependents = household. But of course the credo's discount this also.

The Scriptural definition of a household includes both children and servants .

• I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well.
• I Tim 3:4 [A shepherd] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.

One passage of Scripture which gives the credos harsh criticism is I Tim. 5:8.

• "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
• Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever.
• Is Paul saying here because children are not specifically mentioned in this passage, Christian parents are exempt from providing for their smallest and youngest children?
• Nonsense. As is the same with credo's redefining words of Scripture to match their theological bias and a futile attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism altogether from Scripture.

 

[RileyG]

The Baptists have already won this argument a long time ago by one simple trick: THEY REDEFINE THE HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" from all those living under the same roof regardless of age to only adults unless the Biblical text says there are children present. Do not believe this.

So how do we interpret Scripture here? We ask the diagnostic question(s): 1) Do the words and grammar of Scripture determine theological content and belief? 2) Or does your theological belief determine what words should mean in Scripture?

Clearly and plainly, Baptists use interpretative principle #2 when defining the word "household" due to their anti-paedo beliefs. By fiat, Baptists just declare a household can not have children living in them UNLESS THE TEXT SAYS CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! Pure eisegesis but this interpretation emotionally satisfies the Baptist belief in credobaptism. This is interpretive cheating.

Household baptisms scripturally are born from Peter's words....this promise is to you and your children (Acts 2:39). Baptists seem to ignore this passage of Scripture. A household is basically everyone leaving under the same roof regardless of age. A Baptist interpret a household as everyone leaving under the same roof except those under the Age of Accountability. How bogus!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a household 1) those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family 2)a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. And certainly the legal definition of a household: A household is composed of one or more people who occupy a housing unit. Tax filer + spouse + tax dependents = household. But of course the credo's discount this also.

The Scriptural definition of a household includes both children and servants .

• I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well.
• I Tim 3:4 [A shepherd] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.

One passage of Scripture which gives the credos harsh criticism is I Tim. 5:8.

• "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
• Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever.
• Is Paul saying here because children are not specifically mentioned in this passage, Christian parents are exempt from providing for their smallest and youngest children?
• Nonsense. As is the same with credo's redefining words of Scripture to match their theological bias and a futile attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism altogether from Scripture.

Well? It did develop over time, but there is plenty of evidence of children being baptized as early as the 2nd century.

Baptism replaced circumcision, which was done on 8 day old male Jewish babies, but in this case, baptism is for ALL.

Baptism saves. It DOES something and is a means of grace. It’s ALWAYS been connected with the forgiveness of sins.

It’s not ONLY symbolic.

 

[David Lamb]

The Baptists have already won this argument a long time ago by one simple trick: THEY REDEFINE THE HISTORICAL DEFINITION OF "HOUSEHOLD" from all those living under the same roof regardless of age to only adults unless the Biblical text says there are children present. Do not believe this.

So how do we interpret Scripture here? We ask the diagnostic question(s): 1) Do the words and grammar of Scripture determine theological content and belief? 2) Or does your theological belief determine what words should mean in Scripture?

Clearly and plainly, Baptists use interpretative principle #2 when defining the word "household" due to their anti-paedo beliefs. By fiat, Baptists just declare a household can not have children living in them UNLESS THE TEXT SAYS CHILDREN ARE PRESENT! Pure eisegesis but this interpretation emotionally satisfies the Baptist belief in credobaptism. This is interpretive cheating.

Household baptisms scripturally are born from Peter's words....this promise is to you and your children (Acts 2:39). Baptists seem to ignore this passage of Scripture. A household is basically everyone leaving under the same roof regardless of age. A Baptist interpret a household as everyone leaving under the same roof except those under the Age of Accountability. How bogus!

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of a household 1) those who dwell under the same roof and compose a family 2)a social unit composed of those living together in the same dwelling. And certainly the legal definition of a household: A household is composed of one or more people who occupy a housing unit. Tax filer + spouse + tax dependents = household. But of course the credo's discount this also.

The Scriptural definition of a household includes both children and servants .

• I Tim 3:12 A deacon must be faithful to his wife and must manage his children (τέκνων) and his household (οἴκων) well.
• I Tim 3:4 [A shepherd] must be one who manages his own household (οἴκου) well, keeping his children (τέκνα) under control with all dignity.

One passage of Scripture which gives the credos harsh criticism is I Tim. 5:8.

• "But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
• Paul is clearly talking to believers here because only a believer can become worse than an unbeliever.
• Is Paul saying here because children are not specifically mentioned in this passage, Christian parents are exempt from providing for their smallest and youngest children?
• Nonsense. As is the same with credo's redefining words of Scripture to match their theological bias and a futile attempt to EXPLAIN AWAY paedobaptism altogether from Scripture.

Yes of course many households in New Testament times, as today, would include babies and very young children. However, when we read of households being baptised, it is usually also stated explicitly that the household members believed first. For example, we have the household of the Philippian jailer:

“30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:30-34 NKJV) (my emphasis)

 

[prodromos]

Yes of course many households in New Testament times, as today, would include babies and very young children. However, when we read of households being baptised, it is usually also stated explicitly that the household members believed first. For example, we have the household of the Philippian jailer:

“30 And he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” 31 So they said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34 Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.” (Ac 16:30-34 NKJV) (my emphasis)

You seem to think children were free to make their own decisions. Households were baptised and the adults then raised their baptised children in the faith because that is what responsible adults did.
Do you allow your children to make their own decisions about things that could affect their future wellbeing? Do you allow them to play with dangerous chemicals or sharp objects or do you shield them from potentially harmful activities? Do you allow them to decide what to eat or do you ensure they eat a healthy diet whether they want to or not?

 

[David Lamb]

You seem to think children were free to make their own decisions. Households were baptised and the adults then raised their baptised children in the faith because that is what responsible adults did.
Do you allow your children to make their o

I didn't mention such a thing. All I said was that in the bible, we are given examples of households believing and then being baptised. I cannot think of any mention of a baptism in the New Testament where we are told that the person being baptised was not yet a believer.

 

[prodromos]

I didn't mention such a thing. All I said was that in the bible, we are given examples of households believing and then being baptised. I cannot think of any mention of a baptism in the New Testament where we are told that the person being baptised was not yet a believer.

Acts 16:15 doesn't say anything about Lydia's household believing before being baptised.
In Acts 16:31, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”. Paul's words were just to the jailer yet he says that by him believing that all of his household will be saved.

 

[David Lamb]

Acts 16:15 doesn't say anything about Lydia's household believing before being baptised.
In Acts 16:31, Paul tells the jailer, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”. Paul's words were just to the jailer yet he says that by him believing that all of his household will be saved.

Re Lydia's household, it doesn't say that anybody who didn't believe was baptised.

I believe Paul's words to the jailer meant that if the jailer believed on the Lord Jesus Christ,, he would be saved, and if the other members of his household believed, they would be saved too. That ties in with those words in Acts 16, "having believed in God with all his household,” and also with what Jesus Himself said:

““For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.” (Joh 3:16 NKJV)