[goldenchild]

I think I will continue what Katholish had started here awhile back. Unless he wants it. This thread is for questions only, no debates, about different Catholic beliefs and whatnot. Virtually anything is free game as long as it's kept as a question. I will then give the Catholic answer to why we believe as we do. Alright, go ahead. This goes for Catholics as well and non... If any Catholic has a question that they can't find anywhere else, ask it here and I'll see what I can do.

[goldenchild]

I'd also like to add that I'd appreciate it if the other Catholics would give me a chance to answer the questions first. I'd like to use this as a little practice for me to brush up on some areas that I may not have always focused on before. It also helps to keep things from getting all muddled up. If any Catholic wishes to get involved or think that they have a really good explanation for a question, please pm me and let me know first. I'd appreciate that.

[Robbi]

Ive been doing a little study on the differences between Cavanists and Armeniasts, and I think the only significant difference is between there doctrines on how we are saved.

But as a RC, I still not sure what we believe in on how we are saved, I will tell you what I think and let me know if im wrong.

Here I go....

RC believe we are saved by faith and works combined. Its not good enough to just "believe" in Jesus and the scriptures, but we must do good works as well. OK, hope that makes sense. Is the RC view similar to that of an Armeniast?

[goldenchild]

No problem. We believe that we are saved by GRACE alone. Not by faith or works. Grace comes by faith and works but only God's grace can save us. This is known as SOLA GRATIA.

Acts 15:11 says "On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they."

Also Romans 3:24-25 "They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as an expiation, through faith, by his blood, to prove his righteousness because of the forgiveness of sins previously committed"

See? It says that we are saved BY grace THROUGH faith.
Now, what kind of faith is this? See James 2:14-26

"What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God." See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route? For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead."

It's blatantly clear from Scripture that we are saved by grace and only grace. This grace comes by faith. This faith can only be a faith working in love as James makes very obvious.

Does this somewhat answer your question? Or do ya want more?

[goldenchild]

Also I don't know if this is consistent with the beliefs of the arminians as I don't fully understand their stand on the issue or how it is biblical so I can't really comment on that.

[Robbi]

No problem, thats quite clear.
Ive just being following up on what Baptists believe as I have a Baptist friend, so I can understand his point of views better and see if they some how tie in with RC beliefs.

Will keep in touch as im sure I will have more questions.
God Bless

[Robbi]

Ok heres a question about Mary (derived from reading the other threads ) on how the RCC claim her as our "spiritual mother" as so to speak.

NKJ - John 19:25
25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

In those verses we note that Jesus refers to his mother as "woman" is showing his authority that he is above her,(and everything) but she is mother to his disciple and in essence mother to us all. Therefore it is right to pray to her, just like if you would ask something of your real mother on earth.

Is that one of the main reasons that the RCC holds Mary in such high regards.
( From scripture only please )

How does that all sound? Or am I way off the mark here?

[P3chrmd]

Originally Posted by Robbi

Ok heres a question about Mary (derived from reading the other threads ) on how the RCC claim her as our "spiritual mother" as so to speak.

NKJ - John 19:25
25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

In those verses we note that Jesus refers to his mother as "woman" is showing his authority that he is above her,(and everything) but she is mother to his disciple and in essence mother to us all. Therefore it is right to pray to her, just like if you would ask something of your real mother on earth.

Is that one of the main reasons that the RCC holds Mary in such high regards.
( From scripture only please )

How does that all sound? Or am I way off the mark here?

You hit it on the mark Robbi! We as Catholics love Our Lady and feel comfortable with her and praying to her...she is our mother and will always show us the right path, which is to her son!

It is also neat to really analyize that passage you just gave above! I love it...so powerful in its symbolism (just like all the words that Christ spoke from the cross)

John 19.25: Near the cross of Jesus, stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary Magdalene. 26 When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing near by, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," 27 and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on the disciple took her into his home.

This is not just a personal bequest of his Mother to John, but, being from the cross itself, has a greater significance. First of all, if Jesus were merely asking John to take care of Mary, He would have made His first request to John. But if you look at the passage, you will see that His first statement is to Mary. The emphasis is therefore upon Mary being Mother to John, not John "looking after" Mary. John here represents all the disciples of Jesus, and hence all Christians, who are given Mary as their Mother. Also, on a sidenote. If all Jesus wanted to do was make sure his mother was "taken care of" don't you think he would have made arrangements BEFORE he was crusified and hanging on the cross! Whats also interesting to note is that, just like Eve, Mary stood underneath the tree of life (in this case the cross) and just as Eve helped bring sin INTO the world. Mary helped (by giving birth to the Christ, the second Adam) bring salvation to the world!

Revelation 12.17: Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

This passage shows the Dragon (Satan), making war on the Woman (Mary)'s offspring, following the birth of Jesus. These offspring, clearly represent the community of Christians, who are "the rest of" Mary's children.

The Old Testament contains many "Types" or precursors of New Testament figures or events. Adam is accepted as a "type" of Jesus, who is sometimes called "the 2nd Adam". Adam, as the first man, sinned, and brought death to all. Jesus, as the second Adam, did not sin, and brought life. So too as Eve brought death to us through disobedience, " Mary as "the Second Eve", brought life through her obedience. So how is the first Eve described?

Gen 2:20: "The man called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living."

And so the Second Eve became the mother of all who live in Christ.

[Robbi]

And in turn your post leads me to another question....

What is the RCC view on Revelation?
Mainly do they believe that the judgments (ie. bowl judgments, trumpets etc..) are yet to happen or are happening?

From mind, a few posts ive read from others is that they believe that the judgments have happened or are happening. I think they called it a preterest or partial preterist..??? (I think thats right)

Also, anything else on Revelation, that may differ from the views of the Protestants and others compared to the RCC.

[goldenchild]

This a good question. I am not completely sure how I can give you a good in-depth answer to this. Let me try this... Here is the introduction to the book of Revelation in the Navarre Bible commentary. It is a wonderful commentary, I suggest it to anyone who doesn’t yet have it(I actually only have the New Testament as of yet, but working on getting the rest). The second half of the intro may help a little with your question. Let me know if you need more.

Originally Posted by The Navarre Bible: New Testament

The book of Revelation comes last in the collection of books in Holy Scripture and it is the only prophetical book in the New Testament. The Church has recourse to it often, particularly in the Liturgy, to sing the praises of the victory of the risen Christ and the splendour of the heavenly Jerusalem, a symbol of the Church in glory. A certain parallel is noticeable between the book of Revelation and the first book in the Bible, that of Genesis. In the latter we are shown how things began through the creative action of God. In the Apocalypse, which uses a symbolism very similar to that in Genesis, we are told at length about the new creation (cf. Rev 21:1-5), inaugurated by the redemption wrought by Christ, a recreation which will reach its climax when Christ comes again at the end of time. The last chapters of Revelation refer specifically to the river that irrigated Paradise (cf. Gen 2:6; Rev 22:1) and to the tree of life (cf. Gen 2:9; Rev 22:14).
In the first century BC and the first century AD, particularly in times of tribulation, many texts were written, first Jewish and then Christian, which carried the title of “Apocalypse” (Revelation) and which fit in a genre of what is now called “apocalyptic writing”. These books have two features in common: (a) they deal with the last times, when good will triumph and evil will be defeated; and (b) they use symbolism taken from the animal kingdom, the stars, special numbers, etc., to describe past and present times and to project them for the future. The Apocalypse of John shares these features, but it really owes more to the prophetical oracles of the Old Testament. Like the other apocalyptic writings, it is a book of consolation, written at a time of exceptional stress and difficulty. It is also a text, valid for all times, encouraging the reader to holiness of life and faithfulness to Jesus Christ.
The name of the author of the book of Revelation is John (1:1). Many attempts have been made to work out who exactly this man was. From the second century onwards Tradition has identified him with St John, the apostle and evangelist. The book is similar in many ways to the fourth Gospel, and it is very likely that the authority of the apostle John must be attributed to both books. The book of Revelation is addressed to “the seven churches that are in Asia (1:4—Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea (cf. 1:11), the number seven symbolizing the Church universal. The writer’s purpose is to put Christians on their guard against the great dangers which threatened the faith and, at the same time, to console and encourage those who were feeling the strain of tribulation, due mainly to the terrible persecution unleashed by the emperor Domitian (in the years 81-96) and by some Jews. In these circumstances the author tries to console Christians and to buoy up their hope in the ultimate victory of Christ.
Over the course of the centuries many interpretations have been offered to explain this book. Most of them have seen it as being simply a prophecy about the last times. However, the Apocalypse provides a theological overview of all history, putting the stress on its transcendental and religious meaning. St John shows us the position of the Church at the time when he was writing, and he also gives a panoramic view of the last age; but he stresses that these last times have already begun with the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man. This is a viewpoint very much in line with the fourth Gospel, which also depicts the last epoch, and eternal life as well, as having already started and as being on its way to plenitude. We are shown the cosmic battle between good and evil, but the ultimate victory of Christ is also shown to be already in place. The doctrinal center of the book, then, has to do with both comings of the Lord—the first coming, with Christ’s triumph over death, and the second coming, the Parousia, with the definitive establishment of his Kingdom at the end of time. It also contains moral exhortations (these come mainly in the first part of the book) and teachings about the redemption brought about by Christ, the majesty of God, the Church, angels and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

[Robbi]

Im leaving work now for the weekend. I will have to read it on Monday and gt back to you. Have a great weekend and God Bless.

[goldenchild]

You too.

[goldenchild]

Originally Posted by Robbi

Ok heres a question about Mary (derived from reading the other threads ) on how the RCC claim her as our "spiritual mother" as so to speak.

NKJ - John 19:25
25Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. 26When Jesus therefore saw His mother, and the disciple whom He loved standing by, He said to His mother, “Woman, behold your son!” 27Then He said to the disciple, “Behold your mother!” And from that hour that disciple took her to his own home.

In those verses we note that Jesus refers to his mother as "woman" is showing his authority that he is above her,(and everything) but she is mother to his disciple and in essence mother to us all. Therefore it is right to pray to her, just like if you would ask something of your real mother on earth.

Is that one of the main reasons that the RCC holds Mary in such high regards.
( From scripture only please )

How does that all sound? Or am I way off the mark here?

Yeah basically. In Gen. 3:15 it depicts a woman who gives birth to a son with an iron rod who is to rule the world and crush the head of the serpent. Who does common sense tell you this son is? Jesus of course. This son can be none other than Jesus. So, who does common sense tell you the woman must be? Of course if the son is Jesus then the only woman who gave birth to Him was Mary. There are other interpretations such as the Church and Israel and such, and they can be valid in their own way. But the flesh and blood "son" is Jesus, so logically the flesh and blood "woman" is Mary. But Scripture makes it easy on us and shows us in the Gospel that Mary really is this woman. In John 2 at the wedding at Cana Jesus calls her the "woman". Again at the cross, Jesus calls her the "woman". And in Rev. 12:1 this "woman" shows up again. Flesh and blood it can only be Mary, an unbiased opinion should make that obvious. And then in Rev. 12:17 it says that the dragon went off to attack the other "offspring" of the woman. The offspring are those who attest to Jesus and the faith, in essence US. So yeah, Mary is the spiritual mother of all the living, just as Eve is the physical mother of all the living.

[Robbi]

Originally Posted by goldenchild

This a good question. I am not completely sure how I can give you a good in-depth answer to this. Let me try this... Here is the introduction to the book of Revelation in the Navarre Bible commentary. It is a wonderful commentary, I suggest it to anyone who doesn’t yet have it(I actually only have the New Testament as of yet, but working on getting the rest). The second half of the intro may help a little with your question. Let me know if you need more.

I have Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the whole bible, which is part of quickverse software. I dont know if anyone else is to familiar with Quckverse, but it seems to have an anti-catholic feel to it.

The commentary for Revelations points out the antichrist will come from papal Rome and the antichrist will be the Pope. i dont know if this is consistent with other commentaries and thoughts out there?

One interesting thing is something I read up on "the little pebble".
A catholic priest (I think) who has recieved messages from Mary, and still continues to do so, has been told the next pope (after John Paul II), will be the anti-christ.
Here is a link if anyone wish's to have a read on him.
http://www.shoal.net.au/~mwoa/

[Robbi]

I was reading through the restricted thread section and came upon this debate. Ive quoted the whole opening post incase I left out any related text.

Aaron Adams vs. Dr. Worm: The Existence of God
________________________________________
I have been asked by Matthew (Dr. Worm) to debate with him concerning the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. I will be defending the Faith, and he will be defending the nonchristian position. It should be noted that Matthew is not an atheist, but has decided that it would help him to understand the methodology of apologetics to see it in action. So, I will defend Christianity, and he will attack it.

It is not my intention to defend Christianity by the Roman Catholic or Evidentialist methods of apologetics. These do not really take seriously man’s condition as fallen, and compromise with the nonchristian positions on a number of metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological issues. Roman Catholic Apologetics, largely based on the great but mistaken works of Thomas Aquinas, really come down to a baptized Aristotelianism. Where the Scriptures teach that the thinking of sinful man is darkened, incapable of coming to anything but knowledge falsely so-called, and that those who reject the foundation of knowledge (that is, God as revelator in the natural order and through the Scriptures) are reduced to foolishness and absurdity, Thomistic Apologetics seeks to find a common ground with the unbeliever in matters of observation and knowledge which the sinner already has. In essence, it says to the accuser, “You do pretty well as far as you go. Now, let me place Christianity on top of what you’ve already discovered.” The Evidentialist does the same thing. Both positions appeal to the unaided reason of the sinner, hoping that he or she will come to a personal evaluation of the evidence submitted and autonomously decide that Christianity is true. The underlying problem in all of this is that it treats the sinner exactly how the sinner sees himself. Instead of attacking his underlying presuppositions about his own authority to evaluate truth claims by his sovereign mind, the Thomist and Evidentialist, in essence, say, “Go ahead and think highly of yourself. You have the ability (and the right) to sift through all this on your own and come up with the right answer.” The sinner puts God on trial and the Evidentialist and Thomist hand the gavel to him.

The sinner’s mind is darkened by sin. God has not left Himself without a witness, and both Scripture and the created order are inescapable testimony to God’s existence and the sinfulness of man. This is why, in Romans 1, we read the words of Paul:

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

You see, the Scriptures tell us that no one has an excuse for rejecting the Truth of Christianity because it is inescapable. He has made it known to them, and the men and women who reject Him do, in fact, know Him. However, they suppress the truth about Him in their unrighteousness, and the result of this is that their thinking is futile. Addressing the sinner as though he could evaluate the Message without a change of heart, that is, without conversion, is to expect the impossible of the sinner. For, the sinner’s thinking is futile; by rejecting God, he rejects the very foundation of all knowledge. This is why the Scriptures say that, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1). The word “fool” in the Bible is used to describe someone who refuses to use his God-given faculties as God has designed them. The sinner is a fool because, although he knows the Truth about God, he suppresses that Truth (Romans 1). Unless the sinner is converted, he is incapable of seeing the Truth because he has blinded himself to it (Proverbs 17:6, John 3:3). Note that Jesus says that a man who is not born again cannot even see the Kingdom of Heaven.

Even if his arguments are shown to be irrational and illogical, the sinner will not relent and come to Christ unless Christ Himself draws him. For, although he knows the truth about God, he will refuse to recognize it. This is because, ultimately, the sinner does not desire the truth; he only wants to flatter himself. He will be shown his error and still espouse it, and preach it, because he hates the Gospel.

Im just interested in what Aaron is trying to say about the RCC view on addressing Christianity onto a non-believer? Its quite confusing for me to read and fully understand.

Ive been in a few discussions with atheists in my everyday life, somehow trying to make them see and hopefully convert to Christianity. After reading this first post by Aaron, I don’t want to make any mistakes…. especially where I may make things worse!!

I was going to start a new thread but I thought id leave it in here for Goldenchild to answer.
P.S. dont forget bout my other question above!!