Some Questions that non-Catholics have about Catholic teachin

[HTacianas]

I can see them in Rev 20 pretty clearly.

So why don't you tell us what they are.

 

[Valletta]

I don't see the Bible statement on One God - in Three Persons - to be the anti-catholic sentiment that you seem to view it to be.
I am a bit surprised that you would have any negative view of that Bible fact at all - given its support for the Trinity.

I disagreed with your statement about it being instructive, why exclude it? Because it shows that Bible-only Christians also believe things that are not explicitly in the Bible. As a matter of fact, I believe that most people without any background in Christianity who picked up a Bible and read it would NOT come to the conclusion that there is one God, three Persons. The scant mention in the Bible you brought up is supportive of the teaching, as so much in the Bible is supportive of Catholic teaching. Why accuse me of having a negative view of the Bible? Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (the Bible) comprise the Word of God, of which I have only positive views.

Mark 7:7-13 is a case of supposedly infallible tradition of the one true nation church started infallibly by God at Sinai - being slam-hammered "sola scriptura".

So while it is true that some tradition is not in error - the Bible shows that Christ found some tradition to be in error.

No doubt some good arguments are out there about tradition that can't be found in the Bible. I don't see the MSN article as an attack on all tradition. It is just making the case that some teachings are not in the Bible.

Now I made the distinction about Sacred Tradition and tradition, which you don't seem to want to make. This causes confusion in discussions between Protestants and Catholics. A tradition would be the Protestant canon of the Bible. It was formed by taking the 73 books of the Bible the Catholic Church chose in the 300s and, a thousand years or more later, taking out seven of the books. Likewise it is a Protestant tradition to keep the same order of books selected by Catholics. Your list of books is not the Word of God, it is a man-made tradition that you keep to this day. Another example would be displaying a cross on a church or wearing a cross on your person, those are man-made traditions of many Protestants. Or using the numbering system for the Bible that the Catholics came up with, that's a manmade tradition of both Protestants and Catholics. Jesus never spoke out against Sacred Tradition, the Word of God.

 

[dzheremi]

No doubt "Orthodox religion", "Roman Catholic Religion", "Seventh-day Adventist religion" are not terms found in the Bible -

I'm sorry; did I write "terms"? I don't recall writing "terms", so this is immaterial.

And very helpful that the MSN article does not mention anything of that sort - because that is not quite as serious as pointing to actual doctrine not being in the Bible.

Yeah. That's why I didn't do that. You're attacking your own strawman here. Is this supposed to get people to take you seriously?

consider clicking one of the links in the OP.

Consider not starting threads for the express purpose of attacking churches that predate the 1830s on the grounds of their practices being "unbiblical", as though that means anything coming from someone whose chosen form of Christianity was invented essentially yesterday, and whose points need to be reflected in MSN pop-complaints (that are largely wrongly targeted at RCism, given that the majority of what's on those lists are not specific to it), rather than anything with actual theological weight to it.

I don't think the MSN article was out to tear down

The MSN article didn't start this thread by itself. You did that, just like you've started many anti-Christianity threads under the guise of being anti-Catholic.

as much as to point to common observations among non-Catholics when it comes to what is or is not in the Bible.

I'm a non-Catholic and frankly I think this thread is horribly ill-conceived and does nothing but expose the ignorance of the person who made it as to what is involved in the practice of non-RC Christianity outside of his own little bubble full of misconceptions.

Even some Catholic posts here admit to some of their teaching being in tradition rather than in the Bible - in certain cases.

And? I don't think that this is quite the win that you think it is, since you apparently don't understand that something being tradition rather than being explicitly spelled out in the Bible to the degree that it satisfies you personally is not some sort of fatal blow to the practice in the eyes of the people you're talking about. Catholics know that they base some of their practices on tradition and are fine with it. What now? You don't seem to have anything beyond "XYZ that I don't like is not in the Bible." That doesn't matter to Catholics (or Orthodox, or I'm assuming Nestorians) in the way you'd apparently like it to so that your observation (can't call it a "point", since it isn't one) would be very important to concede.

I am simply pointing out that the MSN web site provides a good example of teaching/doctrine that is often not found in the Bible and from a non-Catholic sola-scriptura POV would be high on a list of questions.

And yet at no point do you even slightly approach the possibility that that POV might itself be the problem when attempting to tell Catholics that their practices supposedly "aren't Biblical". Because this isn't actually about presenting a list of questions; it's about presenting the same hoary old list of things that certain Protestants don't like as though there's more of a reason to reject them then that when there apparently isn't (or else presumably you'd actually go into that, as opposed to sticking with the "unbiblical" non-charge which means nothing in this context).

You're really bad at being anti-Catholic.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The blatant dishonesty and bad faith form of "debate" I've seen SDAs engage in over the years is something that the only real comparison I've seen is Mormonism and their "missionaries". It's a cult-like devotion to misinformation and intentionally engaging in bad faith debates, and relying on following a script.

I'm not going to paint a brush that says all Adventists. But given what I've seen from Adventists here on these forums over the last 10 or so years has led me to conclude that it is a religion that has nothing good to offer if it has to rely on lies, polemics, and can't stand under scrutiny.

As such any list, any link, any thread started with the obvious intent like this one here is only further evidence of the religious poverty of that sect. As such the only thing anti-Catholic threads like this one do are prove that Adventism lacks any good arguments or good points. Its a religion founded by a false prophet with the purpose of attacking historic and biblical Christianity in any form it may take.

I've seen Adventists try and hijack the Reformation, and hijack Luther, to further their goals--but they know nothing about the Reformation, and nothing about Luther. They don't care about the Reformation or what it was about, they don't care about Luther or what he was about. Because truth is a foreign concept to Adventism.

To pull a line from the Adventist playbook, "Come from out of her, My people" (Revelation 18:4).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Nagomirov]

В Православной Церкви нет учения о чистилище. Если есть чистилище, то оно есть. Если нет, то нет. Это ничего не меняет. Лично я надеюсь, что да. Потому что я не хотел бы сталкиваться с альтернативой.

1) Question to protestants about Faith Alone

2) Question to protestants about Faith Alone

3) Question to protestants about Faith Alone

 

[The Liturgist]

The Orthodox Church has no doctrine on purgatory. If there is a purgatory, there is. If there is not, there is not. It does not change anything. Personally I hope there is. Because I would not want to face the alternative.

On this sole point I think we should say, at least from a majority Eastern Orthodox perspective, that most Eastern Orthodox would say we do not believe in purgatory, and what is more the concept is refuted by the alternative concept outlined by Fr. Seraphim Rose in the State of the Soul After Death and by the memorial prayers. But i think you are technically correct in that there has been no decision of an ecumenical council on this issue, which is why retired Archbishop Lazar Puhalo was able to publicly reject those concepts without getting into trouble (but he was reprimanded by Metropolitan Tikhon for his erroneous remarks concerning human sexuality, and prohibited from discussing the issue any further).

I do also understand where you are coming for with your hope for a purgatory, in that you are hoping for a purgation of sin as part of the glorification process, but there is a distinction between that and some Roman Catholic views of purgatory, where there exists the strange idea of the poor souls stuck in purgatory for a great length of time who must be prayed for in order to be liberated, and this gave rise to various oddities such as Chantries and so on in the Medieval and early Renaissance period, and also the abuse concerning the sale of indulgences.

 

[The Liturgist]

I've seen Adventists try and hijack the Reformation, and hijack Luther, to further their goals--but they know nothing about the Reformation, and nothing about Luther.

Indeed. There is also the fact that while Adventists claim to Sola Scriptura, which is of course their right to do so, the problem is that they firstly define it differently from Martin Luther, taking an approach which would be Nuda Scriptura or Soli Scriptura, except then contradict that, because in accepting the prophecies of Ellen G White as infallible, they have created their own magisterium, which is actually more substantial than that of the Roman Catholics who they spend so much time criticizing, and vastly larger than that of the traditional Protestants and the Eastern Orthodox.

There is also the issue of a false dichotomy in the writings of Ellen G White, between Roman Catholics and non-Catholics; it is clear from her writing that she was either unaware of the existence of the Orthodox churches or was of the opinion that they were of the same beliefs as Roman Catholics.

The SDAs also really aggressively target other Christians for conversion, for example, Catholics and Orthodox, and will frequently go after poorly catechized Christians in areas where catechism has suffered due to oppression, for example, in the former Soviet Union, which has resulted in a substantial SDA church in Ukraine.

Although conversely I know of some SDAs who converted to the Coptic Orthodox church. Our friend @dzheremi would be interested to know of some friends of mine that consist of a Coptic man and his wife, who was an Adventist; she fully converted to Coptic Orthodoxy, recognizes the bishop and the validity of worship on Sunday, but they also frequently worship at the divine liturgies on Saturday, and indeed I gathered that it was the fact that the Copts normally have liturgies on both days, except in very small parishes, (albeit the primary one is on Sunday) that helped her initially convert.

In Eastern Orthodoxy as you may know the Seventh Day is used for liturgies that commemorate our reposed loved ones, who we believe in praying for, because it is on this day that Christ our True God rested, in a tomb, before his resurrection, as our loved ones now rest before their resurrection (these are known as Soul Saturdays).

The primary point that I find myself frustrated by in terms of dialogue of this nature is that some Adventists are unwilling to engage in a dialectical conversation. So you and I have had exchanges where I have learned from you, and I think on a few occasions regarding liturgical history or certain other things, some members have learned from me, and we recognize and love each other as Christians. And in this manner we have built strong ecumenical bonds, united as it were over our appreciation for the Eucharist, and for Christian love, and for the liturgy, and our rejection of Nestorianism and other errors.

But conversely on any point where there is some doctrinal disagreement some Adventists seem unwilling to concede or explore any path towards ecumenical reconciliation. Indeed there seems to be a lack of desire for, or appreciation of, the benefits of ecumenical fellowship.

 

[tall73]

20. Guardian Angels (the article is pretty weak on this one)

The article states that it is not directly mentioned.

Which alludes to the fact that many see the teaching in Scripture. For instance:

Acts 12:13-16 13 And as Peter knocked at the door of the gate, a girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 When she recognized Peter’s voice, because of her gladness she did not open the gate, but ran in and announced that Peter stood before the gate. 15 But they said to her, “You are beside yourself!” Yet she kept insisting that it was so. So they said, “It is his angel.”​

16 Now Peter continued knocking; and when they opened the door and saw him, they were astonished. (NKJV)​

​

And of course, Bob certainly thinks there are guardian angels due to his own extra-biblical source:

Counsels for the Church

m.egwwritings.org

An angel is attending you and taking record of your words and actions. When you rise in the morning, do you feel your helplessness and your need of strength from God? and do you humbly, heartily make known your wants to your heavenly Father? If so, angels mark your prayers, and if these prayers have not gone forth out of feigned lips, when you are in danger of unconsciously doing wrong and exerting an influence which will lead others to do wrong, your guardian angel will be by your side, prompting you to a better course, choosing your words for you, and influencing your actions.​

 

[tall73]

If someone is not Catholic and wants to say something like "Well my church also has core doctrines that are not in the Bible" they are welcomed to chime in to show similar situations as long as they really are similar.

I think it is important to note that your church believes, as part of the core doctrine that is the basis of the Adventist church, that the blood of the resurrected Jesus carried sin, and polluted the heavenly sanctuary.

The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 4

m.egwwritings.org

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded.​

Jesus was certainly not defiled by human sin when He ascended to heaven.

Hebrews 7:26-28 26 For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever. (NKJV)​

Of course, the heavenly things did require cleansing, as the Scriptures say. But they were not polluted by the blood of Christ. They were cleansed by the blood of Christ:

Hebrews 9:23-28 23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. (NKJV)​

Hebrews 1:3-4 3 Who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself make purification for sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.​

The sin offering was most holy, and provided atonement, not pollution:

​

Leviticus 6:24-30​

24 Also the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 25 “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying, ‘This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed, the sin offering shall be killed before the LORD. It is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of meeting. 27 Everyone who touches its flesh must be holy. And when its blood is sprinkled on any garment, you shall wash that on which it was sprinkled, in a holy place. 28 But the earthen vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. And if it is boiled in a bronze pot, it shall be both scoured and rinsed in water. 29 All the males among the priests may eat it. It is most holy. 30 But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burned in the fire. (NKJV)​

The sin offering is killed, and its blood shed, but the sin offering is NOT defiled, or bearing sin. It is MOST HOLY. It is eaten in a holy place. Everyone who touches it must be holy. When its blood is sprinkled on a garment it is cleansed in a holy place. And the work of the sin offering is not to defile, but to make atonement in the holy place.

Lev 6:30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire.​

This statement regarding the effect of the offering for a single sin is directly parallel to the effects of the sin offering of the Day of Atonement, on a larger scale:

​

Sin offering:​

Leviticus 6:30 But no sin offering from which any of the blood is brought into the tabernacle of meeting, to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten. It shall be burned in the fire. (NKJV)​

​

Day of atonement sin offering:​

Lev 16:17 No one may be in the tent of meeting from the time he enters to make atonement in the Holy Place until he comes out and has made atonement for himself and for his house and for all the assembly of Israel.​

The effect was the same, making atonement in the holy place. The scale was different. One was a picture of a repentance, contrition, and atonement for a single act of sin. The other was a corporate picture of the power of Christ's sacrifice to cleans all who put their faith in Him.

The sin offering made atonement, and forgave, rather than transferring sin closer to God's presence:

​

​

Lev 4:27 "If anyone of the common people sins unintentionally in doing any one of the things that by the LORD's commandments ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt,​

Lev 4:28 or the sin which he has committed is made known to him, he shall bring for his offering a goat, a female without blemish, for his sin which he has committed.​

Lev 4:29 And he shall lay his hand on the head of the sin offering and kill the sin offering in the place of burnt offering.​

Lev 4:30 And the priest shall take some of its blood with his finger and put it on the horns of the altar of burnt offering and pour out all the rest of its blood at the base of the altar.​

Lev 4:31 And all its fat he shall remove, as the fat is removed from the peace offerings, and the priest shall burn it on the altar for a pleasing aroma to the LORD. And the priest shall make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.​

Blood throughout the levitical rites is stated to cleanse:

Leviticus 17:11​

11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ (NKJV)​

The blood represented the blood of Christ, and the cleansing it would bring. It did not defile, but cleanse. Hebrews reiterates this point as well:

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh,​

Heb 9:14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.​

Heb 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.​

All of the sacrificial rites are a picture of Jesus who died for us, to reconcile us to God. We are justified by His blood. His blood does not contaminate.

1Pe 1:17 And if you call on the Father, who without partiality judges according to each one's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear;​

1Pe 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, like silver or gold, from your futile way of life handed down from your forefathers,​

1Pe 1:19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb blameless and spotless.​

Rom 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.​

Rom 5:9 Much more then, having been justified now by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.​

Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.​

Eph 1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace.​

1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin. (NKJV)​

His blood cleanses. It does not defile.

And despite @The Liturgist 's commendable appeal for ecumenical reconciliation, and the cordial approaches of @HTacianas @ViaCrucis @dzheremi , etc. I think this is a point where we should take the hard-line, and not concede.

 

[The Liturgist]

His blood cleanses. It does not defile.

Amen to that.

 

[The Liturgist]

And despite @The Liturgist 's commendable appeal for ecumenical reconciliation, and the cordial approaches of @HTacianas @ViaCrucis @dzheremi , etc. I think this is a point where we should take the hard-line, and not concede.

In seeking ecumenical reconciliation I am not, contrary to what some Old Calendarist Eastern Orthodox would allege, proposing doctrinal compromise. The only churches I have seen that are entirely compatible with Eastern Orthodoxy are the Oriental Orthodox, with the Anglo Catholics, confessional Lutherans, traditional Old Catholics etc being very close, in fact, in the case of some Continuing Anglo Catholics and traditional Old Catholics that have discarded the 39 Articles of Religion and the filioque, in alignment I think. Whereas the Lutherans and others, such as the Church of the East, are really very close.

But in the case of Adventists, ecumenical reconciliation rather means an end to sheep stealing, hostile polemics, false accusations, conflation of Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, and then once that has been accomplished, collaboration on common areas of moral theology.

I had assumed Adventists shared in our opposition to the redefinition of marriage and the spiritually harmful idea that one can self-select gender identity contra biological sex, and also our pro-life stance, but someone stated that the SDA denomination was actually pro choice, which if true would be upsetting.

+​

Reconciliation and communal love, fellowship and collaboration is desirable, but even in the absence of polemics, if Adventists are teaching that the precious blood of Christ our God defiles rather than restores and glorifies, that is a huge problem, because how can the blood of God be defiling?

Adventists despite a nominal Trinitarianism have not, in my view, come to understand the full implications of Trinitarian theology and the Incarnation, due to a persistent extreme Nestorianism coupled with Memorialist “ordinance theology,” which has the effect of shifting the focus away from the deity of Christ and His salvific union of His divine nature with His humanity without change, confusion, separation or division. Without communicatio idiomatum, the Nicene Christian doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity is de-emphasizes.

And this is not purely a problem with Adventism. There are many Evangelical churches where the Trinity and the Incarnation is not emphasized in preaching, nor is the Creed recited, and consequently one will encounter laity who do not understand what the Incarnation means for them, and who also regard the Holy Trinity as an abstract concept. For these people, our Lord is not Christ Pantocrator, the incarnate Logos, the Son of Man, (God Himself walking among us as one of us, having condescended to put on our humanity so that on the Cross He could restore and glorify us, having remade us in His image). Rather, he is understood only as the Son of God. Now, Jesus Christ is the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, begotten not made, very God from very God, light from light, of one essence with the Father, and together with the Father and the Holy Spirit worshipped and glorified, but for many people, his status as both God and as the ideal man, the new Adam, become de-emphasized.

Adventist Christology further suffers from a very erroneous belief that Jesus Christ is the same person as Saint Michael, the Archangel, which is of course, quite impossible since angels are messengers of God and God would not be his own messenger, considering he has choirs of angels at his disposal. Additionally, the doctrine of the investigative judgment has the effect of compromising a belief that should positively exist in the omniscience of the three persons of the Holy and Life Giving Trinity and of the eternal nature of Christ, who is not subject to time, for it was by him that time was created. If we make God subject to time, God ceases to be God and we have in fact elevated time to the actual status of deity, and for this reason, scripture repeatedly emphasizes the eternal and immutable reality of our Lord.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Bob, you ask legitimate questions for which you intellectually need answers. You do not believe that they are forth coming, which is understandable, but you are still asking.

It seems emotions run high on this issue and all of us must be cautious, because in the spiritual battle, deceiving spirits play on emotions and perception. If you are familiar with Shakespeare, the spirits act like Iago speaking to Othello. They take a partial truth and twist it in order to induce outrage and indignation.

As Catholics, we must remember that Our Lord commanded us to love our enemies, and the Catechism teaches us that there is not one soul for whom Christ did not suffer and die. We discard our feelings and emotions because they can be manipulated. We strive to walk as Our Lord did. We take the outrage and contempt, yet not return evil for evil.
The stations of the cross is a meditation on that concept. Our Lord received false charges, brutal scourges of the whip, mockery, spittle and contempt in the crowning of thorns, and the most painful brutal execution conceived, yet He did not curse, rather shed His blood for our good.

When He says to follow Him, should we not be willing to do the same? If we are like Abraham who believed God, then our answer is yes. The stations of the cross is a form of prayer to focus our minds on that concept, which is contained in scripture

I would be happy to discuss Catholic doctrine with you, but we should take things one at a time until we are satisfied, else we will get into a never ending argument that serves no one, certainly not Our Lord.

Is there any one of the twenty concepts that you wish to discuss?

 

[The Liturgist]

Bob, you ask legitimate questions for which you intellectually need answers. You do not believe that they are forth coming, which is understandable, but you are still asking.

It seems emotions run high on this issue and all of us must be cautious, because in the spiritual battle, deceiving spirits play on emotions and perception. If you are familiar with Shakespeare, the spirits act like Iago speaking to Othello. They take a partial truth and twist it in order to induce outrage and indignation.

As Catholics, we must remember that Our Lord commanded us to love our enemies, and the Catechism teaches us that there is not one soul for whom Christ did not suffer and die. We discard our feelings and emotions because they can be manipulated. We strive to walk as Our Lord did. We take the outrage and contempt, yet not return evil for evil.
The stations of the cross is a meditation on that concept. Our Lord received false charges, brutal scourges of the whip, mockery, spittle and contempt in the crowning of thorns, and the most painful brutal execution conceived, yet He did not curse, rather shed His blood for our good.

When He says to follow Him, should we not be willing to do the same? If we are like Abraham who believed God, then our answer is yes. The stations of the cross is a form of prayer to focus our minds on that concept, which is contained in scripture

I would be happy to discuss Catholic doctrine with you, but we should take things one at a time until we are satisfied, else we will get into a never ending argument that serves no one, certainly not Our Lord.

Is there any one of the twenty concepts that you wish to discuss?

Forgive me, who is your post addressed to?

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Forgive me, who is your post addressed to?

I though it was the OP, Bob Ryan
It had been misposted in a previous thread which I deleted due to my error and reposted it here

 

[The Liturgist]

I though it was the OP, Bob Ryan
It had been misposted in a previous thread which I deleted due to my error and reposted it here

Oh, I see that now. Thank you!