A Question for Catholics

[concretecamper]

According to John 1:42, the VERY FIRST THING Jesus said to Peter was “You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which means rock).”
Please explain why Jesus changed Simon's name to "rock" the first time they met.
(Hint - read Matt 16:18).

You know, it wouldn't be the first time in the Bible that someone's name was changed when given a new mission. God seems to have a habit of doing it. That of course is unless he is joking

 

[Panevino]

It's true what you wrote there. Protestants generally consider the church to be the total of all true believers in Christ, while Catholics think of it as referring to their particular church organization and it alone.

When the pillar and ground is referred to in the New Testament, however, there isn't such uncertainty. What is being referred to is also spelled out for us in that passage. It's the "household of faith" that is being counted upon to uphold the true faith. That's a reference to the family of believers, not to some institution.

There wasn't any international church organization at the time, as we see with Paul's letters to the church at Corinth and the church at Ephesus, etc. Those are different congregations in different locations, each being considered to be the church by Paul.

Catholic view of Church is polyvalent and inclusive of the organisation(incl magisterium (merely an old word for teaching office/bishops/Pope) and of course also the body of Christ (believers) and then also of course the physical buildings etc..) in conversation and letter the use of the word church could refer to a particular one of these or all.

Catechism has various statements but this may help “..833 The phrase "particular Church," which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists..”

But when the Bible refers to the pillar it’s referring to the”institution” for lack of a better word (ie from the original apostles who lead the disciples as shepherds)
This is pretty clear
- Jesus appointing 12 apostles
- Jesus telling one of them to feed /tend his sheep and strengthen brethren (ie other apostles)
- calling the apostles fisher of men and the image of the enormous catch from one of their boats
- Acts 15 council lead and resolved via apostles and taken back to particular churches across various locations
- when there is a dispute “take it to the church” (matt28:16-17)is clearly a hierarchy structure that would include either the local bishop or ultimately a council like acts 15

The fact that Paul may refer to congregations in other locations as a church is not counter to above at all.
This is part of the polyvalent use of the word. but like he did himself he went to the apostles to help resolve a complicated issue Ie “the church” acts 15

 

[Panevino]

So why does the Catholic Church have a pope and catechism? To be Christ's church, it cannot be governed by any person except Jesus or any book except the Bible.

Also, if it is truly Christ's church, why are so many Catholic churches named after a saint instead of Christ?

Protestant churches truly are "Christ's church" because they base everything on one book - the Bible - and are only governed by God. They are named after God, the Bible, or a feature of God, not dead people.

One more thing: Tarry is not a word in modern American English so that verse does not have any meaning as you wrote it.

Catechism is an elaborate statement of faith. A statement of faith is used by all denominations to help awareness/ consistency /stability of doctrine. The Catholic Church is very much a deep thinker and it’s statement of faith is reflectively long.

 

[The Liturgist]

You conveniently omitted my specific question about also having a catechism to be governed by, which is a man-made idea.

Martin Luther invented the Catechism in the 16th century (the classic question and answer format) and for the next several centuries Catechisms were mainly a Protestant thing, for example, the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, and the short, simple Catechism in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Initially, Roman Catholic Catechisms were not the result of any initiative on the part of the Vatican, but were rather the result of Catholic missionary groups and regional synods, for example, the Penny Catechism and the Baltimore Catechism. The current Catechism is relatively recent, and much of the content it contains was previously only accessible via works such as the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.

Furthermore, catechisms do not “govern” the churches that have them, but rather exist for the purpose of catechizing, which is to say, providing religious instruction to, new members, whether children or adults.

So perhaps you should ask the Lutherans that question? My friend @MarkRohfrietsch I am sure will have an answer.

By the way, I am not Roman Catholic, I just really love the traditional Latin mass.

 

[The Liturgist]

So why does the Catholic Church have a pope and catechism? To be Christ's church, it cannot be governed by any person except Jesus or any book except the Bible.

While I do not agree with Papal Supremacy, the office of Episkopoi, or Bishop, is clearly established in the New Testament, for example, in the Epistles of St. Paul to Timothy, and Bishops exist to preside over their dioceses. See the epistles of St. Ignatius the Martyr. As I stated previously the Catechisms of churches, starting with Luther’s Small Catechism, do not govern them. However, the Lutheran churches are governed by the Formula of Concord, the Roman Catholic Church by the Code of Canon Law, the Missal and other liturgical texts, and the acts of the ecumenical councils, Anglican churches by the Book of Common Prayer, the Book of Homilies, the Canons, the rules of order for the House of Bishops and other assemblies, and the 39 Articles of Religion, and the Presbyterian Churches are usually governed by the Westminster Confession of Faith and related documents. So, none of this criticism really applies to Roman Catholicism. Also, all Christians are subject to the Nicene Creed, specifically the revision from the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, and this is also part of the Statement of Faith on CF.com.

Also, if it is truly Christ's church, why are so many Catholic churches named after a saint instead of Christ?

For the same reason that Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist and Orthodox churches are. It really dates back to the Christian martyrs during the Roman Empire, when Holy Communion was served atop the gravestones of people who had died for the faith.

Protestant churches truly are "Christ's church" because they base everything on one book - the Bible - and are only governed by God. They are named after God, the Bible, or a feature of God, not dead people.

Maybe some Protestant denominations meet that idealized definition, but as a Protestant minister since the 1990s I can say that I have not seen a Protestant church that is not governed by an individual or group of individuals, and that does not have its own internal rulebooks, policies and so on which control the internal administrative affairs of the church. Also, the saints are not dead people - the definition of a saint is someone who is holy, and those who are holy are alive in Christ, whether in this life or in Heaven, awaiting the Resurrection.

One more thing: Tarry is not a word in modern American English so that verse does not have any meaning as you wrote it.

I have used it, and heard it used, for my entire adult life, as an American, and I was moved to search various online dictionaries including Collins, Merriam Webster, and several others, and none of them listed it as “archaic” or “obsolete.” Furthermore, even if someone does make use of an obsolescent word, if the definition of the word is still known, then the word has meaning, and if the definitions of the other words are known, the the semantics of the statement can be recovered.

I would observe that your entire argument is indeed applicable to most Protestant churches, with perhaps a few exceptions, such as some traditional Friends (Quakers).

 

[GodLovesCats]

Martin Luther invented the Catechism in the 16th century (the classic question and answer format) and for the next several centuries Catechisms were mainly a Protestant thing, for example, the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, and the short, simple Catechism in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Initially, Roman Catholic Catechisms were not the result of any initiative on the part of the Vatican, but were rather the result of Catholic missionary groups and regional synods, for example, the Penny Catechism and the Baltimore Catechism. The current Catechism is relatively recent, and much of the content it contains was previously only accessible via works such as the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.

Furthermore, catechisms do not “govern” the churches that have them, but rather exist for the purpose of catechizing, which is to say, providing religious instruction to, new members, whether children or adults.

So perhaps you should ask the Lutherans that question? My friend @MarkRohfrietsch I am sure will have an answer.

By the way, I am not Roman Catholic, I just really love the traditional Latin mass.

The difference is when the catechism is hundreds of pages long, congregation members will use it instead of the Bible alone for matters of faith. Short catechisms in Protestant churches do not include how people should act based on the subjective morals of pastors, allowing me to be more pro-choice than others who identify themselves as American Baptists or evangelicals. My understanding is the Catholic Church put the opinion that in-vitro fertilizaiton and artificial insemination are unacceptable and proposed marriage is not just for having sex, but procreating, and contraception is also unacceptable. That's not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 or what God wants everyone to do. He only wrote marriage is for having sex if you cannot control your lust, period.

 

[prodromos]

That's not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 or what God wants everyone to do. He only wrote marriage is for having sex if you cannot control your lust, period

Nothing in what Paul wrote supports contraception. If you are unable to keep it in your pants then you are going to end up with many children. Better make sure you are earning enough, otherwise learn to control yourself.

 

[Panevino]

The difference is when the catechism is hundreds of pages long, congregation members will use it instead of the Bible alone for matters of faith. Short catechisms in Protestant churches do not include how people should act based on the subjective morals of pastors, allowing me to be more pro-choice than others who identify themselves as American Baptists or evangelicals. My understanding is the Catholic Church put the opinion that in-vitro fertilizaiton and artificial insemination are unacceptable and proposed marriage is not just for having sex, but procreating, and contraception is also unacceptable. That's not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 or what God wants everyone to do. He only wrote marriage is for having sex if you cannot control your lust, period.

The difference is when the catechism is hundreds of pages long, congregation members will use it instead of the Bible alone for matters of faith. Short catechisms in Protestant churches do not include how people should act based on the subjective morals of pastors, allowing me to be more pro-choice than others who identify themselves as American Baptists or evangelicals. My understanding is the Catholic Church put the opinion that in-vitro fertilizaiton and artificial insemination are unacceptable and proposed marriage is not just for having sex, but procreating, and contraception is also unacceptable. That's not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 or what God wants everyone to do. He only wrote marriage is for having sex if you cannot control your lust, period.

if your interested read the encyclical “humane vitae” for a more in depth discussion of Catholic teaching on that topic, Ie marriage/love/God purpose for marriage etc…it’s not reflective of the stereotype.
FYI most denominations disagreed with contraception until relatively recently

 

[Panevino]

The difference is when the catechism is hundreds of pages long, congregation members will use it instead of the Bible alone for matters of faith. Short catechisms in Protestant churches do not include how people should act based on the subjective morals of pastors, allowing me to be more pro-choice than others who identify themselves as American Baptists or evangelicals. My understanding is the Catholic Church put the opinion that in-vitro fertilizaiton and artificial insemination are unacceptable and proposed marriage is not just for having sex, but procreating, and contraception is also unacceptable. That's not what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9 or what God wants everyone to do. He only wrote marriage is for having sex if you cannot control your lust, period.

Theology is amazing and there is a lot to explore, a lot, and it would be disingenuous or poor logic to dismiss a statement of faith /catechism because it is long. This is particularly the case where the Catholic Church has such a long history of thought and many formal councils to draw on (ie there are many references to old writtings) while it may make sense (without being disparaging) that far younger denominations have shorter documents.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Our mutual friend, Fidelibus, has posted a similar question to Protestants. I would like to head how Catholics in particular respond to this question. Even if you are not Catholic please feel free to enter the discussion.

This question was resolved for me by experience.
The Lord it seemed wanted me to know things no one had ever taught me about Himself as confirmed by Scripture. Things I never heard preached by anyone. Id heard a lot of preaching too.
I asked God "you can't be wanting me to present another Christian doctrine"
It was a very heavy burden to think I was receiving something from God yet not have validation.
I needed a pillar of truth to know what I was receiving was from the Holy Spirit, not my own spirit or an evil spirit.
I thank God what I was learning was already taught and or in accord with the Catholic Church.

 

[Buzzard3]

Catholic view of Church is polyvalent and inclusive of the organisation(incl magisterium (merely an old word for teaching office/bishops/Pope) and of course also the body of Christ (believers) and then also of course the physical buildings etc..) in conversation and letter the use of the word church could refer to a particular one of these or all.

Catechism has various statements but this may help “..833 The phrase "particular Church," which is first of all the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.313 These particular Churches "are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists..”

But when the Bible refers to the pillar it’s referring to the”institution” for lack of a better word (ie from the original apostles who lead the disciples as shepherds)
This is pretty clear
- Jesus appointing 12 apostles
- Jesus telling one of them to feed /tend his sheep and strengthen brethren (ie other apostles)
- calling the apostles fisher of men and the image of the enormous catch from one of their boats
- Acts 15 council lead and resolved via apostles and taken back to particular churches across various locations
- when there is a dispute “take it to the church” (matt28:16-17)is clearly a hierarchy structure that would include either the local bishop or ultimately a council like acts 15

The fact that Paul may refer to congregations in other locations as a church is not counter to above at all.
This is part of the polyvalent use of the word. but like he did himself he went to the apostles to help resolve a complicated issue Ie “the church” acts 15

Interesting name, that ... Panevino ... Italian for "bread and wine". I like it.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

How so? The Bible is the only holy scripture accepted in Christianity.

You conveniently omitted my specific question about also having a catechism to be governed by, which is a man-made idea.

Martin Luther invented the Catechism in the 16th century (the classic question and answer format) and for the next several centuries Catechisms were mainly a Protestant thing, for example, the Reformed Heidelberg Catechism, and the short, simple Catechism in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Initially, Roman Catholic Catechisms were not the result of any initiative on the part of the Vatican, but were rather the result of Catholic missionary groups and regional synods, for example, the Penny Catechism and the Baltimore Catechism. The current Catechism is relatively recent, and much of the content it contains was previously only accessible via works such as the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas.

Furthermore, catechisms do not “govern” the churches that have them, but rather exist for the purpose of catechizing, which is to say, providing religious instruction to, new members, whether children or adults.

So perhaps you should ask the Lutherans that question? My friend @MarkRohfrietsch I am sure will have an answer.

By the way, I am not Roman Catholic, I just really love the traditional Latin mass.

Luther's small Catechism was composed to counter the ignorance of basic doctrines of the church that was present in not only the laity but even in some of the clergy. At that point in history, the Church was in deplorable shape due to the lack of education and the purchasing of Benefices for mostly uneducated, and untrained persons to parishes and bishoprics.

The intent of the Catechism is best explained with this short excerpt from Luther's own words in his Preface to the Catechism (I apologize for the plain, concise and eloquent way in which Luther is able to "rip" the Clergy and Bishops of his time "a new one"):

Luther's Preface to the Small Catechism​

Martin Luther to All Faithful and Godly Pastors and Preachers:

Grace, Mercy, and Peace in Jesus Christ, our Lord.

The deplorable, miserable condition which I discovered lately when I, too, was a visitor, has forced and urged me to prepare [publish] this Catechism, or Christian doctrine, in this small, plain, simple form. Mercy! Good God! what manifold misery I beheld! The common people, especially in the villages, have no knowledge whatever of Christian doctrine, and, alas! many pastors are altogether incapable and incompetent to teach [so much so, that one is ashamed to speak of it]. Nevertheless, all maintain that they are Christians, have been baptized and receive the [common] holy Sacraments. Yet they [do not understand and] cannot [even] recite either the Lord's Prayer, or the Creed, or the Ten Commandments; they live like dumb brutes and irrational hogs; and yet, now that the Gospel has come, they have nicely learned to abuse all liberty like experts.

O ye bishops! [to whom this charge has been committed by God,] what will ye ever answer to Christ for having so shamefully neglected the people and never for a moment discharged your office? [You are the persons to whom alone this ruin of the Christian religion is due. You have permitted men to err so shamefully; yours is the guilt; for you have ever done anything rather than what your office required you to do.] May all misfortune flee you! [I do not wish at this place to invoke evil on your heads.]... ...[while you are utterly without scruple and concern] whether the people know the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, or any part of the Word of God. Woe, woe, unto you forever!
​

It is simply a short text book, in question and answer format that asks a question that the student may not even know enough to ask; and provides a simple, concise answer to that question. It is still used today for both the education of Children and Adults, and provides a systematic format that touches all the high points. Both it and the Large Catechism (a collection of sermons that expand on the various parts of the Small Catechism) are included in our Book of Concord. We are not "governed by" the Catechisms or the Book of Concord; our Confessional Documents are NOT "Canon Law", but simply and exposition of doctrinal truths contained in Scripture. Ultimately, for Confessional Lutherans that retain the unaltered 1580 edition of the Book of Concord, it is still only the Word of God that we are "governed by", and after all of these years, the Book of Concord (including the Catechisms) are measured against the Bible only.

Here is a link to the small Catechism; compare it to that of the Catholic Church, and it becomes very obvious what it's purpose is: Index | Book of Concord

 

[fhansen]

This question was resolved for me by experience.
The Lord it seemed wanted me to know things no one had ever taught me about Himself as confirmed by Scripture. Things I never heard preached by anyone. Id heard a lot of preaching too.
I asked God "you can't be wanting me to present another Christian doctrine"
It was a very heavy burden to think I was receiving something from God yet not have validation.
I needed a pillar of truth to know what I was receiving was from the Holy Spirit, not my own spirit or an evil spirit.
I thank God what I was learning was already taught and or in accord with the Catholic Church.

Wow-I like that. The old sensus fidei at the end of the day. I had a similar experience. I left the church at an early age, wandering on various truth quests for many years until I found and fell in love with the bible, to my surprise. But with it I came to believe certain truths regarding our relationship with God and, while being drawn back to the CC many years later, much to my own surprise since I was Protestant at the time, I found that she taught the same thing. I just needed to study it for myself.

 

[Albion]

But when the Bible refers to the pillar it’s referring to the”institution” for lack of a better word (ie from the original apostles who lead the disciples as shepherds)....

No, it's not. That's evident from the reading of that same sentence of Scripture. What Christ is saying is that he's expecting the people of God (the "household") to uphold and defend the faith in the years to come.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Nothing in what Paul wrote supports contraception. If you are unable to keep it in your pants then you are going to end up with many children. Better make sure you are earning enough, otherwise learn to control yourself.

Show me anything Paul wrote that is against contraception.

Unless he explicitly wrote the only reason to have sex is to reproduce, nothing in that chapter means men and women are not allowed to use contraception during sexual intercourse. I don't see it.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Theology is amazing and there is a lot to explore, a lot, and it would be disingenuous or poor logic to dismiss a statement of faith /catechism because it is long. This is particularly the case where the Catholic Church has such a long history of thought and many formal councils to draw on (ie there are many references to old writtings) while it may make sense (without being disparaging) that far younger denominations have shorter documents.

So the Catholic Catechism is not so long because a bunch of extrabiblical rules (no contraception, celibacy in the priesthood, and reading the Apocryphal books among them) were added to it. Where is this stuff in the Bible? Is the Catholic Catechism the only document that they get prayers to saints, confession boxes, ban on married priests having sex, and refusal to accept the marriages of people who committed adultery or had divorced previous spouses?

When I say extrabiblical, I am including the Aprocrypha because it is not proven to be God's Word like the 66 books in everyone's Bible.

 

[Panevino]

No, it's not. That's evident from the reading of that same sentence of Scripture. What Christ is saying is that he's expecting the people of God (the "household") to uphold and defend the faith in the years to come.

What do you see is the use of the apostles and there distinction from the disciples.

 

[Albion]

What do you see is the use of the apostles and there distinction from the disciples.

Meaning what? Even if the reference to the "household of faith" somehow referred to the Twelve Apostles only--which wouldn't make much sense--it still wouldn't be saying that the future church at Rome was in to be in charge of anything.

 

[The Liturgist]

Show me anything Paul wrote that is against contraception.

Unless he explicitly wrote the only reason to have sex is to reproduce, nothing in that chapter means men and women are not allowed to use contraception during sexual intercourse. I don't see it.

Well, for starters, 1 Timothy 2:1-15 requires reproduction where biologically possible. I could go on, as there are a great many verses of the Holy Apostle Paul which condemn contraception and which were used by the early church as the basis for prohibiting it, but to do so would be to deprive you of the benefits of searching the scriptures and the canon law of the ancient church (I suggest the Eastern Orthodox compendium, the Pedalion, (meaning Rudder, for it steers the ship of salvation) compiled by a famous monastic on Mount Athos, St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, which is extremely thorough and unlike Roman Catholic canon law, is unchanged, featuring some canons which predate the Council of Nicaea, as well as interpretations provided by St. Nicodemus which contain scriptural references). In reading it however one should be aware that the Orthodox interpret canon law very differently than the Roman Catholics; depending on the specifics of the case, a canon can be applied with akrivia , meaning exactitude, but it can also be applied or even set aside where appropriate using the principle of oikonomia, meaning economy; the Orthodox bishop, priest or monastic hegumen is supposed to do whatever is most expedient to facilitate the spiritual health of those who have transgressed, corresponding with the Eastern Christian view of sin as a disease to be treated, vs. the forensic approach that prevails in Western churches, particularly in Calvin, Aquinas and Anselm of Canterbury.

If we do look at the Pedalion however, we will find that St. Paul’s continuation of the Old Testament prohibition against sodomy is not restricted to homosexuals, but applies to married couples as well, who can be subject to the same penances, which can be extremely severe if applied with Akrivia. In practice, I doubt in this day and age anyone would get penanced to such an extent unless what happened was an incident of rape; indeed I suspect many priests would not even penance someone who confessed to consensual unnatural relations within a marriage. Unlike in the Roman Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, and unlike some Anglican and Lutheran priests, Orthodox priests are not required to penance those who seek the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and during my very happy time in the OCA, it never happened to me, even when I confessed in theologically strict ROCOR parishes.

The Sui Juris Eastern Catholic churches have however done much to inject Eastern soteriology into the Western Rites of the Roman Catholic Church, just as dialogue with the Orthodox has had a similiar effect for high church Anglicanism (and indeed, the influence of Dr. Rowan Williams, who considered a vocation as an Orthodox priest, during his tenure as Archbishop of the Anglican Church in Wales, and later as Archbishop of Canterbury, the primus inter pares of the Church of England (which is the last state church in the Anglican Communion) and primus inter pares and presiding bishop of the Anglican Communion itself.

Referring to contraception and further scriptural condemnation of it, we have the case of Ona in Genesis, which some interpret as referring to the yielding of someone to biological temptation, but which others interpret as referring to a specific and extremely common mode of contraception in which the reproductive process is interrupted. And indeed, it could well refer to both, insofar as the former can also be used as a contraceptive alternative to natural matrimonial reproduction.

Scripture in general, and St. Paul in particular makes it clear that for those able to procreate, only procreative relations in the context of Holy Matrimony, or Holy Celibacy, are acceptable.

Note that what I have said about the Eastern Orthodox is generally applicable to Byzantine Rite Catholic Churches, except they dont use the Pedalion but the more recent Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Eternity entered time and history. Truth entered time and history. Truth Himself divided light from dark and delivered to us the faith that pleases God.
Eternal Truth witnessed by His Apostles who delivered the Deposit of Faith publicly. The eternal Word spoken is necessary to spread the Faith of Christ to the ends of the world.
That eternal Word entered time unadulterated and was taught to the Apostles in Person. The eternal Word of God on earth was then heard coming from the Apostles Jesus chose. They are the pillar of Truth in the absence of Truth Himself. Truth like the Word is an eternal reality and is not subject to temporal reality. The Truth didn't enter temporal life to be overcome by it and die. So others were recognized to receive the Charism to guard Truth and be the sound of the Word that passes the faith in Christ to generations that follow. Then they in turn recognized those lifted up by the Holy Spirit to take their place and guard the faith. The Word spoken in the beginning is eternal and death has no hold on it. The pillar is the faithful lifted up by the Holy Spirit generation after generation to guard the faith and deliver the Word unadulterated to the world.
Truth is an eternal reality that death has no hold on. The pillar of which are the faithful lifted up by the Holy Spirit to guard the Deposit of Faith once delivered by the Apostles.