The Biblical Basis of 10 Catholic Distinctives

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?

Berserk said:

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

Click to expand...

Nothing in OT or NT for that

Berserk said:

(4) Catholic Mariology

Click to expand...

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

Berserk said:

(5) Priestly Confession and Absolution

Click to expand...

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

Berserk said:

(6) Infant Baptism

Click to expand...

Not in the NT at all ( or OT)

Berserk said:

(7) Transubstantiation/ Real Presence

Click to expand...

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

Berserk said:

(8) Purgatory

Click to expand...

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

Berserk said:

(9) Catholic Doctrine of Justification

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by that

Berserk said:

(10) Catholic View of Scripture and Tradition

Click to expand...

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

RileyG said:

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.

Click to expand...

RileyG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 said:

It's possible. I wasn't there.

Click to expand...

Nor was I. I prefer not to speculate.

RileyG said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

bbbbbbb said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

bbbbbbb said:

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?

Click to expand...

"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.