Well, Thanatos, what about...?

[Thanatos]

In a somewhat (hopeful) effort to help the Protestants (that's YOU primarily, Lucius Julius) on this forum who have repeatedly asked me questions on XYZ subject of Catholicism.

So, to help all, I have created this thread, a place where the Protestants may ask me questions on Catholicism, not matter how uncomfortable a subject it may be.

I do not intend this to become another "let's question Christianity in general" thread - this is only for people who are curious or wondering about tenets of the Catholic faith, and would like to help them clarify the issue.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Don't worry, most of us don't care.

[Thanatos]

Well, you're not my target audience.

[Serious Spamurai]

Is it true that you are the most unclean of people because you don't wash your ass with soap and hose?

[Boyar Son]

Is it true that you are the most unclean of people because you don't wash your ass with soap and hose?

We're not shi'ite. DUH

[basics]

Only recently a lady wrote in to the Scottish Daily Mail about an article she read about a priest in Ireland being concerned about the drink drive laws that are being tightened up there.

His problem being that as he had more than one church to attend concerning worship that if he was stopped he could be found to be over the limit. Her question was how come? If the wine turned into blood how could he possibly be over the limit?

So along with her question I would like to ask if anyone whether Catholic, Roman that is, or any other, has ever seen the conversion supposed to take place? When Jesus turned the water into wine there is no doubt that it became wine because there was witness, yet at the last supper there is no such mention, why?

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

Let's stay on topic...

[Calvin]

Do you believe the Pope is infallible, and if so, where is it backed up in scripture?

[Lord Consul]

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, but only when speaking ex cathedra about dogmatic aspects of the Catholic faith.

Papal infallibility is not backed up by biblical scripture, but it was dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council, which was regarded as a "infallible council of clergymen" by the Church.

Contrary to popular belief, Infallible Dogmatic Definitions (DD) by the pope are very, very rare. The only two popes to have issued DDs were Piux IX (Ineffabilis Deus) and Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus).

[hellheaven1987]

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, but only when speaking ex cathedra about dogmatic aspects of the Catholic faith.

Lol, I am a Catholic but I believe Pope is most shameful product of our religion.

[Boyar Son]

Lol, I am a Catholic but I believe Pope is most shameful product of our religion.

No reason to believe that in these times really.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Papal infallibility is not backed up by biblical scripture ...

Catholics believe it is:

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
(Matt 16:18-20)

Of course, all non-Catholics dispute the interpretation of that passage of scripture, but it's wrong to say the concept of Papal infallibility is without any scriptural foundation at all.

[Turbo]

Yes, Catholics believe that the Pope is infallible, but only when speaking ex cathedra about dogmatic aspects of the Catholic faith.

Papal infallibility is not backed up by biblical scripture, but it was dogmatically defined by the First Vatican Council, which was regarded as a "infallible council of clergymen" by the Church.

Contrary to popular belief, Infallible Dogmatic Definitions (DD) by the pope are very, very rare. The only two popes to have issued DDs were Piux IX (Ineffabilis Deus) and Pius XII (Munificentissimus Deus).

Papal infallibility is in the scriptures. The Pope is the ordained through Apostolic succession. See below --

Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). He exercised that authority in many ways, for example by teaching with authority, and forgiving sins. But Jesus knew that He would not remain on earth for long. He also knew that the Church He would establish would grow old before His return. So, according to the Bible, Jesus delegated His authority to His apostles, and He made it clear that obedience to them was the same as obedience to Him (Luke 10:16, John 15:20). The apostles exercised the authority the Lord gave them as they evangelized their world and built the Church (2 Cor. 10:8, 13:10, 1 Thess. 4:2, 2 Thess. 3:14). The doctrine of apostolic succession teaches that the apostles delegated their authority to their successors, who delegated it to their successors, and so on, down through the ages. Thus, in every age the Church continues to wield the same authority as the apostles did.

Why do catholics believe in Saints and Virgins?
How can those (i dont know how to call them...) people recieve prayers?

Sorry if its a kind of silly question but ive actually allways wondered but never really asked anybody...

The prayers are for intercession -- for them to pray for us. Not much different than asking your friends to pray for you.

[Lord Consul]

Papal infallibility is in the scriptures.

It is not, at least not in the way expected by protestants and biblical literalists.

For one to take those quotes from Luke, Matthew and the Corinthians as literal proof of the Pope's infallibility one has to believe in the Church's claim of apostolic succession, which is entirely dogmatic.

Although I'm an atheist, I know a thing or two about the Roman Catholic Church after 20 year studying in Catholic institutions.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It is not, at least not in the way expected by protestants and biblical literalists.

For one to take those quotes from Luke, Matthew and the Corinthians as literal proof of the Pope's infallibility one has to believe in the Church's claim of apostolic succession, which is entirely dogmatic.

Although I'm an atheist, I know a thing or two about the Roman Catholic Church after 20 year studying in Catholic institutions.

Well that being said, it is rare that the Pope will invoke his infallibility.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

For one to take those quotes from Luke, Matthew and the Corinthians as literal proof of the Pope's infallibility one has to believe in the Church's claim of apostolic succession, which is entirely dogmatic.

No, not entirely. The disciples elected a replacement for Judas after his suicide and Matthias was, once selected, considered one of the Twelve. The Catholic Church considers this the precedent for the idea that the Apostles could have successors who inherit their predecessor's status and authority.

[basics]

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

What you report is quite correct regarding Mathias but my understanding of Apostleship is of one who lived and worked with Jesus. Paul himself considered that he might be an Apostle yet admitting not in the way the others were but according to his own internal communication with the Lord.

[Zenith Darksea]

Lol, I am a Catholic but I believe Pope is most shameful product of our religion.

Why not become Orthodox then? You sound like you'd get on well with the monks of Mt Athos!

yet at the last supper there is no such mention, why?

No such mention, except

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matt. 26:26-28

Note also

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
John 6:53-57

Really now, how much clearer do you want it to be?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Why not become Orthodox then? You sound like you'd get on well with the monks of Mt Athos!



No such mention, except

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."

Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matt. 26:26-28

Note also

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
John 6:53-57

Really now, how much clearer do you want it to be?

You are quoting from John (who uses many figurative/spiritual things) to prove a point in Matt. I could just as easily say that Jesus is a literal door, or a literal shepherd leading sheep around, or that we are literally sheep, etc...

While the Eucharist most definitely is the body and blood of the Lord, that does not mean that it literally becomes his body and blood physically. Just like Jesus is the door, but he does not literally become a wooden doorpost. Or he is the shepherd, but he does not literally walk around on earth leading literal sheep around. I guess this isn't really the place to discuss this though.



...back on topic...

Does the RRC believe in imputed or conferred righteousness? If conferred, does not this take the grace out of Romans 4:4-5 (Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.)? Perhaps I do not understand conferred righteousness, but it seems in contradiction to Paul.

[hellheaven1987]

Why not become Orthodox then? You sound like you'd get on well with the monks of Mt Athos!

I view Pope is a shameful product not because the origin, but how Pope played dirty tricks for political gain.

That is disgusting, a religious leader doing some worst commoners doing.