Questions for Catholics and Protestants

[Sothenes]

Daniel,

Amen brother.

Sothenes

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

When exactly have any of us seen someone get down and actually worship the Pope?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

does it even count as dulia? it most certainly isnt latria or hyperdulia.

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+

When exactly have any of us seen someone get down and actually worship the Pope?

When exactly have any of us seen or even heard of any Pope say, "Stand up; I myself also am a man�

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

St. Peter for starters. :D

I can't help but ask myself, what is wrong with showing respect for a leader?

I personally don't think that Act 10:25-26 is a valid argument.

I would bet you any amount of money, if I went up to Pope Benedict XVI and prostrated myself, he would do as Peter did and tell me to get up.

I don't know about you, but I still want to know if anyone has seen someone actually prostrate themselves before the Pope, with the intentions of worship.

 

[thessalonian]

Re: is bowing worship or proper?

Hi, my name is dan (a former Roman Catholic) and i hope you do not mind me commenting here.

Hi Dan, no problem.\

The issue of bowing down is not simply whether it is worship or not, but whether it is proper for any Christian to receive such. While bowing does not necessarily denote worship as to God, it is overall treated as such, and thus the command, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" Ex. 20:5). And in that realm, bowing down in Scripture is most consistently used of worship, false or true,
“And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king†1Chr. 29:20)
Amaziah “brought the gods of the children of Seir, and set them up to be his gods, and bowed down himself before them, and burned incense unto them†(2Chrn 25:14)
We remember what made wicked Haman mad was bcz "Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence" (Est. 3:2, 5).

Dan, your trying to make a one size fits all arguement. It does not work. There are many instances of bowing down that you do not take in to consideration in developing your bowing down theology. For instance, Issac PROPHESIZED to Jacob that the nation of Israel would bow down before him in Gen 27.


Gen.27
[29] Let peoples serve you,
and nations bow down to you.
Be lord over your brothers,
and may your mother's sons bow down to you.
Cursed be every one who curses you,
and blessed be every one who blesses you!"

Note that it is more in the form of a prayer "LET the peopls serve you and nations BOW DOWN to you". This is the Holy Spirit speaking through Issac!

David bows down before Bethsheba. The Israelites even bow down bofore the Ark of the Covenant (a graven image). But it is God they worship in their hearts and he grants them victory in battle the next day. So, no, you do error, bowing down in honor is not prohibited.

Now it is true that Godly Joseph allowed his brethren to bow down to him, but if we are to believe that the Pope is a successor to Peter than the latter would be a more fitting example. And of him we see that when “Cornelius fell down at his feet, and worshipped him,†then “Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man†(Act 10:25, 26). If Peter himself refused such, the strongest case is that no Christian should receive such voluntary worship or obeisance, though God can make the enemies of devout and suffering Christian to eat dirt before them in due time (Rev. 2:9).

Well I suspect that Peter new that Cornelius was worshipping because he knew the significance of bowing down in the culture in which Cornelus lived. The Bible clearly indicates in the places above that I mentioned and others that bowing down is not always worship and is not always inappropriate.

Yet the other issue is whether the Pope is even worthy of any of the RCC claims, that of a perpetuated and ultimately infallible supreme Petrine papacy to whom all the world should submit, and it is my position that he is not. However, that is too much of a more extensive issue for now.

Your position is wrong of course. .

 

[daniel1212]

quote]When exactly have any of us seen someone get down and actually worship the Pope?[/quote]

We should be suprised that Peter did not think of that rationale when Cornelius sought to do him homage, but while it is safe to say that at least some souls have worshipped the Pope, that is irrelevant as to whether he or we should receive such. If we are to follow the example of Peter and the aposltes ( (+ Mordecai)) we should not. nor live in the kind of royal splendor which is typical of temporal kings. How would Peter, who even warned about the outward show "of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel" (1Pt. 3:3) justify the worldy show and pomp and ceremony that the Papacy displays, which seduces those who live by sight and not by faith? Souls did not come of Christ because of he had made broad phylacteries, nor enlarged the borders of His garments (cf. Mt. 23:5), -indeed he had no Hollywood "form nor comeliness" - and when Cornelius needed to see Peter he had to go to a tanners house. Me thinks that while we can abound at times, and live practically, the Holy Spirit has showed us the manner of living we are to typically follow, and which excludes the regal exaltation and of either the Pope or Benny Hinn.

As far as worship is concerned, what is relevant is that despite and because doctrines of the practices of Roman Catholicism, the gospel that is effectively conveyed, and which empirical evidence reveals, is one that fosters implicit faith and dependence in the Roman Institution, that She has the "in" with God, so that all who died in her arms have hope of eternal life, no matter how nominal.

And which her show of imperial majesty helps convey. Such was not the gospel nor the manifestation of the primitive church and it's true apostles.
"I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich).... (Rev. 2:9; cf 2Cor. 6:1-10).

"Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17).




.

 

[daniel1212]

Before i go with further with this i would like to say that i do not write with any personal anger towards the Catholic church, nor against Catholics, though i take deviations from warranted doctrine seriously. Nor am i inclined blindly defend Protestantism (or any doctrine), nor do i implicitly trust the conclusion of Theologians (though i am “unlettered” myself), but i hope i am somewhat of a Berean, who, though they were common men,”searched the Scriptures daily” in checking out the authenticity of the apostolic message itself. Of course, they also “received the Word with all readiness of mind,” which i must better do, with a heart to obey. And if i could meet you all i hope we could have a good objective discussion, without sinful compromise, despite the sometimes contentious tenor found in emails.

Your position is wrong of course

For some reason the only part of your email i saw was the part i quoted in my last, but here I would assert that your assertion lacks the necessary Biblical substantiation. By this i mean that I assume you would agree that, as the Lord Jesus and His disciple demonstrated, doctrines must substantiated with Scripture. The Lord quoted or alluded to the Old Testament Scriptures dozens of times, likewise Paul, as his manner was, ... reasoned with them out of the scriptures.” “..persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.(Acts 17:2; 28:23). And of major doctrine major doctrines major substantiation is expected, and derived through sound exegesis. Meaning that we must take into account relevant grammatical and historical aspects, as well as the immediate and larger context of Scripture. In doing the latter, it becomes self evident that Scriptural revelation is progressive in nature, and thus the Old Testament is the more fully interpreted in the light of the New (though understanding of the latter's foundation is also necessary), and the gospels are best understood in the light of the further revelation which Christ promised therein (Jn. 116:12-15).
In so doing, and as concerns Roman Catholic claims for the Papacy, we would assume that The Holy Spirit, who is faithful to provide us abundant evidence for doctrines such as the Deity of Christ, His death and resurrection and atonement and multiple other major doctrines, would likewise do so as regards the perpetuated Petrine Papacy of Peter. That is, if Peter was a Pope such as Roman makes him to be, then we should expect to see at least one clear example of the whole church submitting to Peter as supreme head, or at least one command given to the church – especially in the church epistles – to submit to Peter as supreme head, or perhaps at lest Peter himself referring to to himself as such. Moreover, we would also expect, as is given for Bishop/Elders (not priests), and as was done for Moses successor, clear provision made for the ordination of one to sit in pope Peter's seat.

But instead we see no real evidence for this (though examples are welcome), rather any evidence of such a Roman defined papacy must rest upon an extrapolation mainly of Mt. 16:13-19, but which fails to find warrant in Acts and the epistles, which has Peter as the brethren type leader of the apostles, and the first to use the keys,etc., but not an exalted supreme ruler, nor one whose seat was perpetuated.

Sorry for the length.

 

[thessalonian]

Dan,

The brevity of my reply to the particular issue of the papacy was precipitated by your words:

Yet the other issue is whether the Pope is even worthy of any of the RCC claims, that of a perpetuated and ultimately infallible supreme Petrine papacy to whom all the world should submit, and it is my position that he is not. However, that is too much of a more extensive issue for now

.

I will be glad to go in to a scriptural explanation of why your are wrong in due time. But it seems you avoided the bulk of my post and the points that we were discussing at the time. I would like to see you give my arguements on that matter a good old college try first. Thanks.

 

[karenlynne]

If the Bible God really desired that all men be saved then explain why the simple doctrine of salvation[how to be saved]is so muddled?Is that why over 20000 denomnations of protestant exist?Most of them contradict each other in belief and doctrine.....why is everything in the Bible as clear as mud?

 

[gingercat]

If the Bible God really desired that all men be saved then explain why the simple doctrine of salvation[how to be saved]is so muddled?Is that why over 20000 denomnations of protestant exist?Most of them contradict each other in belief and doctrine.....why is everything in the Bible as clear as mud?

Catholics are super good at controlling their people. Protestants have their own millions of problems.

I don't believe the beginning of Reformation was this way.

 

[daniel1212]

I will be glad to go in to a scriptural explanation of why your are wrong in due time. But it seems you avoided the bulk of my post and the points that we were discussing at the time. I would like to see you give my arguements on that matter a good old college try first. Thanks.

Dear thessalonian,
My point was not based upon an argument that volitional bowing down always denoted latria (as to a god.worship, for though i only mentioned Joseph, i allow that bowing down sometimes was obeisance. But that given the (more) numerous examples showing it, as well as falling down, to be worship, and the danger therein when directed to other than God, and the most pertinent example of Peter, then we, and the Pope, ought to refrian from accepting such volitional homage. And also, like Mordecai, not be inclined to honor one who is not worthy of such.

Even if one allows the Pope to be bowed down or protrated to, i see it being quite unlike Peter, and as the Popes not only received such, but presumed great secular authority, and mounted lofty thrones while being crowned with a massive royal bejeweled Tiara, while making claims that take Peter's name i vain, i see the issue of the worthiness of the Pope to appropiate RC claims be the greater issue. Should men, or should they not spiritually bown down to the Papacy, that is the real isue.

_________________

 

[daniel1212]

I will be glad to go in to a scriptural explanation of why your are wrong in due time. But it seems you avoided the bulk of my post and the points that we were discussing at the time. I would like to see you give my arguements on that matter a good old college try first. Thanks

.

Dear thessalonian,
My point was not based upon an argument that volitional bowing down always denoted latria (as to a god.worship, for though i only mentioned Joseph, i allow that bowing down sometimes was obeisance. But that given the (more) numerous examples showing it, as well as falling down, to be worship, and the danger therein when directed to other than God, and the most pertinent example of Peter, then we, and the Pope, ought to refrian from accepting such volitional homage. And also, like Mordecai, not be inclined to honor one who is not worthy of such.

Even if one allows the Pope to be bowed down or protrated to, i see it being quite unlike Peter, and as the Popes not only received such, but presumed great secular authority, and mounted lofty thrones while being crowned with a massive royal bejeweled Tiara, while making claims that take Peter's name i vain, i see the issue of the worthiness of the Pope to appropiate RC claims be the greater issue. Should men, or should they not spiritually bown down to the Papacy, that is the real isue.

_________________

 

[mutzrein]

+JMJ+

St. Peter for starters. :D

I can't help but ask myself, what is wrong with showing respect for a leader?

I personally don't think that Act 10:25-26 is a valid argument.

I would bet you any amount of money, if I went up to Pope Benedict XVI and prostrated myself, he would do as Peter did and tell me to get up.

I don't know about you, but I still want to know if anyone has seen someone actually prostrate themselves before the Pope, with the intentions of worship.

Well of course, not being a catholic I don't accept the view that it was Peter that Jesus was referring to as the rock.

I don't doubt that many revere and honor the pope rather than worship him, but just the same I would accept that there are those who worship him also. But in any case only the spirit of God knows the heart of man.

And BTW, betting on what the pope would or wouldn't do is as reliable as tomorrow's weather forecast. It'd be interesting to know if you would be prepared to lose all that you had, if I said I don't want the money - give it to the hungry & destitute.

 

[mutzrein]

If the Bible God really desired that all men be saved then explain why the simple doctrine of salvation[how to be saved]is so muddled?Is that why over 20000 denomnations of protestant exist?Most of them contradict each other in belief and doctrine.....why is everything in the Bible as clear as mud?

Because it is like the writing of a parable. It is the Spirit of God that reveals its meaning, and then to those whom God chooses.

 

[Klee shay]

Hi Patrick. I'm a little late joining in, but I'm not going to say much.

Here is something I have been wondering about: the controversy around salvation. Catholics tell me that it is faith and works together (by grace) that bring about our salvation. Most Protestants have told me that salvation is by faith alone - yet that will directly result in good works. If one didn't have good works, then, presumably, there isn't a true faith either. So it seems like faith and works both exist together. My question is, what is the real difference? (I'm not advocating either position, just trying to understand.)

Thanks! :D

The real difference is God and what we allow him to inspire in us by denying ourselves. Jesus came to enlighten mankind that it's not just the action which is important but also the heart in which the action takes place. We could cover this with faith, but what is faith without love for God? Idol worship?

"But the hour cometh, and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." JOHN 4:23-24

Ask yourself this question whenever you ponder the difference between doctrine..."do I still love God more than my ablility to understand"?

 

[daniel1212]

If the Bible God really desired that all men be saved then explain why the simple doctrine of salvation[how to be saved]is so muddled?Is that why over 20000 denomnations of protestant exist?Most of them contradict each other in belief and doctrine.....why is everything in the Bible as clear as mud?

It really isn't muddled, though one must avoid the extremes of the puddle.

We see throughout Scripture that when the poor in spirit, those of a contrite heart, who recognized their utter poverty of merit or ability to save themselves, and so cast themselves upon the mercy of God (which is ultimately Christ and His crucified and risen again) in repentance and faith, then they were forgiven, and saved, in both temporal and spiritual ways:
"This poor man cried, and the LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles." "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit" (Ps. 34:6).

"Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off" (Ps. 138:6).
"to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word" (Is. 66:2).

"And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted" (Lk. 18:13, 14).

Man = sinful and destitue of any means of his own whereby he many gain Heaven nor escape Hell.
God = able and willing to save those who admit such, and wanting the Light over darkness, trust in Him who is Lord.
"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rm. 10:13).

This is the kind of saving faith which Abraham confessed and was justified by (Gn. 15) BEFORE he offered up Issac (Gn. 22) in the manifestation of that faith. Helpless to effect that which was promised, he counted God both able and willing to do so, and in turn that faith was counted unto him for righteousness. This is the clear teaching of Scripture

“And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness" (Rm. 4:19-22).

"Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." (4:23-25).

But saving, Abrahamic type faith must be of a certain quality, one that will manifest itself in faith obedience to God, and and in this sense James can say that Abraham was justified by works, in the sense his faith brought forth fruit, justifying Abraham as one that had true faith, and making it “complete,” though God has seen it previous. If God had not, then James 2:12 would contradict both Gen. 15:6 and Rm. 4.

Yet i would further say that had Gn. 15:6 not ocurred, it could have been possible for Abraham to have first become justified by that act of obedience with Issac without violating the clear teaching that it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done” that God saves us (Titus 3:5), for when Scripture says salvation “is not of works, lest any should boast” (Eph. 2:9), it does not mean we sit by until we are passively justified, for even "confession with the mouth is a work. But “not by work”s means that it is not on the basis of any merit of the works themselves, but by faith dependence in Christ and His work, which faith is usually initially and salvifically expressed by the mouth (if one can speak), but i submit it may sometimes be done in “body language” in an act of faith obedience such as in baptism).

Though such explanations of the precise means of justification are necessary, and imperfect, and hence the charge of “muddled,” how to receive forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Ghost is not muddy, but it is exceedingly simple. All you need to do is humble yourself as a sinner under the might hand of God, let go of any hope of eternal life by your own merit, admit your hell deserving state, and deciding you want Christ over sin in your heart, call upon him to save you, trusting that by His blood and righteousness He both can and will, and which faith is what baptism both demands and expresses. You will then know His salvation, and by faith working by love, bring forth fruit be fitting of salvation (Acts 26:20), manifesting a “complete” faith. Thanks be to God!

Most conversions in the Bible were realized by souls who knew little about Theology, but knew there desperate need, and Who would meet it, and cried, "Lord have mercy on me a sinner. “ Happy is that man in such a case. You may not be learned, but then you will have your BA (born again). Praise be to God!





.

 

[daniel1212]

Is that why over 20000 denomnations of protestant exist

Just a short note here. Like the word Christian (Acts 11:26), the title Protestant should be defined according to the faith to which the title was originally ascribed, and in this case there are hardly 2,000 different denomination, which broad categorization would included everything from Russelites to Branch Davidians. Nor should the reformation by held guilty for such, as this is part of freedom of conscience, which even the modern Catholic church upholds (contrary to it's past).

Meanwhile, rather than division, the only kind of Protestantism that even broadly befits the name overall enjoys an essential supernatural unity that is due to the essential “Protestant” but Biblical doctrine that men are saved not by works but on the basis of fruit bearing faith. This is realized daily by any large Christian gathering, or ministry, or by any one who does any kind of house of house or open air evangelism (versus the fruit of institutionalized churches). However, there are sad but expected divisions as to the emphasis one places upon works for instance, or other things such as infant baptism, the continuity of spiritual gifts, church music , etc. And not being part of a autocratic system, the bodies sometimes divide and create new cells, yet as long as they hold to the essential gospel, the universal body grows.

Thus, though we must work to solve any doctrinal disunity, unity around the essential gospel - which brings a soul to realized his desperate need for Christ and look directly to him for salvation by faith - is far greater qualitatively than the quantity of believers who are unified in errors concerning such, trusting in their own works and the presumed power of their church to save them, which the majority of sadly Catholics do.
And even there, if every Catholic was to go to a church according to their own beliefs, there would be multiple divisions (http://www.justforcatholics.org/a86.htm), far more than there presently are.[/quote]

 

[thessalonian]

Daniel,

One only has to spend a few weeks on this board and see the great division among protestants to see that your post is faulty. The 30,000 number for the denominations is not a Catholic invention but a protestant one, coming from Barrett's Encyclopedia of Christianity. There are some problems with the number to be sure and determining how many different denominations and how one should measure them is difficult. But make no mistake about this. There are alot and the great division started with the reformation (deformation). Sola Scriptura is the cause. Individual men asserting their own individual doctrines as the Word of God and rejecting God given authroity is what has happened.

Blessings

 

[daniel1212]

Sola Scriptura is the cause. Individual men asserting their own individual doctrines as the Word of God and rejecting God given authroity is what has happened.

Aside from your broad definition addressed before, i allowed that many denominations have resulted even among those that are unified in the most essential truth, yet the the real issue (as i see it) is whether the primary principle and precept that marked the Protestant reformation is inferior to that of Rome in the light of divisions that have resulted. These two primary Protestant doctrines are that souls are to be good Bereans, honestly searching the Scriptures to see if what is preached be true (Acts 17:11; Prv. 14:7), and the faith which is made manifest by such, that of the gospel by which sinful men are justified by faith directly in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, through His imputed righteousness (Rm. 4).

The Catholic's use of the Protestant disunity argument seems to assume that she has a greater unity than those pesky Protestants (which title again, i believe should be assigned to those who at least hold to their original distinctive doctrine of justification rather than broad brushing everything that is not of Rome). I hope you will tolerate my prolixity here.

In this would like to first point out that unity itself is not the goal, for if that be the case then the Watchtower Society wins the prize. And certainly Hitler's Germany was far more unified than the U.S. in that time, while (i would argue) what unity the latter realized was qualitatively superior to the former. And to denigrate the reformation for all the divisions that we see today it like blaming the American Revolution for all the different parties that evolved since, or the Emancipation Proclamation for all the negative things blacks have since realized, or a doctor for all the trouble a healthy person got into after being made well. Principled freedom enables both a higher quality of unity, was well as greater occasion and tolerance of dissent. In this it must be discerned that there are different kinds of unity.

1..A unity that largely requires implicit unquestioning obedience, without warrant, wherein critical thinking (cf. Acts 17:11) is much discouraged, and submission is enforced by punishing those that even sincerely question the authority, whose claims fail to match reality or objective examination in the light of established facts. Outside of Islam, the WTC is the most fitting present world wide sect that manifests such. For much of her history, the Roman Catholic Institution practiced this, despite her denials. In the secular realm communism is guilty of this.

2..A unity that while not strictly enforced, nevertheless seduces souls into trusting in an authority, that while it may or may not be one of total confidence, it is ultimately one of an implicit trust that is not arrived at by critical examination or by true proofs that warrant such trust,, but one that is instilled mainly by self proclamation, outward material show, misappropriations of truth, and false, superficial or even demonic manifestations of power. “..and all the world wondered after the beast” (Rv. 13:3). Overall, this is the unity of Rome today, in which most of those who she calls members disagree with Rome in some issues - even substantial ones - but ultimately trust in Her self proclaimed power as well as their own merits for eternal life.

3..A supernatural unity that is the result of earnest and honest seeking, and which results in spiritual Biblical reality, which faith and reality is substantiated by objective examination in the light of established truth. Such faith does not coerce submission by force, thus allowing freedom of conscience, neither is it superficial, as it militates against unwarranted trust and depends upon searching out a matter, and thus manifests a greater diversity in gray areas./ Yet this results in a substantiated commitment to essential truth that not only can effectually take up the shield of faith but effectively use the sword of the Spirit to contend for the faith, rather than uninspired “traditions of men.” This type of unity, though more rare, is only possible and manifest wherein is the freedom and responsibility for men to come to their conclusions based upon Berean type searching of the ecclesiastical authority, and whose claims fail under that test.

To be continued